Morlock 11 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 That has more to do wityh the apalling quality of The Prequels.Didn't WETA do the Narnia effects too? I always thought the CGI in that film was lacking compared to many others.Ray Barnsbury Both good points. Narnia looked quite bad, now that I think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I believe they did I, Robot as well.But the approach to visual effects on LotR was so different from that of the prequels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I still have to see Davy Jones kind of quality from WETA...Anyway, Narnia's effects were (sadly) SONY imageworks, Rythm & Hues (just aslan, and congratulations) and ILM did some compositing of what the others did (kind of 'last call') WETA workshop did the props and character desings.Narnia 2 is being WETA. Theratibia is WETA too.King kong is amazing work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I thought Stan Winston and ILM worked on I, Robot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,174 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I have never seen a CGI creature as convincing as King Kong. Gollum was outstanding, but I knew he was artificial and saw him as a very convincing CGI creation. With Kong, it's different. There are a few moments of him jumping around where he looks fake, but other than that, he seemed almost flawless. In most of his "acting" scenes, even though I know he's not real, my brain insists that here's a real gorilla (and a damn well-acting one) on the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 So Sony Imageworks did Narnia...didn't they do the first Harry Potter film too? If so, they have a pretty poor track record, at least between those two films.Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Yeah the first Potter film had poor SFX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I thought Stan Winston and ILM worked on I, Robot.ILM (nor Winston, i think) did no any work on I, Robot (and it shows )Sony Imageworks is the worst huge SFX company.Its the mastermind behind the Spider-Man SFX... Just watch 3 to see they dont know a shit about them...Cant believe his creator was one of the 1st ILM workers...HP1 only had one or two scenes with decent SFX, i suppose the ILM parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Some of the sand effects in Spider-man 3 were very impressive though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Oh wow, Sony's behind the incredible gelatinous Spider-Man too? Yikes!Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Some of the sand effects in Spider-man 3 were very impressive though.Really?I think that for the most part looked much like ol' 1999 ILM's 'The Mummy' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I thought Stan Winston and ILM worked on I, Robot.No. Most of it was done by Weta Digital and Digital Domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Some of the sand effects in Spider-man 3 were very impressive though.Really?I think that for the most part looked much like ol' 1999 ILM's 'The Mummy' I can't speak for the rest of the effects (they didn't make much of an impact), but I thought that the Sandman's first scene as the Sandman was one of the most beautiful things ever done with CGI. Really a great use of CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Yes I was mainly referring to the first scene with sandman, I liked the drama of the scene too, so that helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Yes it seems the dram made you see excellent CGI where it wasnt.Not that those were bad effects though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Yes it seems the dram made you see excellent CGI where it wasnt.I haven't seen the film and can't judge upon the quality of the effect, but if the drama holds up and makes you believe what you're seeing, isn't that really all you need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Yes, it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Well then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Actually, it's even more simple than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 People like to comment on the quality of FX because it's a technical aspect in filmmaking that is very easy to comment on. To them it looks real or it doesn't. It's something anyone can do.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 So...what's your point? Over here, we are specifically talking about F/X. People are simpletons just because they raise the topic? It's not as if F/X is the only topic raised when discussing a film. Morlock- who is disspointed that Alex is talking out more, yet saying less. It was so much more interesting when you were actually discussing specifics, instead of sending out blanket insults to us plebs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 anyway, in this particular case (Spider-man 3) One 'decent' effects shot (and possibly one decent drama shot too) cannot redeem an entire movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 ...but it's not one decent effects shot. It's one GREAT F/X based scene. And a lot of decent F/X shots. And a bunch of crappy ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 ...and a crappy movie regardless of how many good/bad sfx shots in it.Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 A forgettable, moderatly enjoyable, bad movie, in my book. Same difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 So...what's your point? Over here, we are specifically talking about F/X. People are simpletons just because they raise the topic? It's not as if F/X is the only topic raised when discussing a film. Morlock- who is disspointed that Alex is talking out more, yet saying less. It was so much more interesting when you were actually discussing specifics, instead of sending out blanket insults to us plebs.Don't be so upset, Morlock, I only made a philosophical point about FX discussions in general. It's what interests me more than comments like, "Great movie, I mean, the FXs were amazing". shake head smiley.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 I only made a philosophical point about FX discussions in general.I'm so sure I will never see those words in the same sentence again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Don't be so upset, Morlock, I only made a philosophical point about FX discussions in general. It's what interests me more than comments like, "Great movie, I mean, the FXs were amazing". shake head smiley. Ahhhh....you know I could never be mad at YOU, don't you? Some kind of benevolent smily, followed by a wink, with another slightly vague smily to imply that, actually, this is not always entirely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Man they want to kill me.I just read that Hulk 2 is not being made by ILM... Neither banna nor conelly...Lets hope that Aslan was not a one-time lucky shot by Rythm & Hues.Morlock, at least you will agree with me that Spider-man 3 is the worst (SFX wise) big budgeted - action packed movie in the last years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 I wouldn't. But I don't care all that much for special effects anyhow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 As Steef said. Cant' say I remember the SFX in most film I see. Although I think that Narnia's was worse, but in concept. The exceution of that concept was fine, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Sorry, narnia was not worse.Even with SONY Imageworks working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 In your opinion. I hated the effects in Narnia, thought they made the movie worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 The lion for example was as good as King kong CGI animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,174 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Jose.King Kong is perhaps the best CG character ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 It's Manuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I agree with Marian, red rabbit, and Ross. Aslan looks quite unconvincing. Kong looked quite convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart 0 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I agree with Marian, red rabbit, and Ross. Aslan looks quite unconvincing. Kong looked quite convincing.People like to comment on the quality of FX because it's a technical aspect in filmmaking that is very easy to comment on. To them it looks real or it doesn't. It's something anyone can do.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 If you want, you are free to use my quote as a signature, bart. There will be no charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I agree with Marian, red rabbit, and Ross. Aslan looks quite unconvincing. Kong looked quite convincing.I think i also agree with Ross mmm it seems anyway that we have a very different way of seeing SFX. Even when ILM is not present. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I agree with Marian, red rabbit, and Ross. Aslan looks quite unconvincing. Kong looked quite convincing.People like to comment on the quality of FX because it's a technical aspect in filmmaking that is very easy to comment on. To them it looks real or it doesn't. It's something anyone can do.AlexOver here, we are specifically talking about F/X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spikey 0 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Spiderman 3 = worst movie I have ever seen. Period. Just picture the wussiest guy in the world skipping down the street, clicking his fingers and staring at woman (and pretend-shooting them with his fingers) who appear to be laughing at him. Then realise that's a plot way of showing his *dark side* with the evil spider suit- yes that's right folks, I'm not making this up. Most farcical thing I've ever watched.Anyway. Back on-topic, Tintin did actually get the orchestral treatment. If anyone's interested, I have a MP3 from an orchestral (French?) album of the title theme that's as good as the TV title theme, and it even goes further. It's superb. I hope JW/whoever scores this will do as good a job I hope this is good news. TinTin the TV show was great, but could have probably used longer episodes in some areas. I'm confused as to the 'trilogy' business though. Why?- Spike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Jose.King Kong is perhaps the best CG character ever made.Davy Jones tops it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 75 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,792 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 lets say one is the best CGI animal and the other the best CGI humanoid character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now