PDA

View Full Version : The VFX of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle


Leonard
07-21-2003, 02:19 AM
Continuing on our Summer of VFX coverage, here's The VFX of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

Read the article (http://www.cgnetworks.com/story_custom.php?story_id=1355)

http://www.cgnetworks.com/stories/2003_7/charlies_angels/blossom.jpg (http://www.cgnetworks.com/story_custom.php?story_id=1355)

Leo

Theta-Dot
07-21-2003, 03:45 AM
It's too good... Inspiring.
I'm never going to see that film though : )

edaddy
07-21-2003, 04:23 AM
haven't seen the movie, but some of those shots look nice

PureFire
07-21-2003, 04:25 AM
Its always kewl to see how things are done in movies. Thanks for the insight. :D

Levitateme
07-21-2003, 08:01 AM
...they made another one...

takkun
07-21-2003, 08:43 AM
It's funny that CGNetworks and CGchannel both released Charlie's Angels VFX interviews at the same time, both interviewing the same person and both showing the same photos. What's up with that?

xyth
07-21-2003, 09:12 AM
I've seen the film, and I'm still wondering how did they give money for this, really... :(

Anyway, the vfx is really awesome, incredible, but there's no scene where I could tell what's real and cg (but I have very critical eyes). I'm talking about the 'I know it's cg, but looks so real' feeling... :)

Lucy Liu is nicer than ever, and no cg effect is needed for her. love: It worth to see only for her and the fx. Okay, there are some good jokes...

-xyth

edit: thinking back there was one 'fakish' scene: Cameron D. (Natalie) was surfing and her face was weird...

Leonard
07-21-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by takkun
It's funny that CGNetworks and CGchannel both released Charlie's Angels VFX interviews at the same time, both interviewing the same person and both showing the same photos. What's up with that?

Purely coincidental that the two publications had similar stories on the same day. Both articles combined will give readers a good insight into the visual effects of the movie.

All good, no harm done. :thumbsup:

Leo

onscreen
07-21-2003, 12:15 PM
Breath taking scene there. Watch with my girl and WOAH :surprised

psyop63b
07-21-2003, 02:00 PM
I remember seeing this shot in the teaser trailer I downloaded. I forget whether or not it was entirely in slow motion, but I remember the scene striking me as somewhat physically impossible. Yup, just watched it again here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/columbia/charliesangelsfullthrottle/teaser_large.html) and although it's an impressive effect I don't think it's the best way to show the action. I sorta had the same problem with the last 007 film, because you can't push a helicopter out of a plane (or off a HMMTT) and expect to start the engine, regain control AND pull out of the dive. I know what you're thinking. "It's an action movie, you need to give them some slack." I understand that just fine, but even action movies are supposed to have limits. Can't wait to see it! (Once it comes out on video, that is :D )

jmdajr
07-21-2003, 02:50 PM
movie was dumb fun

slaughters
07-21-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by psyop63b
...you can't push a helicopter out of a plane (or off a HMMTT) and expect to start the engine, regain control AND pull out of the dive. I know what you're thinking. "It's an action movie, you need to give them some slack." But you had no problems with the wire work needed to make those impossible kicks, jumps, and flips used in the fighting sequences?

I haven't seen this one yet, but if it is like the first (which I enjoyed), then I expect physics to be more than slightly held at bay during the action sequences. Just like in "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon", if you are a good enough fighter you can float through the sky with nothing more than a pure heart and your inner chi to assist you. :)

To bring it back to the FX used in the movie though. When ever I see those impossible FX shots, I always think to myself, "Doesn't this mean the camera man is falling through space too?". When the Point of View is impossible is when I get that "jarring" feeling of the shot being to un-real to be believeable.

(When watching National Geographic movies of mountain climbers I'm also the type to always think, "but the guy taking the picture also climbed the mountain, and he did it with a camera!")

Psybah
07-21-2003, 05:40 PM
awesome post and read! Thanks for the link.

slaughters: WOW! I think of the same thing when i watch National Geographic.I always respect the camera men/women because they do all the work + more (camera).


hehe, sorry i got so excited, I thought I was the only one :)

janus
07-21-2003, 10:26 PM
i saw the movie, it was great ;) just joking, it was rather crappy.. although i have to admit that their vfx really kicks ass!
i could only tell that a scene wasn't real because of it's happening and not 'cause it appeared unreal.. the vfx have really been worth their effort i think :eek: a great feast for my eyes :)

DarkHydra
07-22-2003, 12:09 AM
Hehe movie wasn't that great at all but I still kinda enjoyed watching it for some cheap humor, vfx, and Cameron D.

Dargon
07-22-2003, 02:59 AM
I'd have to say, I'm finding the picture on the front page very distracting. Looking forward to seeing the movie no matter what the special effects are like...

malcolmvexxed
07-22-2003, 04:29 AM
Horrible horrible movie. And not in a good, laugh at it kind of way. Just very incompetent.

:thumbsdow

Clockwork
07-22-2003, 07:04 AM
The effects were so/so. The movie itself stank. Nothing compares to the wonderful CG that was in TRON or The Last Starfighter. For shame...

Quizboy
07-22-2003, 08:22 AM
psyop63b -

I sorta had the same problem with the last 007 film, because you can't push a helicopter out of a plane (or off a HMMTT) and expect to start the engine, regain control AND pull out of the dive. I know what you're thinking. "It's an action movie, you need to give them some slack." I understand that just fine, but even action movies are supposed to have limits.

You're correct to criticize 007 for these kinds of issues b/c Bond still tries to purport itself to be somewhat within the realm of the real world...

Charlie's Angels 2 is another thing entirely. I think they've done a masterpiece of creating a moving comic book on the silver screen, better than any of the comic book attempts ever done. And they're not trying to be pretensive about being over the top at all. It's like "of course this is not plausible in any shape or form, but it sure is fun!" Like when the bike stunts get increasingly ridiculous and the guy jumps his motorbike, does a flip in the air, draws two guns and proceeds to fire backwards at his mark while UPSIDE DOWN, then lands on the bike again perfectly and keeps going. Come on, there is no way this could happen, but it is so funny to watch and with great FX so it looks visually real. There is no question that this film is worth watching from a VFX point of view, because the sheer intensity of the images that they keep coming at you. They keep ass in your face, things blowing up, some of the most hardcore fight scenes i've ever scene on screen, and the music pumping throughout. I can only imagine the compositing tables for this flick literally sizzling from use after this was wrapped...

If every decade of movies has its own 'look' where you can say oh that's a 90's film, that's definitely an 80s film and so forth...I personally see CA2 as the defining film which marks the turning point for the 2000-2010 look, which will is centered around the coming of age of the new compositing driven VFX techniques. IMO.

xyth
07-22-2003, 03:25 PM
Quizboy wrote:
I personally see CA2 as the defining film which marks the turning point for the 2000-2010 look...

Hm... So the fist Matrix just closed the 1990-2000 years? I personally believe that Mtrix ment to be the turning point. Even if the composing and the effects are cool in CA2, but do not forget that the Matrix gave back first that feeling what you felt reading a comics. (just check the sketches). Slow motion was used there frequently first than any other scifi or action movies. And there was a really good reason to freeze the time or whatever.

CA2 didn't had that reasons. At CA2 I felt that the slow motion caused to make longer the actual movie with half an hour... ;)

-xyth

Scott Harris
07-22-2003, 06:09 PM
"(When watching National Geographic movies of mountain climbers I'm also the type to always think, "but the guy taking the picture also climbed the mountain, and he did it with a camera!")"

Oh my God... what a good point... ha ha

Quizboy
07-23-2003, 07:15 PM
Hm... So the fist Matrix just closed the 1990-2000 years? I personally believe that Mtrix ment to be the turning point. Even if the composing and the effects are cool in CA2, but do not forget that the Matrix gave back first that feeling what you felt reading a comics. (just check the sketches). Slow motion was used there frequently first than any other scifi or action movies. And there was a really good reason to freeze the time or whatever.

The Matrix is obviously a better movie, so let's not even argue that. But i'm strictly talking look of the movie here. Matrix was certainly the culmination of that super-slickly post-produced style which was mastered by the 90's with its hyper shiny Hype Williams directed music videos and the Michael Bay back lighting in every scene cinematography.

And Matrix certainly 'introduced' the possibilities of compositing with a few key F/X shots which stand out. but if you now look at Charlie's Angels 2 where the possibilities of compositing have become less of the exception in a shot or transition, but the rule - we've got a film which looks way different than anything we saw in the 90's. It's gotten to the point that every scene is zooming through keyholes or transitioning with the curve of some character's hips or into a photo which starts moving (The Hulk) and it's like the screen has become this fluid canvas whose paint simply drips over the screen from scene to scene. I don't know if it's for the better or worse, but this decade doesn't bode well for the straight cut transition.

xyth
07-24-2003, 08:47 AM
Quizboy, I'm almost on your side. ;)

The evolution does not start with the CA2 and not even with the Matrix. (The big invention of the Matrix, the bullet-time, is not new either. You might seen it in some tv-spots (Honda) or whatever (an Enigma video)). It is a continuous developement, an evolution.

I'm sure the CA2 will be forgotten soon, as X-men and Spiderman is just vanishing nowadays. And those movies have some breathtaking effects as well.

I see exactly your point about CA2, but because the Matrix was the 'first' film with slo-mo fights and actions (and had a strange new world), the others just trying to copy that. Believe me, in CA2 they haven't started from the black board, they used the techniques which was mastered by the 90's. ;)

What do you think?
-xyth

Quizboy
07-24-2003, 10:00 AM
i agree.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 04:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.