Would the CGI in your case break the movie if it was terrible?

[S.A.A.D.]

Just what if everything in the movie was good,but the CGI? Keep in mind that this movie depends on a hell of alot CGI. Would you be able to bring yourself to forgive it if it was bad? Alot of it? I'm certain that it would really hurt my enjoyment. Unlike most of the time,I am expecting it to be mind blowingly unbelievable and awesome.

 

[batlovescatDC]

There are 3 factors of this film that must work together. The story, the acting, and the action. The story has to be what grabs you from the beginning of the movie all the way through it, the cast obviously has to pull their characters off correctly/well, and the action has to be the factor that will just absolutely blow us away.

In the case of this movie if the CGI sucks, the action sucks. If the action sucks, this movie will be ruined. It'll get ripped apart and drop in ticket sales. That I can promise you. And yes, it will mostly ruin the experience for me.

 

[dnno1]

Just what if everything in the movie was good,but the CGI? Keep in mind that this movie depends on a hell of alot CGI. Would you be able to bring yourself to forgive it if it was bad? Alot of it? I'm certain that it would really hurt my enjoyment. Unlike most of the time,I am expecting it to be mind blowingly unbelievable and awesome.

What makes you think that the CGI will be bad? You are being pretty pessimistic.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Sometimes I think this movie could be the worst comic book film ever putt together and I'd STILL love it.

I mean, they're actually making a GL movie! It's happening!

 

[Rezzo]

What makes you think that the CGI will be bad?

Sony Imageworks body of work.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

What makes you think that the CGI will be bad? You are being pretty pessimistic.

I'm not saying that it's going to be bad,what I said is just a what if scenario. The CGI should be really good as long as the best was brought out of Sony Imageworks and Rising Sun.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

What makes you think that the CGI will be bad? You are being pretty pessimistic.

Trust me,me being pretty negative over the GL movie is nothing much compared to the other time that I was being really negative over a comic book movie adaption. Which was over Ironman 2 before it hit theaters.

 

[dark_b]

the problem is that hes whole suit is CGI. so if the CGI is bad then every shot of GL would have something bad in it. i didnt have a problem with dr manhattan so i hope for the best.WETA and ILM are of course better but i guess to expensive for WB.


and i hate that Sonyimageworks switched to a 100% raytracer last year . i just dont think that all the complexity and details that you need for realistic aliens can be done with a 100% raytracer . the amount of complexity that you need for a cinematic CGI shot in a hollywood movie is to big for a raytracer to handle. so what will happen is that they will do shortcuts and cheats. plus displacements are not anymore free.

 

[Octoberist]

what's raytracer?

And was it used for Alice in Wonderland (which had 'meh' CGI)?

 

[mcallima]

No, it won't. I find that people today are just completely incapable of letting go and suspending disbelief. Is Clash of the Titans, the original, any less enjoyable because you can tell the Kraken is just a piece of clay?

People often cite Alice in Wonderland when they're predicting CGI doom for Green Lantern, but I thought the CGI was perfectly fine in that film. Wooden acting by the lead dragged down Alice, not visuals.

Give me great acting, a great story, and decent effects and I'll be happy.

 

[Octoberist]

But you can't be naive to say that bad or average CGI does not exist in a film.

Listen, I'm pretty fair when it comes to CGI, as long as it's believealbe. But don't tell me that the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns was effective. Even with suspenion disbelief. There's always a limit.

For example, I think Lord of the Rings had wonderful CGI that's nearly perfect. Even if it had faults (sometimes they had to rush to meet the deadlines), the good outweighs the bad and I felt like the effects were tangible.

I think also that people always give stop motion leeway for nostalgic reasons, because it's been an effect that has been utilized since the 30s with King Kong. It's rather charming and I think there's a workhorse approach since it's so hands-on and time consuming.

 

[mcallima]

Again though, The Mummy Returns sucked on so many other levels. Story and character can always help you to ignore sub-par illusions.

 

[dnno1]

Sony Imageworks body of work.

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Alice in Wonderland
The Aviator
Independance Day
Blade Runner
Harry Potter
Hancock


This is just a portion of their work and it seems to me that they have been involved with some pretty good movies. I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[The Guard]

No, it won't. I find that people today are just completely incapable of letting go and suspending disbelief. Is Clash of the Titans, the original, any less enjoyable because you can tell the Kraken is just a piece of clay?

People often cite Alice in Wonderland when they're predicting CGI doom for Green Lantern, but I thought the CGI was perfectly fine in that film. Wooden acting by the lead dragged down Alice, not visuals.

Give me great acting, a great story, and decent effects and I'll be happy.

This, except that I think the script for ALICE was the reason it was subpar.

 

[Steyin]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CGI NEEDS to be Star Wars caliber CGI. I don't care how good the story/acting is, given other films/technology today/etc there is no excuse for it to look bad. Will it break the film? Not entirely, but when major characters are going to be CGI, nonetheless the suit, then it better be on par as the film will be heavily dependent on it.

 

[dark_b]

what's raytracer?

And was it used for Alice in Wonderland (which had 'meh' CGI)?

a CGI software. in hollywod they are using two types . REYES and raytracing.

Sonyimageworks is now using Arnold which is a pure raytracer.
http://vimeo.com/15878348

 

[solidsnake86]

I'm more concerned about the aliens then Reynolds suit. I think in terms of this movie they will be able to hide a lot of sub-par work with the green lighting that he emits. So the more the guy glows the less detail they will have to put in. For me its more Kilowog and Tomar-Re, along with all the other aliens that will be CGI that I'm concerned about.

 

[arman200]

I was really pleased with how Dr. Manhattan looked, and some of the work Imageworks has done is pretty solid, but others are quite bad. I'd say Cats and Dogs 2, I am Legend, G-force, etc. were pretty weak. But I enjoyed what they did with Superman Returns, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Watchmen, so who knows?

I doubt the visuals will be bad, but even if they're subpar, I don't think it would ruin the movie for me assuming everything else is solid.

 

[dnno1]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CGI NEEDS to be Star Wars caliber CGI. I don't care how good the story/acting is, given other films/technology today/etc there is no excuse for it to look bad. Will it break the film? Not entirely, but when major characters are going to be CGI, nonetheless the suit, then it better be on par as the film will be heavily dependent on it.

Hey, even that might not be enough. People criticized that as well.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

But you can't be naive to say that bad or average CGI does not exist in a film.

Listen, I'm pretty fair when it comes to CGI, as long as it's believealbe. But don't tell me that the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns was effective. Even with suspenion disbelief. There's always a limit.

For example, I think Lord of the Rings had wonderful CGI that's nearly perfect. Even if it had faults (sometimes they had to rush to meet the deadlines), the good outweighs the bad and I felt like the effects were tangible.

I think also that people always give stop motion leeway for nostalgic reasons, because it's been an effect that has been utilized since the 30s with King Kong. It's rather charming and I think there's a workhorse approach since it's so hands-on and time consuming.

Lol,god yes. It was so painful to look at and was like the beginning of the end for that movie,mostly everything before that was passable. Yup.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Alice in Wonderland
The Aviator
Independance Day
Blade Runner
Harry Potter
Hancock


This is just a portion of their work and it seems to me that they have been involved with some pretty good movies. I don't know what you are talking about.

Was some of the futuristic settings in Blade Runner CGI?

 

[dnno1]

Was some of the futuristic settings in Blade Runner CGI?

Actually Sony Imageworks did some visual effects enhancement on the 2007 (Final Cut) version of the remastered DVD. I probably wasn't fair to list that film.

 

[Octoberist]

Just what if everything in the movie was good,but the CGI? Keep in mind that this movie depends on a hell of alot CGI. Would you be able to bring yourself to forgive it if it was bad? Alot of it? I'm certain that it would really hurt my enjoyment. Unlike most of the time,I am expecting it to be mind blowingly unbelievable and awesome.

I think people forgive it but it would be a nagging problem because in the end, films are both a visual medium and a storytelling medium.

It'll be a dinky, ugly car that runs great.

 

[Octoberist]

Actually Sony Imageworks did some visual effects enhancement on the 2007 (Final Cut) version of the remastered DVD. I probably wasn't fair to list that film.

I think everyone wants to do their best and I'm behind them. This will be their biggest project to date (I think). They have never done anything that is, what I consider, their 'Avatar' or their 'Lord of the Rings' yet besides the Spider-Man series. We'll see.

Keep in mind that the movies that you have mentioned (Two Towers, Blade Runner) is usually for a scene or two, or just to enhance the scenes.

 

[dnno1]

Well, they did do "The Polar Express" and "Monster House", which were nominated for Academy awards, and they also worked on The ChubbyChubs, which actually did win a Oscar for best short film.

In all honesty, we really should be more concerned about quality of the script, the directing, and the acting more so than the quality of the CGI. That is not what is going to kill the movie.