The Official Green Lantern Review Thread

[J.Howlett]

When Sinestro gives his speech to the Lanterns, I'll bet you that's 100% model work, with the actors on greenscreen. Either way, there's something practical in the scene. I'm sure there are some practical elements to Oa.

Even Lucas didn't go 100% CG in the Prequels.

 

[J.Howlett]

But the problem with this film is the nature of the story/universe. No matter what, there was going to be a lot of CG.

Now, I will say this; why wasn't ILM used?

 

[The Morningstar]

ILM and WETA were probably too expensive. Or they were busy doing other films. Not too sure.

The only thing that looks really bad from what i've seen is Kilowog. Not so much the texture or detail of him, but the animation. Just looks... weird. Lightweight. Like you can tell it isn't a real being, it's just a computer generated image.

 

[RoughNTumble]

I think the biggest complaints about the movie will stem from the SFX, and I hope warner brothers deals with that if it makes enough money for a sequel.

 

[J.Howlett]

A practical suit wasn't going to work either.

I'm of the opinion that we're at a point in the industry where bad CG is a product of bad scheduling and time.

For what we've seen Green Lantern is a product if it's otherworldliness more than terrible CG.

I think the CG is solid for Sony Imageworks. But admittedly, I'm sure ILM would've done a more solid job with Green Lantern.

 

[RoughNTumble]

Wait, I thought the embargo ended today--whar my reviews?

 

[DarkKnight FTW]

The whole "ILM or WETA would've done it better" argument is tired because no movie with that amount of effects will look real. CG only looks real when the majority of what's going on around the effect is real/practical. Then animators have a baseline of how detailed they really need to get. People always use the prequel trilogy as their example of bad cg, well what company worked on that I wonder? Lord of the Rings looked great BUT they used real locations and a lot of practical effects like miniatures and then highlighted them with CG. Avatar was one big cartoon, so much so that they had to change the way the actors looked to make them look like they were even in the same world. The point is that, even as far as the tech has come, it hasn't come far enough to create a completely realistic looking world. CG isn't good enough to fool the eye, not yet.

 

[Octoberist]

That's very true but I do have to say that I haven't seen Sony ever done an effect like Gollum or Davy Jones.

 

[dnno1]

No it wasn't, it was shot in 2D just like anything else. There's considerably more CGI in Green Lantern, which is why it'd look better in a 3D conversion than Thor, but that doesn't mean it was designed for 3D.

That does not mean that it wasn't made for 3D. Remember, before we had 3D cameras, 3D films were shot in 2D (that practice goes back to. At least the 1950's). They explained why the choice was made to shoot this film in 2D, but they clearly had it in their minds to make and offer it as a 3D picture.

 

[Kirmit]

I'm willing to bet most of the GA won't even realise Green Lantern's suit is completely CG.

 

[DarkKnight FTW]

That's very true but I do have to say that I haven't seen Sony ever done an effect like Gollum or Davy Jones.

There were some of practical effects to Davy Jones that I think helped make it more realistic and Gollum, while it never bothered me, doesn't look completely real. It's the best that they could've done at the time but you know that he's cg. I think people are being a little too hard on Sony. They may not be quite as good as ILM or WETA, they aren't sh** either and that's kinda how people are making them out to be.

 

[Chewy]

There were some of practical effects to Davy Jones that I think helped make it more realistic

Not really

 

[J.Howlett]

Yeah. For me, Davey Jones is still the bench mark. It's stunning the work they did with that character.

 

[Boom]

Yes. Davy Jones is the best CG creation to date. And even four years after-the-fact, the character has aged incredibly well.

 

[Blader5489]

That does not mean that it wasn't made for 3D. Remember, before we had 3D cameras, 3D films were shot in 2D (that practice goes back to. At least the 1950's). They explained why the choice was made to shoot this film in 2D, but they clearly had it in their minds to make and offer it as a 3D picture.

That wasn't proper 3D though. Proper 3D = filming with 3D cameras + framing your shots, blocking your action, etc. for 3D depth. If you don't have both, it's not true 3D.

Thor was also said to be designed in 3D with mind, and look how that turned out.

 

[The Sage]

Guys, the whole "CG" discussion is interesting and all, but this thread is preserved for posting reviews or tweets on the movie as well as discussing it post release. Please move your debate to the News & Discussion thread.

Thanks.

 

[DieSmiling]

Thank You. I think this poster has a better understanding of what works on film.

It's one of the prime reasons the original Star Wars trilogy > Prequels

The writing, scripting and dialogue isn't significantly better in the originals than it was in the latter three movies.

How recently have you watched the movies? The dialogue is absolutely significantly better in the original trilogy compared with the prequel trilogy.

The whole GL movie is practically made in the computer. It was similar in Thor apart from when they were on Earth (which was the best stuff in the movie) ...

Totally disagree. The stuff on Asgard was awesome, and definitely the highlight of the movie.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

"it was a lot of fun, most people seemed positive as they left, i think it has all the right ingredients to go well"

"yeah it's not gonna blow minds, but it's better than i expected. Perhaps on the same level as Thor or maybe Tron Legacy"

"

Spoiler

a mid credit scene... involving sinestro

... quite cool!"

http://***********/#!/asherbastion

 

[jmc]

Tell me this person didn't just compare this to Tron Legacy.

 

[DarkKnight FTW]

Not really

I stand corrected.

Guys, the whole "CG" discussion is interesting and all, but this thread is preserved for posting reviews or tweets on the movie as well as discussing it post release. Please move your debate to the News & Discussion thread.

Thanks.

You're right. I'm done with it.

 

[DarkKnight FTW]

Tell me this person didn't just compare this to Tron Legacy.

Some people really liked Tron Legacy so to them its not a bad thing. I think that it was just ok. As long as they don't say "It sucked as bad as Tron Legacy" I'm ok with the comparison.

 

[DieSmiling]

Tell me this person didn't just compare this to Tron Legacy.

Well they also suggested it was on par with Thor, so maybe they just liked Tron Legacy...

If it's on par with Thor, I'll be happy. I seem to have liked Thor more than most.

 

[dnno1]

That wasn't proper 3D though. Proper 3D = filming with 3D cameras + framing your shots, blocking your action, etc. for 3D depth. If you don't have both, it's not true 3D.

Thor was also said to be designed in 3D with mind, and look how that turned out.

Shooting with 3D cameras is new technology and hardly the standard (if it were then producers wouldn't opt to do the 2D conversion. Once again, for more than 50 years, the practice was to shoot the film in 2D and produce/convert to 3D. Although today, shooting in 3D can produce a better picture, it is not necessarily the method of choice by the industry due to cost constraints.

 

[dnno1]

The whole "ILM or WETA would've done it better" argument is tired because no movie with that amount of effects will look real. CG only looks real when the majority of what's going on around the effect is real/practical. Then animators have a baseline of how detailed they really need to get. People always use the prequel trilogy as their example of bad cg, well what company worked on that I wonder? Lord of the Rings looked great BUT they used real locations and a lot of practical effects like miniatures and then highlighted them with CG. Avatar was one big cartoon, so much so that they had to change the way the actors looked to make them look like they were even in the same world. The point is that, even as far as the tech has come, it hasn't come far enough to create a completely realistic looking world. CG isn't good enough to fool the eye, not yet.

ILM did "Star Wars Episode I" and it had a lot of CGI, yet people criticised it for that reason. I don't think they would had done any better work here.

 

[The Sage]

Take the CGI debate the News & Discussion thread, folks...