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

[S.A.A.D.]

The problem is that the people who have seen the CGI have beat us over the head leading us to believe that the CGI is going to be really good,and it was also mentioned at one point that it's suppose to be photo realistic.

 

[Octoberist]

Like what Terry said before, any CGI company can probably the do quality ILM/WETA type quality work but it's just the effort put into it that is the difference. I really think maybe the crews at ILM and WETA just have more...disapline than the lesser known CGI houses.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Like what Terry said before, any CGI company can probably the do quality ILM/WETA type quality work but it's just the effort put into it that is the difference. I really think maybe the crews at ILM and WETA just have more...disapline than the lesser known CGI houses.

I would like to think that Martin Campbell really took Sony Imageworks to the limit with great results.

 

[Octoberist]

I mean, we live in a post-Avatar world . Even Andrew Stanton and his Pixar team were intimidated by Avatar that it probably affected their CGI work for 'John Carter of Mars'.

The bar is risen so they can't slack off anymore.

 

[JAK®]

The problem is that the people who have seen the CGI have beat us over the head leading us to believe that the CGI is going to be really good,and it was also mentioned at one point that it's suppose to be photo realistic.

Photo realistic CGI models have existed for a couple of years now, it's just the movement usually lets them down.

 

[dnno1]

Or rather just knowing that it is not real.

 

[dnno1]

Photo realistic CGI models have existed for a couple of years now, it's just the movement usually lets them down.

Lady GaGa
(by Rajcenna)

BTW, the picture above is actually a pencil sketch.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Lady GaGa
(by Rajcenna)

BTW, the picture above is actually a pencil sketch.

I fell for it until I took a second glance at it.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Photo realistic CGI models have existed for a couple of years now, it's just the movement usually lets them down.

Yeah,the movement can be faulty too.

 

[solidsnake86]

Like what Terry said before, any CGI company can probably the do quality ILM/WETA type quality work but it's just the effort put into it that is the difference. I really think maybe the crews at ILM and WETA just have more...disapline than the lesser known CGI houses.

Can't forget it probably has to do with the money too. I'm sure sony is capable, but if someone isnt paying them the highest amount there is only so much you can do before you start losing money. It's a business at the end of the day, I don't think the guys want to work for free.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Good or bad effects don't make or break a movie for me. I really do hate when people look at a special effect and scream fake. As if the construct coming out of the ring could possibly be at all real. Complaining about CGI looking like CGI or miniatures looking miniature or matte paintings looking like paintings is just silly to me. Just enjoy the story for what it is and if the effects are especially good then bonus. Nobody goes to a play and complains that the sets didn't have them fooled into thinking they were actually there.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Good or bad effects don't make or break a movie for me. I really do hate when people look at a special effect and scream fake. As if the construct coming out of the ring could possibly be at all real. Complaining about CGI looking like CGI or miniatures looking miniature or matte paintings looking like paintings is just silly to me. Just enjoy the story for what it is and if the effects are especially good then bonus. Nobody goes to a play and complains that the sets didn't have them fooled into thinking they were actually there.

Uh that is because they don't expect them to be uber realistic.

 

[dnno1]

Uh that is because they don't expect them to be uber realistic.

But that's just it. Since the beginning, it has always been the quality of the scripting, the direction, and the acting that has made or broke a film/theatrical play. Props/CGI are just gimmicks used to help the audience better visualize the performance. If "Avatar wasn't a good story first, it might not have been as popular.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Neither do I expect movies to convince me James Cameron shot on another planet or any other thing of the sort. Enjoy a story for what it is, people are too quick to complain about stuff.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Neither do I expect movies to convince me James Cameron shot on another planet or any other thing of the sort. Enjoy a story for what it is, people are too quick to complain about stuff like not being totally convinced into believing aliens exist or men really fly or constructs come out of rings.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

But that's just it. Since the beginning, it has always been the quality of the scripting, the direction, and the acting that has made or broke a film/theatrical play. Props/CGI are just gimmicks used to help the audience better visualize the performance. If "Avatar wasn't a good story first, it might not have been as popular.

Look,if the CGI for this movie wasn't suppose to be a major hook then I wouldn't be worrying about it at all. There is nothing wrong with expecting great CGI in a movie that relies on it,I don't like being bamboozled at all. And it's not like I am expecting a drama movie that doesn't require the use of CGI.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Look,if the CGI for this movie wasn't suppose to be a major hook then I wouldn't be worrying about it at all. There is nothing wrong with expecting great CGI in a movie that relies on it,I don't like being bamboozled at all. And itt's not like I am expecting a drama movie that doesn't require the use of CGI.

Bamboozled? Really? That's how you feel when a movie's special effects don't measure up to what you expect?

I guess I look at movies differently. If the story sells me I'm in, I really don't care about the quality of the effects because an effect will always look as such. Even movies that people rave over how realistic it is and on and on a couple years down the road looses it's sheen in most cases.

 

[dnno1]

Look,if the CGI for this movie wasn't suppose to be a major hook then I wouldn't be worrying about it at all. There is nothing wrong with expecting great CGI in a movie that relies on it,I don't like being bamboozled at all. And itt's not like I am expecting a drama movie that doesn't require the use of CGI.

The major selling point of Green Lantern is the fact that it is a space based Superhero film (maybe even the first). This differentiates it from it predecessors and also offers an appeal to Sci-Fi/Fantasy in addition to Comic-book fans (which combined should be a larger market). The use of CGI in this film is just a natural fit since Green Lanterns create energy constructs from their power rings (which have an artificial intelligence) and they save a lot of money not having to cast a lot of actors to play the other members of the corps. It should not be construed to mean that it is a major selling point of the film. There are other methods that could have been used to create the effects, but they chose not to do that. Now being bamboozled as you call it is a mater of perspective. I myself go to a movie to be entertained and, unless I am going to see a documentary or biographic pic, I am not insulted at all by seeing what is already known to be fiction.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The major selling point of Green Lantern is the fact that it is a space based Superhero film (maybe even the first). This differentiates it from it predecessors and also offers an appeal to Sci-Fi/Fantasy in addition to Comic-book fans (which combined should be a larger market). The use of CGI in this film is just a natural fit since Green Lanterns create energy constructs from their power rings (which have an artificial intelligence) and they save a lot of money not having to cast a lot of actors to play the other members of the corps. It should not be construed to mean that it is a major selling point of the film. There are other methods that could have been used to create the effects, but they chose not to do that. Now being bamboozled as you call it is a mater of perspective. I myself go to a movie to be entertained and, unless I am going to see a documentary or biographic pic, I am not insulted at all by seeing what is already known to be fiction.

Well I feel as if there was a subtle promise that was made to us,regarding the special effects in GL. If the special effects weren't suppose to be great and photo realistic then I wouldn't care at all,and if the technology wasn't good enough. Of course,I never denied that to myself,why is it all of a sudden some sort of crime to have a standard? It shouldn't be some sort of foreign concept to anyone here,indeed. People should trust me when I am still looking forward to the movie alot.

 

[dnno1]

Well I feel as if there was a subtle promise that was made to us,regarding the special effects in GL. If the special effects weren't suppose to be great and photo realistic then I wouldn't care at all,and if the technology wasn't good enough. Of course,I never denied that to myself,why is it all of a sudden some sort of crime to have a standard? It shouldn't be some sort of foreign concept to anyone here,indeed. People should trust me when I am still looking forward to the movie alot.

If you feel that way, then fair enough, but even that is just one element of the film. Once again if the story is good and there is really good acting under good direction, that will far outweigh any shortcomings in CGI or SfX. That's been proven already.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

If you feel that way, then fair enough, but even that is just one element of the film. Once again if the story is good and there is really good acting under good direction, that will far outweigh any shortcomings in CGI or SfX. That's been proven already.

It certainly doesn't hurt if you're watching a movie about a character that you don't really give a crap about.

 

[JAK®]

Or rather just knowing that it is not real.

That also happens a lot. I mean, in a world where everybody knows about CGI, how could you watch The Hulk and not just see a digital effect, no matter how good it is?

 

[Octoberist]

I think CGI is the only to the Hulk. The CGI just has give Hulk the mass, gravitas, and tangibility to make it work.

 

[dark_b]

I think CGI is the only to the Hulk. The CGI just has give Hulk the mass, gravitas, and tangibility to make it work.

and it can be done if directors would listen more to the CGI guys and use more physical based shots.


people wouldnt belive how many times CGI artist do something how the director wants them even if it looks fake.

why SPielbergs movies dont have problems with weight? or Camerons? or Peter Jacksons ? because they have a feel for weight and when they see something that looks uncomfortable they changed it.

 

[Octoberist]

Jackson and Spielberg, along with Nolan and Bay, understand CGI and probably would commentate the visual effects supervisor during the shoot.