I mentioned LOTR in reference to scope of the effects. There was so much going on in the battle scenes, it was impossible to see it all, and it was a big deal for folks to be able to do the blow-by-blow on their TV at home. Of course they were very popular (one of them won Best Picture), and the effects didn't hurt. And why not? Probably because there were so many actual people running around. If Gandalf's cloak or Gimli's armor been all glowing CGI, all bets would have been off.
It was also a story millions of people were familiar with and had loved for decades. Sometimes with something like that, all you have to do is not blow it. Regarding visual vocabulary - Yes, sweeping CGI vistas are familiar, and god bless all the companies cashing checks for cranking 'em out, but I don't think it's the default or the expected or the preferred. Final Fantasy, all CGI, was a disaster, the Jason Bourne movies, no apparent CGI, were massive hits. It's something people see and have seen, and it's a tool in the box, but it's often the wrong tool. -----Original Message----- From: Luke <[email protected]> To: The Unique Geek <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 12:56 am Subject: [The Unique Geek] Re: New Green Lantern trailer shows off the Guardians of the Universe - io9 Maybe I am missing something, but are you suggesting that the LOTR trilogy was not successful in it's effects work and that it was somehow hurt by that? People flocked to see the LOTR films multiple times in the theater because it was an immersive and fascinating world. Much like Star Wars (I am told; obviously I was not alive yet to see that one in the theater let alone multiple times). And please don't misunderstand me, I love the effects in the Original Trilogy, but there are flaws there too. As humans we are acclimated to reality and something which looks fake will look fake no matter what technique is used to create it. The Death Star Trench sequence holds up as well as it does now some... let me count because you folks made fun of me for my bad math in an earlier thread... 34 years after the fact because the Dykstraflex did its job perfectly, and the ILM model team paid attention to the details to the point that those ships WERE real as far as the eye is concerned. (Lucas basing the fight on WW2 footage helps this as well.) That the asteroid field in Empire looks like garbage is because of the technique being used was not perfected at the time and there was no other way to achieve it with the Dykstraflex without the traveling matte. (By comparison, watch The Black Hole, which features similar shots of objects moving across each other -- the use of the ACES camera and the Mattescan device allowed this to be smoothly done without the need for the travelling matte from Empire). So it stands out because it breaks "reality" in a way the ships or the suits or animatronics do not. Regarding visual vocabulary, I think my claim is valid. Afterall, this is an age where entertainment media pundits fall all over themselves to elevate video games to high art or "true" entertainment. Obviously the rendered, ful CGI style visual image is an accepted one for the masses, since video gaming has become not just accepted but now mainstream and "hip." Folks won't go see Green Lantern multiple times in the theater nowadays because of the nature of the Hollywood tentpole cycle. Like you say, Cars 2 is right on it's heels, and more afterwards. The filmgoer today is conditioned to think that what's hot and new this week is old next week, because there is something else wihch is now hot and new. It takes something outrageously out of the ordinary to break that, and the LOTR films are like that. This summer, the only film I predict will be like that is HP 7.2, just because ITS THE LAST ONE DUN DUN DUNNNN! and all that. The fact that 7.1 was a marked improvement over the snoozefests that were 5 and 6 helps, too. In any event I am probably going to go see the film. For one thing I would like to see a DC movie in the theater which is not a snoozer like Superman Returns nor Super Serious And Important! like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Plus my buddy Joe is a huge GL fan (being an Air Force brat will do that to you) and obviously he is jazzed for it. On May 5, 10:06 pm, [email protected] wrote: > The snake thing in Conan looks dumb in the same way the Clash of the Titans trailer was ruined by that fifty-million dollar yawn-monster at the end. What's around the corner, Perseus, what's making that noise? It's....it's....COMPUTER MATH. > > Fact is, the throne room scene in Flash Gordon (1980) looks more exotic and exciting than the sweeping video game cut-scene they're calling Oa. > It's possible kids will accept the "visual vocabulary of the present > cinematic age," in the way we, as kids, accepted the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts or King Kong, etc, but...I don't think any kids are excited about this movie. > > I mean maybe a few nerdads are pushing them toward it. > > Kid: I wanna see Thaw. > Nerdad: What about, Green Lantern, buddy? Don't you wanna see a guy who has a ring? > Kid: Like...the one you got for mom? Thaw has a hammaw. > Nerdad: Ha, ha, no no, like the...ok, let's see Thor. > > Thor has a kajillion effects in it, but....Thor himself looks like a person. You can relate to him. I think a "glow" or something around a real costume would have gotten across the idea of the ring generating clothing. Maybe it's an "uncanny valley" issue. Like Shag articulated, its not that the effects look baaaad, it's that the whole thing is effects. Like with Lord of the Rings, I guess, the idea is people will buy the DVD and pause every few seconds so they can jizz over all the detailed design work at whichever speed they jizz at, but...that aint gonna help opening weekend. > As you point out, Luke, people complained about the effects in SW (though isn't there something about it looking different on tv than on the big screen? Like, those yellow squares around the TIE Fighters were a tv thing? Someone?), but...people saw SW in the theater and continued to see it and talk about it. No one will see Green Lantern. Bomb ahoy. > > Should we have another bet thing like with Watchmen and Scott Pilgrim? > > I say it gets crushed by....Mr. Popper's Penguins!!! You down with MPP?!! > > That trailer, btw, was cut by amateurs. It looks teerrrrrible! And > yet....it will kiiiilll Green Lantern!! Then, GL will be buried by Cars 2 the following week to disappear forever! Sinestro wins! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luke <[email protected]> > To: The Unique Geek <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 3:45 am > Subject: [The Unique Geek] Re: New Green Lantern trailer shows off the Guardians of the Universe - io9 > > I'm more disappointed by the CGI monster in the new Conan trailer than > any of the CGI in the Green Lantern trailers, frankly. That's the > visual vocabulary of the present cinematic age. > > You want an eye opener? Go read some contemporary genre magazines > when Empire or Jedi came out. Cinefantastique especially lambastes > some of ILM's work. We idealize these physical effects in our minds, > but I still cringe everytime I watch the original version of Empire > with the God awful travelling mattes in the asteroid field. Even as > late as 89 (Last Crusade) its pretty easy to spot complaining > criticism of ILM's work. So not liking special effects and thinking > things look "fake" is a time honored nerd tradition. > > On May 5, 10:05 am, Edward Crosby <[email protected]> wrote: > > Again, I have no problem with the CGI costume, I think it looks fine. And, I > > think it does look like it could exist in the real world. Remember, the GL's > > costume in the comic books, for the most part, is energy constructed by that > > GL. I can imagine the costume having that glow in the real world. > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Have a Better One, > > Edward Crosbyhttp://about.me/edwardcrosby > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > For me it's not a case that the CGI looks bad, it's the sheer volume of > > > CGI. In some shots there is simply too much going on (all done by CGI). > > > For example, in Revenge of the Sith, the space battle featured too many > > > things going on (all done by CGI). So while the battle was more massive > > > than the space battle in Return of the Jedi, there was just too much to > > > see. The space battle in Revenge of the Sith is less exciting than the > > > Return of the Jedi battle for that reason. > > > > In regard to the Green Lantern costume, the choice to go with CGI is > > > disappointing. It makes the costume harder to believe it's real. It just > > > doesn't look like it could exist in the real world. A simpler real-world > > > costume with a CGI aura might have worked better. > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > The Irredeemable Shag > > >http://firestormfan.com > > >http://onceuponageek.com > > >http://twitter.com/onceuponageek > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [The Unique Geek] Re: New Green Lantern trailer shows off > > > the Guardians of the Universe - io9 > > > From: Edward Crosby <[email protected]> > > > Date: Thu, May 05, 2011 9:47 am > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Yeah, I am confused why people keep stating that the CG looks bad > > > (Ravenface and other TUG members). As compared to what? Avatar? Sure. Tron > > > Legacy? Absolutely. Sucker Punch? Maybe. Iron Man 2? No way. > > > Widge made a really good point on the last recorded TUG podcast recording > > > and I agree with him. He stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that we all have such > > > a high standard of CG these days that if something comes along that meets or > > > doesn't exceed the bar then we turn our heads in disgust. From what I have > > > seen, the CG in this movie is by far some of the best we have seen in > > > today's live action movies. I think another reason we turn our heads in > > > disgust of the CG in this movie is because there is so much of it. But there > > > has to be as this is a Green Lantern movie set mostly in a fictional world > > > and fictional universe that has to be pulled out of one of the most extreme > > > mediums that is the comic book. There is no way this movie could have been > > > done well with all the CG needed five years ago. > > > I'm not making any judgement about this movie now, if I can help it. At > > > first, yes, I judged the teaser trailer and cringed. Recent trailers give me > > > more hope that this may be an entertaining movie. I know it will not be a > > > blockbuster movie but I will reserve judgement of whether it is good or not > > > after I have seen it when I see it opening weekend. > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > Have a Better One, > > > Edward Crosby > > >http://about.me/edwardcrosby > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "The Unique Geek" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The > Unique Geek" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.
