Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
CGI
Comments
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 30760
Eh?
The whole point suggested was that T2 was the first to use CGI,
Lebowski corrected and named some of the earlier films using it, and you said don't forget Lawnmower man.
I meant quite-jokingly that it should not be overlooked as one of the pioneers of CG effects. I used a pac-face and everything.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus Prime since the 80s, is not a huge guy either. IMdB says he's 5'8".
I'd take him in a fight:pac:0 -
I've no problem with CG. Merely with the people who use it badly.
Speaking of The Social Network David Fincher is one guy who knows how to use it correctly. A film like Zodiac (yes Zodiac) has a lot of CG shots in it that you'd never be aware of. Watch the making of docs and you'll be surprised.
On the other hand you have guys like George Lucas who seem to use what I call "cheap CG" ie undeveloped technology that that produces "cartoony" looking visuals that just pull you right out of the storyline and ruin a cinema going experience as a result. Guys like Lucas seem to think just because something CAN be put up on screen that it SHOULD and don't see the big picture of what they are doing.
Check 1:05 onwards. It's one of the most unconvincing special effects shots I've seen. It looks like what it is i.e. a guy sitting on a prop in front of a green screen. Even in 2002 it looked ridiculous. On top of that it's matched to a location shot which only highlights it's shortcomings. Like I say bad choice and use of CG.
0 -
I've no problem with CG. Merely with the people who use it badly.
Speaking of The Social Network David Fincher is one guy who knows how to use it correctly. A film like Zodiac (yes Zodiac) has a lot of CG shots in it that you'd never be aware of. Watch the making of docs and you'll be surprised.
On the other hand you have guys like George Lucas who seem to use what I call "cheap CG" ie undeveloped technology that that produces "cartoony" looking visuals that just pull you right out of the storyline and ruin a cinema going experience as a result. Guys like Lucas seem to think just because something CAN be put up on screen that it SHOULD and don't see the big picture of what they are doing.
Check 1:05 onwards. It's one of the most unconvincing special effects shots I've seen. It looks like what it is i.e. a guy sitting on a prop in front of a green screen. Even in 2002 it looked ridiculous. On top of that it's matched to a location shot which only highlights it's shortcomings. Like I say bad choice and use of CG.
yet the transition between the real Anakin getting on the speeder and the cgi one flying off is seamless, theres a real mixed bag of cgi in the prequels0 -
Not even remotely similar,
First of all Hanks but on fat to symbolise the lazy and excessive life, then lost fat and muscle to reprsent the island.
Bale lost a **** load over months to get ready. He lost everything.
In Captain America, the actor had to to on muscle to paly the role, he was in pretty good shape. And it would of taken a decent amount of time to get this weigt on, then he's had to starve himself to lose it. But, i'll admit, that do-doable, just not practical.
But the whole concept wasn't just about getting stronger. He was taller (which could of been faked with trick photography) and his bone structure changing (which couldn't of been faked). It was simply not possible to get that effect without using CGI. So they could of settled for less and went the machinist route.
Of course they are not similar, unless someone makes a Captain America movie and uses the example given instead of the cgi how the hell could it be similar??! I was giving examples of it being naturally done and the stark visual contrast. Look at the images of Bale below. Now imagine this was from Captain America, image 1 is before the transformation and image 2 is from after it. Are you telling me that the cgi imagery used in the film would be better than this?
I really dont think so and i understand fully it takes time to do this but honestly is it not worth it? Were they afraid some other studio was going to get wind of them doing this film and make Captain America themselves? In Castaway (iirc) there was 6 months between shooting the pre island scenes and island scenes where Hanks lost the weight for the visual signs of island life. That is committing to the film rather than nailing something together and firing it out ASAP
(Thanks to krudler for the image)I think they prob should of done it like the social network, A real body from a different actor, and CGI the head on. Might of been smoother, but I'm just guessing here.
I agree with you here even that would have been better than what they actually used.You are still not getting the point.
IF they did, what would it possibly achieve? Why would di ut. In the other example there is a reason, like not using twins, or to show the body change.
That kind of CGI would be more effort than a reshoot imo. The switch happens off camera too afaik
I've watched the ad and I'm not sure what part you are refering to. So I can't say if I think you are wrong.
Right now, I believe you are nit picking so much regarding CGI that you are inventing stuff in your head.
Ok you really are getting the wrong idea here, i do not have a problem with cgi. I have a problem with cgi being done so badly it makes being immersed in a film almost impossible. Look at my op i mention Inception, one of the most visually stunning films i have ever seen and i can remember a few minutes into it thinking that this was gonna be a film i will love. I have also said myself there was no need for them (The Switch Up) to use cgi. Lastly i have said more than once that i may well be wrong and have asked people to look out for it.
At the end of the day Mellor, i think you and i will just have to agree to disagree
0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »
I'd take him in a fight:pac:
Holy crap!! :eek:
You know how you have a mental picture of someone from their voice? I pictured him being.............almost 50 feet tall and be able to transform into a truck
0 -
Of course they are not similar, unless someone makes a Captain America movie and uses the example given instead of the cgi how the hell could it be similar??! I was giving examples of it being naturally done and the stark visual contrast. Look at the images of Bale below. Now imagine this was from Captain America, image 1 is before the transformation and image 2 is from after it. Are you telling me that the cgi imagery used in the film would be better than this?
I really dont think so and i understand fully it takes time to do this but honestly is it not worth it? Were they afraid some other studio was going to get wind of them doing this film and make Captain America themselves? In Castaway (iirc) there was 6 months between shooting the pre island scenes and island scenes where Hanks lost the weight for the visual signs of island life. That is committing to the film rather than nailing something together and firing it out ASAP
Ever consider that most actor are as insane as Bale. While his commitment to the Machinist was beyond the call of duty he could have done serious damage to his body. How could Evans have done the same for Captain America? Are you suggesting that they he slim down for a month or so, ignoring all other parts and then shoots the few scenes. Then he spends 4 or 5 months in the gym bulking up for the rest of the shoot while everyone else involved goes onto other jobs from which they may not be able to get out of once Evans is in shape. Or should they have done it the other way around where they would have met with similar problems and lets not forget that it would have a serious knock on effect on the Avengers.
I had my problems with the CGI of thin Steve but it really wasn't that bad at all. It looked quite good and served its purpose. I'd much rather have an actor out working than sat at home starving himself in order to slim down for a role. It can be quite dangerous for anyone to put on or loose so much weight so quickly, Jared Leto did it for a film and he ended up in hospital for a few weeks.0 -
Bale does not look like a weak person there. He looks like a sick person, with potential to become the second pic.
His height and bone structure have not changed.
Evans was smaller, thinner, shorter and weaker looking in the CGI. The smaller/thinner/shorter effects could not be done by Evans just getting thinner then bulking up0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXwZGmjubNU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CAguSLbOmM
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement