Oh my God, you guys are so friggin' picky. It is VERY GOOD CGI, mention something better at least other than LOTR.
Gollum is like animating a corpse? Gollum was the most believable CGI character I've ever seen in a movie period. He had the whole body expression to go along with his face and voice. Final Fantasy IMO was incredible looking, but the animation and movement felt dead. There is a point where they try so hard to make it look realistic that it just looks lifeless. That's what happened in Final Fantasy, it felt lifeless. Gollum on the other hand wasn't. I was fooled in LOTR to thinking it was a real character in the movie, Final Fantasy and Star Wars never gave me that impression.
Anubis
No Lifer
Gollum looked exactly what Gollum should have looked like in my mind and isn't that the point.
I saw the Matrix trailer with X2 and you can see the moment when CGI replaces the live action with the 360degree kicking w/stick scene. The agent jumping on the car looked like a cartoon as well. The "twins" look very good though.
I saw the Matrix trailer with X2 and you can see the moment when CGI replaces the live action with the 360degree kicking w/stick scene. The agent jumping on the car looked like a cartoon as well. The "twins" look very good though.
Maybe it's intentional - a lot of the cool scenes in the first Matrix looked obviously fake, but stylized.
I think part of the "style" is supposed to look a bit unreal or otherwordly if you will.
Remember that most of the scenes you're seeing in the trailer occur in the computer generated Matrix, not truly real life.
I think I remember seeing Industrial Lights and Magic credited, if so, it doesn't get much better...
Now, on the other hand, Hulk looks like a$$ from the trailer I saw.
Remember that most of the scenes you're seeing in the trailer occur in the computer generated Matrix, not truly real life.
I think I remember seeing Industrial Lights and Magic credited, if so, it doesn't get much better...
Now, on the other hand, Hulk looks like a$$ from the trailer I saw.
kami
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 17,627
- 5
- 81
It looks much better on the big screen, though I agree not totally real.
The quicktime versions actually mask quite a bit of detail cause of the compression...this affects CG more than it does real footage. I can think of a lot of movies that looked much better in the theater (and on DVD).
It all looks pretty stunning in the Ultra (1000x540) version though, especially the agent car crush scene. Watch carefully when the agent jumps off and the glass and debris explodes everywhere - very realistic. The only weak point in that shot is the agent himself. the model is good, but the main problem is that it looks like his clothes are attached to his body.
At any rate, what I have seen so far will not ruin the movie for me. I am totally pumped for it.
The quicktime versions actually mask quite a bit of detail cause of the compression...this affects CG more than it does real footage. I can think of a lot of movies that looked much better in the theater (and on DVD).
It all looks pretty stunning in the Ultra (1000x540) version though, especially the agent car crush scene. Watch carefully when the agent jumps off and the glass and debris explodes everywhere - very realistic. The only weak point in that shot is the agent himself. the model is good, but the main problem is that it looks like his clothes are attached to his body.
At any rate, what I have seen so far will not ruin the movie for me. I am totally pumped for it.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
I think that if you care that much about the CGI, you don't deserve to see the movie. I hate people who ruin a great movie (plot wise) by their whinning about the CGI. I am a huge CGI person, but I don't look at stuff through a magnifying glass. The only CGI that I really hate was the Rock at the end of Mummy Returns. That was so bad that it almost ruined the entire ending. However, this stuff looks like it's been polished up pretty good. It could use a bit more, but I want to see the movie, not wait another year for them to get everything looking perfect. Just enjoy the story and use the CGI as support material.
I didn't notice much from the commercial and trailer, but I did hear that the spent around 2 years rendering the fight and car chase scene, so i hardly think it is going to suck in the theatres. Maybe the scenes in the commercial aren't the final version that is going to be in the movie.
But my argument might prove pointless, b/c some of your opinions might not change after seeing the cgi in the movie b/c of the strong biases you have now
To quick to judge can ruin things for ya
But my argument might prove pointless, b/c some of your opinions might not change after seeing the cgi in the movie b/c of the strong biases you have now
To quick to judge can ruin things for ya
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
in final fantasy they were supposed to render humans in a lifelike manner. they failed. life like humans is basically the hardest thing out there. the more cartoonish, grotesque, hideous or monsterously deformed a character you have to render, the easier it becomes. humans are very very good at recognizing other humans, which applies quite a bit less with monsterous things. the closer you get to truely human rendering, the more aweful any defect sticks out.
face it, gollum rendering was made far easier by the fact that he was gollum. a distorted monsterous creature which basically had the complexion of a corpse. not much different from final fantasy if you think about it, except it was MEANT to be that way. not to mention he was basically hairless which helped even more. there are degrees of difficulty like it or not, i know you like gollum and its probably blinding you. there are inherent level of difficulties in rendering certain things in cg. a t1000 is far easier then say...gollum. gollum is far easier then say... a human. gollum is dobbie, with a better part.
I don't know, I kinda like the "comic-book"-style, outrageous effects such as the jumping on and smashing of the car on the freeway, as well as the 360 degree kick. This is a completely fantasy land. It doesn't have to look like he's REALLY jumping on a car and destroying it. I mean cmon... Keanu is FLYING!
this might be the reason...no ILM
"This is a massive operation," Gaeta says. "It's the biggest thing that's ever been done that isn't ILM (Industrial Light & Magic) doing 'Star Wars.' It's much bigger than 'The Lord of the Rings.' And we got some stellar performances out of these third-party companies."
"ESC, the visual effects company formed by the Wachowskis and Warner Bros. Pictures to handle effects for the "Matrix" sequels, which incorporate more than 2,000 shots on a combined VFX budget said to be in the vicinity of $100 million. Warner Bros. Pictures is a division of AOL Time Warner, as is CNN.com.
In addition to ESC -- named after the "get-me-outta-here button" on a computer keyboard and pronounced, by some, "escape" -- work spilled over to eight or nine other firms, including Tippett Studios, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Giant Killer Robots, Australia's Animal Logic and Paris-based BUF Compagnie. In all, 800-1,000 people worldwide were striving for a synchronized vision.
That combination of creative energy and technical savvy has made ESC "easily more capable than any other effects firm in the industry," says Gaeta, who works at Eon but was part of the team at Manex, the now-defunct Bay Area effects house that handled the original "Matrix" film. "It's a magic combination. In terms of talent and technology, they've surpassed everyone, in my opinion."
The fate of ESC and its 290 employees is not clear beyond the completion of "Revolutions." It is not uncommon for talented effects guns to move from project to project and facility to facility, following their fancy as well as industry demand. But Gaeta hopes for a miracle, even as he laments some industry trends -- specifically, that the volume required by today's tentpole releases has resulted, to a large degree, in the commoditization of visual effects.
"This is a massive operation," Gaeta says. "It's the biggest thing that's ever been done that isn't ILM (Industrial Light & Magic) doing 'Star Wars.' It's much bigger than 'The Lord of the Rings.' And we got some stellar performances out of these third-party companies."
"ESC, the visual effects company formed by the Wachowskis and Warner Bros. Pictures to handle effects for the "Matrix" sequels, which incorporate more than 2,000 shots on a combined VFX budget said to be in the vicinity of $100 million. Warner Bros. Pictures is a division of AOL Time Warner, as is CNN.com.
In addition to ESC -- named after the "get-me-outta-here button" on a computer keyboard and pronounced, by some, "escape" -- work spilled over to eight or nine other firms, including Tippett Studios, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Giant Killer Robots, Australia's Animal Logic and Paris-based BUF Compagnie. In all, 800-1,000 people worldwide were striving for a synchronized vision.
That combination of creative energy and technical savvy has made ESC "easily more capable than any other effects firm in the industry," says Gaeta, who works at Eon but was part of the team at Manex, the now-defunct Bay Area effects house that handled the original "Matrix" film. "It's a magic combination. In terms of talent and technology, they've surpassed everyone, in my opinion."
The fate of ESC and its 290 employees is not clear beyond the completion of "Revolutions." It is not uncommon for talented effects guns to move from project to project and facility to facility, following their fancy as well as industry demand. But Gaeta hopes for a miracle, even as he laments some industry trends -- specifically, that the volume required by today's tentpole releases has resulted, to a large degree, in the commoditization of visual effects.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,031
- 14
- 81
After seeing what can be done with smaller independent shops like the ones used in LotR and the first Matrix, I see no reason for the CGI in Reloaded to be anything but spectacular. I will of course see Reloaded when it comes out, regardless. I'm just saying that the CGI in the trailers looks like crap. Plain and simple.
Man I've heard people say that a lot too... but for me that's one of the more realistic looking scenes...
That's really weird... I guess it truly does depend on who you are...
And to everyone commenting on the effects in the trailer, they DO look a lot better on the big screen. All of my friends and I saw some movie and there was the Matrix Reloaded trailer, and we thought they had redone it it looked so good. The colortones and lighting just seemed to make everything look so much more realistic.
So just wait until you see it on the big screen... your confidence will be restored.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,031
- 14
- 81
I saw the trailer in the theater last night before seeing X2. It did look a litttle bit different. The agent fight scene looked better. But the trucks in the chase scene still looked a bit odd, and the agent jumping on the car definitely still looked bad.
Yes, we aren't allowed to speak bad about any movies ever, because we can do no better.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter