CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-10-2013, 11:23 AM   #31
Grrrrrrr
God Shepherd
 
Grrrrrrr's Avatar
portfolio
Vladimir Teneslav
Environment Artist
Gameloft
Romania
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 986
Send a message via Yahoo to Grrrrrrr
Saw it this weekend also, found it to be a little better than Oz, but that doesn't say much since I could not watch that more than 30 minutes. Kinda ugly CG though.

Not a good movie in the end.
__________________
WhatWeMake
 
Old 06-10-2013, 11:30 AM   #32
thethule
whataguy!
portfolio
Marc Khachfe
3d animator
Zebra Crossing
North London, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrrrrrr
Saw it this weekend also, found it to be a little better than Oz, but that doesn't say much since I could not watch that more than 30 minutes. Kinda ugly CG though.

Not a good movie in the end.


Yeah, OZ was also absolutely terrible
__________________
www.weliketomakethings.com
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:06 PM   #33
earthboyjacobus
Saving the Earth everyday
portfolio
Bubba gump
United States Minor Outlying Islands
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Hey I liked Oz.
Except when the Wicked Witch was going off I cracked up because it simply sounded like Meg Griffin screaming.

I could not take that too seriously.
 
Old 06-12-2013, 08:37 AM   #34
thethule
whataguy!
portfolio
Marc Khachfe
3d animator
Zebra Crossing
North London, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboyjacobus
Hey I liked Oz.
Except when the Wicked Witch was going off I cracked up because it simply sounded like Meg Griffin screaming.

I could not take that too seriously.



Yeah, i thought so too. Haha

I thought Oz was so incredibly boring. And it looked horrible. I know they were going for a super saturated look, but i didnt think it worked at all. Plus pretty bad cgi throughout in my opinion
__________________
www.weliketomakethings.com
 
Old 06-12-2013, 08:53 AM   #35
Pyke
White Zulu
 
Pyke's Avatar
portfolio
Christopher Bischoff
Lead artist & game designer.
The Brotherhood
Johannesburg, South Africa
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,558
Send a message via MSN to Pyke

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboyjacobus
Except when the Wicked Witch was going off I cracked up because it simply sounded like Meg Griffin screaming.


Shutup Meg...
 
Old 06-12-2013, 05:56 PM   #36
joyceanblue
PRO
 
joyceanblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
Unbreakable had a budget of $70 million. Half of that went directly into the pockets of Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson and M. Night Shayamalan. More if you count stuff like their private jet expenses. These days, even some known name producers collect checks like that. It certainly isn't going into CG. If the CG budget is more than ten percent the total, I would be amazed.

Van Damme gives a great breakdown of where the money goes in his film JCVD.


i agree with you there, but that gets me back to my original question, where did that money go to? there was no star in that movie deserving big paychecks. Bryan Singer mustve gotten the biggest share of money but who else?
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:26 AM   #37
Geta-Ve
Jee-Tah-Vee
 
Geta-Ve's Avatar
portfolio
Michael Jarvis
Freelance Modeller
Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
I just saw one in season three of Game of Thrones. Blew me away it was done so well.


I agree 100% I was amazed when I saw it. But then GoT has so very few bad scenes. :P
__________________
Art Station - Tumblr
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:31 PM   #38
trevanian
Expert
Kevin H. Martin
freelance writer
USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
Unbreakable had a budget of $70 million. Half of that went directly into the pockets of Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson and M. Night Shayamalan. More if you count stuff like their private jet expenses. These days, even some known name producers collect checks like that. It certainly isn't going into CG. If the CG budget is more than ten percent the total, I would be amazed.

Van Damme gives a great breakdown of where the money goes in his film JCVD.


Not disputing UNBREAKABLE, but of nearly the same time period, THE MUMMY had a budget of about 60 mil, and a full 20 of that went to VFX, mostly ILM. That's the first time I had heard of post work being such a huge percentage of a total budget for a picture that wasn't some kind of 2001-level effort, but my impression is that this became the norm this century.
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:36 PM   #39
trevanian
Expert
Kevin H. Martin
freelance writer
USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
Why oh why do the giants have to be CG?! They look like people! They could have gotten great actors to play the giants in makeup and composited them in. I agree about not only being over having so many CG menaces on screen, but definitely being over unnecessary CG menaces. I can understand a cool, designed creature, but a giant?!


I talked with Singer briefly a couple weeks back and he is still firmly of the belief that all the cues in nature from shooting a real person playing a giant betray scale in all sorts of ways. In fact, he replaced another guy who was supposed to direct JACK but wanted to do the film with actors in suits for giants.

I think the good-actors-in-costume thing worked fine in SNOW ... HUNTMAN (and in TIME BANDITS too, where they had a short stocky guy as a giant), but I guess everybody's mileage varies on this topic.
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:42 PM   #40
circusboy
Expert
Raonull Conover
Montreal, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevanian
Not disputing UNBREAKABLE, but of nearly the same time period, THE MUMMY had a budget of about 60 mil, and a full 20 of that went to VFX, mostly ILM. That's the first time I had heard of post work being such a huge percentage of a total budget for a picture that wasn't some kind of 2001-level effort, but my impression is that this became the norm this century.

Hmm-if the MUMMY were done today I wonder:
a) if the studio would have only asked for and only paid 5 million for the same VFX.
b) it would look better still - but not suggesting it had any horrendous cg faults (like the sequel did)
c) cost 120-300 million overall anyway wasted on who knows what?!
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:42 PM   #41
CGTalk Moderation
Lord of the posts
CGTalk Forum Leader
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,066,481
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.