RE: CGI/Special effects in films.....

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: CGI/Special effects in films.....

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: CGI/Special effects in films.....

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 26/2/2012 8:49:39 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1617
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan

I've been watching the whole James Bond series on DVD again, and I have to admit some of the model effects still hold up quite well, particularly the super-tanker in The Spy Who Loved Me.

A lot of the rear projection photography has dated horribly badly though.Worst offender is Bond skydiving after the airplane at the start of Goldeneye.

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 121

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 26/2/2012 8:53:34 PM

DazDaMan

Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

True, you can usually pick out that kind of stuff easily. But then, looking at King Kong (2005), some of the green-screen background stuff is really bad!

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to Cool Breeze)

Post #: 122

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 26/2/2012 9:51:38 PM

Cabal aka Boone

Posts: 2436
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Here, There, Every bloomin' where!

To add a little bit (possibly) to the Davy Jones thing... check out these videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Ffh2nbHnE&list=UUjnYk44Aj9E634TPucpIXnQ&index=15&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWdCRJEkH5I&list=UUjnYk44Aj9E634TPucpIXnQ&index=16&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdAEYLWMY3A&feature=related

_____________________________

http://twitter.com/SteveKuma

Stan Winston - April 7, 1946 � June 15, 2008

(in reply to DazDaMan)

Post #: 123

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 27/2/2012 3:02:40 PM

grucl

Posts: 2433
Joined: 11/2/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm wondering why the hell anyone uses CGI blood; fake blood is the easiest thing to make.

It makes the actual shoot much easier and quicker. The crew doesn't have to clean the set, re-dress the actors or re-rig the squibs onto them.

A good example is the first kill in Fincher's Zodiac (the one in the car). He could shoot the scene over and over again until he liked it without having to wait for one hour between takes.

< Message edited by grucl -- 27/2/2012 3:03:02 PM >

(in reply to Whistler)

Post #: 124

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 27/2/2012 3:06:45 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7658
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

i think the CG blood works great in certain movies like Ninja Assassin

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to grucl)

Post #: 125

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 20/3/2012 5:57:33 PM

Ghidorah

Posts: 2622
Joined: 6/10/2005

I didn't want to start a new thread.

There two things happened recently.

1. Ridley Scott did a Q&A session. He mentions he used a lot of practical effects to keep cost down. Also mention it's easier on the actors and actresses.

2. John Carter of Mars cost $250 to make and it's flopping.

I thought Practical effects cost more due to construction, storage and the taking up more studios. At the same time we have films like Monsters costing �50,000? to make and Destrict 9 was a cheap film but filled with excellent CGI.

We appear to be at a point in time to expect a movie blockbuster to cost more than $200 million to make. I'm stunned by the amount of money being wasted when correct me if I'm wrong each Lord of the Rings film cost less to make than the standard blockbuster at that time. I'm thinking it's insane film makers splashing out huge amount of cash on CGI but getting little reward back in film quality. A prime example is Michael Bay's Transformers series.

Surely studios need to use CGI in a more sensible fashion if the chances of a film flopping is greatly increased by the heavy exposer of CGI.

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 126

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 20/3/2012 6:08:09 PM

Darth Marenghi

Posts: 2946
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ghidorah

We appear to be at a point in time to expect a movie blockbuster to cost more than $200 million to make. I'm stunned by the amount of money being wasted when correct me if I'm wrong each Lord of the Rings film cost less to make than the standard blockbuster at that time. I'm thinking it's insane film makers splashing out huge amount of cash on CGI but getting little reward back in film quality. A prime example is Michael Bay's Transformers series.

Surely studios need to use CGI in a more sensible fashion if the chances of a film flopping is greatly increased by the heavy exposer of CGI.

LOTR saved serious amounts of cash by being filmed in NZ - it would have cost the same as everything else otherwise. And the films have plenty of CGI in there. Is the Transformers series really a great example? Terrible, wretched films I'm sure but they were all huge hits.

_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.

(in reply to Ghidorah)

Post #: 127

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 20/3/2012 6:22:13 PM

Ghidorah

Posts: 2622
Joined: 6/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ghidorah

We appear to be at a point in time to expect a movie blockbuster to cost more than $200 million to make. I'm stunned by the amount of money being wasted when correct me if I'm wrong each Lord of the Rings film cost less to make than the standard blockbuster at that time. I'm thinking it's insane film makers splashing out huge amount of cash on CGI but getting little reward back in film quality. A prime example is Michael Bay's Transformers series.

Surely studios need to use CGI in a more sensible fashion if the chances of a film flopping is greatly increased by the heavy exposer of CGI.

LOTR saved serious amounts of cash by being filmed in NZ - it would have cost the same as everything else otherwise. And the films have plenty of CGI in there. Is the Transformers series really a great example? Terrible, wretched films I'm sure but they were all huge hits.

Lord of the Rings had a lot of CGI but was used in a sensible manner when there was no real alternative. Anyway i thought transformers series was a great example because they are wank and cost so much to make. I can't see when the third film cost so much to make when most of the action and the plot focus on the Sam character. The Transformers themselve were left in the background and CGI fight scenes were never on the same scale of Avatar.

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)

Post #: 128

RE: CGI/Special effects in films..... - 20/3/2012 7:04:42 PM

DazDaMan

Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

When filming Valkyrie, Bryan Singer had wanted to use a CGI P-40 for the desert sequences at the start (where von Stauffenberg is injured).

When he discovered it was cheaper to use REAL P-40s instead, he opted for the real thing instead.

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to Ghidorah)

Post #: 129