The GRAVITY Reviews Declare: GRAVITY Grabs You, Pulls You In, And Never Lets Go.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2014   #91
I think at this point, except for the most terrible examples, and again, most of the good ones you will never know about, the face and performance are about all you're left needing from the actor, the rest is down to time and budget.

If the cinematography wasn't so horrible in Man of Steel, I'm sure you could see lots of seamless work in there, and tons of places you were basically just left with the actor's head in the scenes you could see clearly. Or Iron Man 1/2/3, etc. etc. plenty of handoffs between wire work and CG bodies or full digidoubles in there that worked just fine, especially on 3.

Anyway this is sounding like the same discussion again.
 
Old 03 March 2014   #92
Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh: What's bullshit? That they wanted to use the real actress where they could, why would they replace the entire body of Bullock in the ISS interior shots?

Where it was appropriate, in the external shots, they used CG spacesuits and in some shots even CG heads. But since it was still meant to be a live action movie with VFX and not an animated feature, they shot as much of the actress as it was sensibly possible.

Also remember that there is no only one way to anything and different directors and VFX supes may make different choices...


That's exactly how it should be, and I agree.

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh: Yeah, to be honest I think it's more about how his own topic on this general digital double issue has turned out...



That's not the thread I am referring to. I am talking about a thread months ago with much discussion on flying. Superman, Potter, Crouching Tiger etc. The general consensus was that wirework was "the old way", looked lame, fake etc. and that the CGI tech we have today is the way to go. No allowances were being made for "Where it was appropriate...", as you say. It was more a case of it should just be thrown out.

Digital technology has grown far beyond "make everything CGI". Flying can be done with much more complex wire rigs. They don't need to be invisible anymore and they can be painted out. Amalgamated Dynamics is doing amazing practical monster stuff, because you can have more rods and wires on a puppet, and simply paint them out.

What they did in Gravity, in the ISS station is the best zero G I have ever seen. It was completely convincing. You ask, "why would they replace the entire body of Bullock in the ISS interior shots?" I am not the one to ask. Ask those who seem to think everything should be CGI.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 03 March 2014   #93
Thanks for clarifying your point.

Wires aren't completely phased out, yes, but a lot of that work may be easier or - more importantly - safer with a digital double. Again, it all has to be carefully considered.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
Old 03 March 2014   #94
Break out the unpopular opinion puffin because I must be the only person who did not like this movie as a whole (outside of the technical cinematography, effects and editing). The movie was getting such basic things about the environment and realities of spaceflight so backwards that I could not suspend belief enough to enjoy the flick. If you don't respect some basic realities of environment, then what are you accomplishing in the story? For that just make it totally sci-fi. Can someone PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME what force was pulling Clooney away when Sandra had to let him go. It sure as hell wasn't gravity or centrifugal force. When you cheat such basic things like that, you have no right to call your story compelling.

Aside form that the characters were way underdeveloped and I think the movie could have done better without Clooney and Bullock. Not that I don't like them, but because I think their star power over-saturated any story that could have been there. Could have been cast with lesser known talent.

I think a lot of movies do this theme much better, and I wonder how much of the hype has to do with the people involved as opposed to the product itself.
__________________
-

Visual Engineering, Inc.
Creative Communication | Industry Consultation

Last edited by BoBoZoBo : 03 March 2014 at 08:27 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2014   #95
Originally Posted by teruchan: That's exactly how it should be, and I agree.




That's not the thread I am referring to. I am talking about a thread months ago with much discussion on flying. Superman, Potter, Crouching Tiger etc. The general consensus was that wirework was "the old way", looked lame, fake etc. and that the CGI tech we have today is the way to go. No allowances were being made for "Where it was appropriate...", as you say. It was more a case of it should just be thrown out.


There was lots and lots and lots of wire work with real people in the Potter movies. Every one of them. I stood and watched it happen on set.
 
Old 03 March 2014   #96
Originally Posted by BoBoZoBo: Aside form that the characters were way underdeveloped and I think the movie could have done better without Clooney and Bullock. Not that I don't like them, but because I think their star power over-saturated any story that could have been there. Could have been cast with lesser known talent.


 
Old 03 March 2014   #97
Honestly, I was waiting for someone to post this:

__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 03 March 2014   #98
''Bullock is set to make at least $70 million from the film after agreeing a deal that gives her a 15 per cent cut of the takings in addition to her $20 million fee.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...om-Gravity.html
 
Old 03 March 2014   #99
Originally Posted by BoBoZoBo: Break out the unpopular opinion puffin because I must be the only person who did not like this movie as a whole (outside of the technical cinematography, effects and editing). The movie was getting such basic things about the environment and realities of spaceflight so backwards that I could not suspend belief enough to enjoy the flick. If you don't respect some basic realities of environment, then what are you accomplishing in the story? For that just make it totally sci-fi. Can someone PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME what force was pulling Clooney away when Sandra had to let him go. It sure as hell wasn't gravity or centrifugal force. When you cheat such basic things like that, you have no right to call your story compelling.

Aside form that the characters were way underdeveloped and I think the movie could have done better without Clooney and Bullock. Not that I don't like them, but because I think their star power over-saturated any story that could have been there. Could have been cast with lesser known talent.

I think a lot of movies do this theme much better, and I wonder how much of the hype has to do with the people involved as opposed to the product itself.


this is exactly my problem with the movie as well as my not caring for Bullock. as I said in an earlier post there are movies you go to where you suspend belief, even science, and enjoy the movie. However; when a movie is set in the here and now and science is supposed to follow the laws we know, when the movie doesn't follow then I get pulled away from the movie and I lose interest.
__________________
MALA IPSA NOVA
 
Old 03 March 2014   #100
Curse you guys for posting that Honest Trailers clip. A warning to everyone else, do not go to their youtube channel and especially do not watch the one on Pacific Rim (I lost the power to breath and my monitor suffered severe tear bullet damage), do watch After Earth and World War Z though, thats ok.

Sorry for the OT, you have been warned
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Old 05 May 2014   #101
'Deconstructing Gravity' Gives an Inside Look at Oscar-Winning VFX Technologies
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/be...n-inside-704169
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
reply share thread



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 06:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.