The Official Green Lantern Set Pic Thread

[S.A.A.D.]

if i'm not mistaken 150 million. plus with the massive tax breaks, you can kinda think of it as a 200 million dollar movie in theory.

So I guess the truth is that it's 150$ million regardless,huh?

 

[Octoberist]

yeah..you can say that..yeah....

 

[SpiderByte]

Whoever's getting the spy pics should get a freaking medal. He's either a complete ninja or all the security gaurds just fell asleep.

 

[SpiderByte]

Or it could be one of the crew members.

 

[chelo248]

Green Lantern Set Report - Roll Credits

​

 

[solidsnake86]

If all the aliens are CGI I'm beginning to get worried, mostly because of sony. The thing is though didnt they hire one of the guys who worked on star trek for the aliens. That would be an incredible waste to not do at least some of the with prosthetics. After watching hellboy 2 I really don't see why they can't combine both.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea i would figure only some would be cgi while others who are more human like be phsyical actors. but poni nice stuff u been able to score. be careful and dont get caught.

 

[SpiderByte]

I repeat:

Worst. Security. Ever.

But at least we're getting all the outside shots first. That way, when they do more of the CGI and indoor scenes, we won't be waiting months for first looks.

Like with Thor

 

[dark_b]

if i'm not mistaken 150 million. plus with the massive tax breaks, you can kinda think of it as a 200 million dollar movie in theory.

everyone who will think that GL will be 150 million deserves a big slap

CGI aliens,CGI costume,3D,...... and 150 millions? never.................................................... nevah.

are we clear SHH

 

[dark_b]

Bravo to Poni for the scoop. He's as legit as you can get, and he's also a fellow hypster!

Anyway, according to the report, the aliens are gonna be..CGI I hope it's better than the effect done in 'Alice in Wonderland', Sony's last effort.

I wouldn't give out a if it were ILM or WETA but it's Sony Imageworks..

it was stylized,rushed,Burton doesnt have big standards when it comes to CGI and this is it t:i am not the biggest fan but ALice is not a good example.


and yes like everyone here i am also wondering why the f..... is WB allways hiring sonyimageworks for their comicbook movies? why never WETA or ILM or Digital Domain?

 

[dnno1]

That film made money and that's all that matters. You don't have to go for the gusto here. You just want it good enough to get your investment back. It it is a trully good work, the SfX shouldn't matter anyway since new technology would offset that in later years. Last I remember, films like Superman: the Movie and "Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope" still sell well on DVD and would be considered poor quality SfX (no CGI).

 

[MovieGeekFreak]

it doesn't mean it's official still. they use different logos for movie productions all the time.

Even if it is official (the logo) it is kinda cool. all i hope for is that that is not the symbol on the costume. If it's how the GL ring will look then that will be okay.

but i'm with you, different logos...all the time.

 

[Octoberist]

dnno1, you're always saying that "(the) film made money and that's all that matters'. yes from a business point, I think everyone here gets it. And I don't think anyone is arguing against that either.

but many a-bad movies have made money too.

And yes, The Mummy Returns made money and that had horrible visual effects. Am to say, that the visual effects in that movie didn't matter either, despite the budget and being a big tentpole?

CGI has this nature of aiming for 'real' physics, mass, and weight while stop motion/model work/matte paintings of the old days got away from it because of their limitations, history and charm.

So that's why people are hard on CGI: if it sucks, then it looks like lightweight and plastic. If it rocks, it looks real and has real weight. Even if it doesn't look 100% real, it has to have sort tangibility.

I love CGI, when it's done right.

 

[mcallima]

Reality is overrated. As long as the CGI supports the narrative, I don't care if it has a degree of stylization. In fact, I'd PREFER that it has a degree of stylization.

 

[Octoberist]

Reality is overrated. As long as the CGI supports the narrative, I don't care if it has a degree of stylization. In fact, I'd PREFER that it has a degree of stylization.

That's what I meant. I didn't mean acutal realism, but real weight to the characters. Because that's what CGI is trying to: make these things look believable without limitations. Because of that, the level has risen. Some movies have it, some movies don't.

So if there's a giant CGI monster, not only does he should look huge but he should look heavy and like he's actually in the movie (and not a paste over). again, a tangibility. (I love that word)

 

[Dark Knight]

Reality is overrated. As long as the CGI supports the narrative, I don't care if it has a degree of stylization. In fact, I'd PREFER that it has a degree of stylization.

Exactly.

This film will be considered a sci-fi epic action adventure. When it comes to SCI-FI, reality gets thrown out the window.

As long as the CGI supports the narrative, then that is all that matters.

 

[Dark Knight]

From our good pal, Poni, who in New Orleans now! It turns out that Blake will sport brown locks afterall!

Excellent!

No point in wasting a beautiful girls looks by giving her a lousy looking brown wig.

Dye job works perfectly!

 

[Dark Knight]

they did with part 2, but in part 3, they were inconsistent. Sandman was pretty much perfect but with the real money maker Venom, his 'face' looked super disappointing.

Exactly! They did a solid job on Spidey 2, but they were all over the place in Spidey 3 and it showed. Ugh....

 

[SpiderByte]

The fact that they didn't do well on a movie that wasn't that good anyway doesn't cover up how well they've done before.

As long it's not painfully obvious the aliens are CGI, I'll live.

 

[dark_b]

The fact that they didn't do well on a movie that wasn't that good anyway doesn't cover up how well they've done before.

As long it's not painfully obvious the aliens are CGI, I'll live.

they will be aliens. you will know that they are not real. like you know ET was a puppet because there is no animal like that.

 

[Octoberist]

you know what Spiderbyte means.

as long as it's not like The Rock from The Mummy Returns.

 

[SpiderByte]

Some aliens will probably look a bit like that, actually, although it won't be so glaringly obvious. The reason The Rock looked bad was because he was supposed to look human. It had the right texture, but still didn't feel human. However, since the aliens are, obviously, NOT human, it won't matter as much that they look like they are physically real.

 

[Webhead2006]

well they could still have some real makeup dudes for aliens and all that. As for the filming being like 150mill you got to remember it is also getting like 30-40% off on tax breaks in new orleans so they are probably saving alot of money. As for the cgi itself i hope they will do good with it.

 

[dark_b]

well they could still have some real makeup dudes for aliens and all that. As for the filming being like 150mill you got to remember it is also getting like 30-40% off on tax breaks in new orleans so they are probably saving alot of money. As for the cgi itself i hope they will do good with it.

this is just for the public so that they think that the budget is not huge. fans are calm and everyone is happy.

this movie will be super expensive and i like it. because we will get for a ticket a ............................lot

 

[Superman]

New Green Lantern Set pic. Looks like Abin Sur's ship to me!


http://www.**************.com/images/users/gallerypictures/10023L.jpg


Read more about it here:

http://www.**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=16710

What's that blue stuff under the ship?