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

[dark_b]

9 out 10 times sunlight in a studio looks fake. thats why Bay always uses blue and greenscreen outside . the light is 100% realistic because it is the real sun.

this shot can not fail. the bluescreen will be repleaced with CGI windows. but it will look realistic.

 

[JAK®]

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

This makes it sound as if the visual effects supervisor doesn't understand CGI.

 

[dark_b]

again the problem is that in hollywood they need to listen to teh teh big directos. and sometimes even small ones.

 

[Octoberist]

I have to agree that when CGI is in direct sunlight for an exterior shoot, especially green screen, it looks pretty damn real.

 

[JAK®]

I'm on an Animation course at the moment and one of my teachers did work for Lord Of The Rings and The Brothers Grimm. He said that for the latter movie Gilliam (who directed it) wanted a massive creature that moved fast but looked heavy. My teacher said it was quite annoying when a director asks for something that goes against animation principles.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I suppose that the consensus here is that the terrible CGI won't matter as long as the other stuff delivered in different areas.

 

[dark_b]

I'm on an Animation course at the moment and one of my teachers did work for Lord Of The Rings and The Brothers Grimm. He said that for the latter movie Gilliam (who directed it) wanted a massive creature that moved fast but looked heavy. My teacher said it was quite annoying when a director asks for something that goes against animation principles.

thats a very interesting story.


now imagine if a director would tell Stan Winston to build a big animatronic creature that moves fast and looks heavy. Stan would laugh in hes face.

 

[Octoberist]

I do think CGI is jarring even when a movie is decent. For example, I am Legend is probably the king. The movie isn't bad but the CGI took me out of the movie and was a nagging flaw.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The CGI in I Am Legend was so damn pathetic,the infected looked toooo fake. And their motions looked like crap too.

 

[dnno1]

The CGI in I Am Legend was so damn pathetic,the infected looked toooo fake. And their motions looked like crap too.

This wasn't crappy:

[YT]qLtpb2jeY[/YT]

I didn't see anythign wrong with this scene either:

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The video isn't working.

 

[Octoberist]

dnno1,

I think the new york scenes are pretty good. But if you're saying that the infected looked good (up close) then you're in COMPLETE denial. Everyone that I know who likes the film have all admited that the CGI wasn't up to par, and somewhat affected the way they viewed the film. In other words, if the CGI was better than the movie would have been near perfect.

The reason why it looks cartoony is because the CGI was very last minute (they had actors with make-up and should have probably kept it that way).

 

[dnno1]

dnno1,

I think the new york scenes are pretty good. But if you're saying that the infected looked good (up close) then you're in COMPLETE denial. Everyone that I know who likes the film have all admited that the CGI wasn't up to par, and somewhat affected the way they viewed the film. In other words, if the CGI was better than the movie would have been near perfect.

The reason why it looks cartoony is because the CGI was very last minute (they had actors with make-up and should have probably kept it that way).

The film did well for a Will Smith film. I don't think that the quality of the CGI really mattered, which has always been my point. Being perfect is not really that important, but your story directing and acting is very much so.

 

[misjuevos]

anyone post the matrix 2 fight sequence yet?

 

[dnno1]

I don't know if anyone can find a good quality clip.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Being perfect is not really that important, but your story directing and acting is very much so.

But what if your story and directing of it requires heavy use of CGI?

 

[JAK®]

Yes, visuals matter otherwise we would still be listening to plays on the radio.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Visuals matter the most. It is film after all.

Look at the films in my sig. Neither are heavy on plot. But they have excellent visual storytelling going on.

 

[Octoberist]

The film did well for a Will Smith film. I don't think that the quality of the CGI really mattered, which has always been my point. Being perfect is not really that important, but your story directing and acting is very much so.

I didn't say it has to be perfect but it has to be believable. You're making as if bad CGI doesn't exist, like how bad acting does not exist, which is false. There's always way to gauge something as long as it works.

Even though you're a good guy, I've notice that you're very absolute in your views. Have you ever said "I can see what you're saying" or try to see things from a different perspective?

 

[dnno1]

But what if your story and directing of it requires heavy use of CGI?

A film like Green Lantern shouldn't need any more CGI than what was used in "Starship Troupers" or "Superman Returns".

 

[Octoberist]

Green Lantern probably has more than Superman Returns since it's dealing with CGI outfits, CGI creatures, CGI humanoid aliens (Tomar), and CGI green screen for Oa. Plus you have constructs and flying scenes.

If you have to compare Green Lantern to a movie, and if I had to guess, it would be Star Trek or Avatar. Not Superman Returns.

 

[dnno1]

Speaking of CGI, I just saw this on the web. A 3D CGI hologram putting on a live concert in Japan:

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Green Lantern probably has more than Superman Returns since it's dealing with CGI outfits, CGI creatures, CGI humanoid aliens (Tomar), and CGI green screen for Oa. Plus you have constructs and flying scenes.

If you have to compare Green Lantern to a movie, and if I had to guess, it would be Star Trek or Avatar. Not Superman Returns.

Green Lantern will have roughly around 1300 visual effects shots, which is even less than Superman Returns, which had around 1500.

Star Trek had even less at around a 1000.

Avatar of course was the monster that had over 3000 visual effects shots.

 

[arman200]

dnno1,

I think the new york scenes are pretty good. But if you're saying that the infected looked good (up close) then you're in COMPLETE denial. Everyone that I know who likes the film have all admited that the CGI wasn't up to par, and somewhat affected the way they viewed the film. In other words, if the CGI was better than the movie would have been near perfect.

The reason why it looks cartoony is because the CGI was very last minute (they had actors with make-up and should have probably kept it that way).

Yeah, I didn't understand why they decided to go that route. It was pretty awful. I don't see why they all looked the same anyway, but considering the look of the single remaining actress in make-up, why spend extra money on such a terrible alternative?

I haven't seen it, but I read that Angels and Demons was ruined by the CG recreations of the vatican...? Did anyone else find that to be a big issue?

 

[Octoberist]

Green Lantern will have roughly around 1300 visual effects shots, which is even less than Superman Returns, which had around 1500.

Star Trek had even less at around a 1000.

Avatar of course was the monster that had over 3000 visual effects shots.

You have to keep in mind that Superman Return also has the 'missing opening' with Clark visiting Krypton that costs millions of dollars that was ultimately dumped.

If you exclude that, I can tell you that MAYBE..JUST MAYBE...it's lower than Green Lantern.