|
Post by Spirit of Man on May 8, 2006 0:49:09 GMT
Looks awsome, will be interesting to see how this is (re)packaged as a film.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 8, 2006 2:58:31 GMT
In the Tour CGI there is a part where the real Russell Watson on stage is lifted into the screen (not literally, obviously, but appears to be) and dropped into the Handling Machine basket. I actually asked if the on screen person was a real actor melded with the CGI or purely CGI as I couldn't tell (although, to be fair, he was pretty much sillhouetted most of the time). Turns out he was CGI. Doug Fiddler (the director of the CGI) told me that photo-realistic CGI can be done, given the time and budget... neither of which they had for the Tour. Having said that, I liked the real actors in it. It gave it something it might not have had otherwise and worked really well for the Tour. Whether that would work as well in a 2 hour movie is another thing. Well the most realistic cgi humans I've seen so far are the ones in Final Fantasy but that film cost I think it was about 100 million dollars plus. Even then I'm still sure some people would call it a cartoon because it's known as an animated film [ and bunch it in with Polar Express etc ]. It seems a hell of an effort to me to create cgi people when you can just blend live actors into the background - like they did in Sky Captain [ and the trailer ].
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on May 8, 2006 4:57:55 GMT
Personally, after seeing the quality of the CGI used in the trailer for the tour, I am willing to trust the movies CGI directors/renderers to make the decision between whether to use CGI or real actors... I'm sure they'll make the right decision based on their budgets, capabilities and what they think will work best. It'll be interesting to find out what that decision is... but for now We'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 9, 2006 2:04:10 GMT
I don't like it - when I have more time I'll go into details on why... Itching to know why Marcus!
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on May 9, 2006 3:02:16 GMT
Sorry - thought I had already replied to this...
Right, well first of all I don't agree with the size of the Tripods. Not, I'm not complaining because I'm a purist to the book, but having something that big just seems stupid - not only does it remove the feeling of agility and menace, but it also makes them seem impossible to kill, and thus removes the feeling of hope humanity could ever have. This size also makes the heatray look really big - like in that scene where it destroys an entire town in a few moments with one heatray - they are just TOO powerful, TOO epic.
Also, I don't like the design of the Martian - true, this is a personal preferance, but I thought it was overly complex and needlessly 'alien' in design. Like - my perfect medium would be between the current Live Show version, and the Concept Art version we've seen.
I do however LOVE the Red Weed - perfect interprutation. Hmmm... I will add to this in the morning, but right now I'm going to go do coursework. Just wanted to let ya'll know I hadn't forgot.
Ohhh - and in my opinion the best CGI humans where in New Captain Scarlet - because they where just cartoonish enough to stand the test of time, while Final Fantasy is SOOOO detailed that it quickly looks old.
Does that make sense?
- Marcus
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 9, 2006 7:24:44 GMT
Sorry - thought I had already replied to this... Right, well first of all I don't agree with the size of the Tripods. Not, I'm not complaining because I'm a purist to the book, but having something that big just seems stupid - not only does it remove the feeling of agility and menace, but it also makes them seem impossible to kill, and thus removes the feeling of hope humanity could ever have. This size also makes the heatray look really big - like in that scene where it destroys an entire town in a few moments with one heatray - they are just TOO powerful, TOO epic. Also, I don't like the design of the Martian - true, this is a personal preferance, but I thought it was overly complex and needlessly 'alien' in design. Like - my perfect medium would be between the current Live Show version, and the Concept Art version we've seen. I do however LOVE the Red Weed - perfect interprutation. Hmmm... I will add to this in the morning, but right now I'm going to go do coursework. Just wanted to let ya'll know I hadn't forgot. Ohhh - and in my opinion the best CGI humans where in New Captain Scarlet - because they where just cartoonish enough to stand the test of time, while Final Fantasy is SOOOO detailed that it quickly looks old. Does that make sense? - Marcus I see what your saying about the heat ray Marcus. I don't want to start another 'I'm right and your idea sucks' thing but I'm gonna disagree with you about the heat ray. I think that it's a good size and power because I think Wells' did describe a single fighting machine wiping Leatherhead out (Even if he didn't describe the length of time it took to level the town) I still think that it needs to have some power in it. Personal opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 9, 2006 7:40:35 GMT
Well the most realistic cgi humans I've seen so far are the ones in Final Fantasy but that film cost I think it was about 100 million dollars plus. <snip> It seems a hell of an effort to me to create cgi people when you can just blend live actors into the background - like they did in Sky Captain. Indeed. I understand why they want to have realistic, human-looking CGI stunt doubles, because they can do things too dangerous or too hard for real actors. But why go to the trouble and great expense of trying to animate a digital "actor" with realistic movement and expression, when it's so much easier and more spontaneous to use a real human? Yet that seems to be the "holy grail" that CGI animation keeps trying for. I don't think "Final Fantasy" succeeded very well in such things as skin reflectivity and naturalistic finger movements. If you could combine the skills and software used on that film with the motion-capture animation and multi-layer skin reflectivity of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, then perhaps you could create a convincing human "digital actor." But as we've said-- why go to enormous trouble and expense for an imitation, when the real thing is so much easier and cheaper?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 9, 2006 15:25:59 GMT
Well the most realistic cgi humans I've seen so far are the ones in Final Fantasy but that film cost I think it was about 100 million dollars plus. <snip> It seems a hell of an effort to me to create cgi people when you can just blend live actors into the background - like they did in Sky Captain. Indeed. I understand why they want to have realistic, human-looking CGI stunt doubles, because they can do things too dangerous or too hard for real actors. But why go to the trouble and great expense of trying to animate a digital "actor" with realistic movement and expression, when it's so much easier and more spontaneous to use a real human? Yet that seems to be the "holy grail" that CGI animation keeps trying for. I don't think "Final Fantasy" succeeded very well in such things as skin reflectivity and naturalistic finger movements. If you could combine the skills and software used on that film with the motion-capture animation and multi-layer skin reflectivity of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, then perhaps you could create a convincing human "digital actor." But as we've said-- why go to enormous trouble and expense for an imitation, when the real thing is so much easier and cheaper? And maybe the less effort they have to put in trying to make the humans look convincing - the more effort they can put into getting the other special effects as good as possible.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 9, 2006 15:36:45 GMT
Sorry - thought I had already replied to this... Right, well first of all I don't agree with the size of the Tripods. Not, I'm not complaining because I'm a purist to the book, but having something that big just seems stupid - not only does it remove the feeling of agility and menace, but it also makes them seem impossible to kill, and thus removes the feeling of hope humanity could ever have. This size also makes the heatray look really big - like in that scene where it destroys an entire town in a few moments with one heatray - they are just TOO powerful, TOO epic. Also, I don't like the design of the Martian - true, this is a personal preferance, but I thought it was overly complex and needlessly 'alien' in design. Like - my perfect medium would be between the current Live Show version, and the Concept Art version we've seen. I do however LOVE the Red Weed - perfect interprutation. Hmmm... I will add to this in the morning, but right now I'm going to go do coursework. Just wanted to let ya'll know I hadn't forgot. Ohhh - and in my opinion the best CGI humans where in New Captain Scarlet - because they where just cartoonish enough to stand the test of time, while Final Fantasy is SOOOO detailed that it quickly looks old. Does that make sense? - Marcus I sort of see what you mean about the heatray and the tripods but there again even though they're bigger - they still don't appear too invincible to me. The thing is - would tripods the same 'size' as the book - look good enough today on screen. I think some dramatic effect might have to be used otherwise everything might look too unspectacular - and I think any film called TWOTW 'has' to be spectacular. Otherwise we're heading towards something that looks cheap or low budget. I'll have to have another look at the aliens but I didn't think they looked too bad on the clip.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on May 9, 2006 15:45:17 GMT
The Cgi/Real life combo reminded me of Knightmare, awwwwww.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 9, 2006 15:56:04 GMT
The Cgi/Real life combo reminded me of Knightmare, awwwwww. Well hopefully these are only test shots.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on May 9, 2006 16:24:10 GMT
Well - I see it this way... the film is set in the late 1800's, and a 100ft tall was MASSIVE then compared to nearly everything around it... now though its small.
But 500ft tall is going to look rediculously large compared to such small scenery and surroundings.
Like - yes, it would be more impressive and nessecary to increase the size today, but the film isn't based today...
Does that make sense? I can't quiet word it as fluidly as I'd like. -LOL-.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 9, 2006 16:45:08 GMT
Yes it makes sense. Are the tripods really 500ft high though? In the trailer the tripods foot looked big but it didn't look as if it belonged to something 500ft high.
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on May 9, 2006 18:37:35 GMT
after being gone from the boards and all things WOTW for so long, seeing this trailer leaves me fairly excited. i like the 'pulse' effect of the heat ray as it is pumped into the surrounding environment. i have liked the tripod walk sequence since i first saw the test release of it.
what i don't like is the obvious repeating of human characters using cgi matte compositing. i do agree with using human actors, considering the budget and the possibilities of making it look good. but watching a great mass of them at one time, and it being glaringly obvious that many of those people are in fact the same people but repeated over and over again, well that looks cheesy to me.
but other than that, like i said i'm fairly excited about this. and only FAIRLY because i was so dissappointed with the Pendragon version, which i was greatly excited about.
the martians look bad ass, and they are familiar, and most of the trailer looks good. just fix the repetitive people thing, k JW guys who are making this movie?
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on May 9, 2006 22:00:54 GMT
what i don't like is the obvious repeating of human characters using cgi matte compositing. i do agree with using human actors, considering the budget and the possibilities of making it look good. but watching a great mass of them at one time, and it being glaringly obvious that many of those people are in fact the same people but repeated over and over again, well that looks cheesy to me. I noticed this a lot in the still shots of the CGI that I saw in another thread...(such as the pic of steamer, where there's this guy with a white shirt, and brown tie, hat and jacket who is especially noticable... )... but didn't think it was so much of a problem in the actual trailer itself, as the crowds are constantly moving so it is not so obvious. I can understand why this has been done, though... it's far cheaper and more convenient to hire and re-use a small group of actors than have to film a whole crowd.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on May 9, 2006 23:29:19 GMT
The Cgi/Real life combo reminded me of Knightmare, awwwwww. Well hopefully these are only test shots. Test shots? For what, the movie? The trailer is from the CGI for the tour. Not test shots. As I've said before, as far as the film goes, JWM don't even know for sure whether it will be of a similar format to the Tour CGI or fully animated. It is by no means certain how much of the CGI used in the Tour, if any, will end up in the finished movie. Re- tripod height, they tend to vary a bit... one for the nitpickers, I guess. There was a glimpse of a concept sketch on the Collector's Edition DVD which showed them as 400 feet high.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 10, 2006 14:11:54 GMT
The picture showing the large crown on Horsell Common and the crowd alongside the steamer remind me of those books from the 1990s "Where's Walley". Remember him, red jumper, bobble hat and glasses that used to hide in the picture and you had to find him. . . But in this case its "Where's The Bloke In The Waist Coat With A Shaved Head". The new look to the Martians, (as I have already pointed out on another thread) look great, but a little too nasty for the style of the machines. I think they need to be more simplified, such as the early rendition from 2004. . . . I liked this one.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on May 10, 2006 14:19:39 GMT
I can't really make out the new martians propperly from the trailer and pics, are there any sketches or anything simpler?
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 10, 2006 14:43:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on May 10, 2006 17:09:59 GMT
At the end of the day, this all looked GREAT on the projector onstage- and that was what it was made for. I note that the designs aren't exactly like those of the R&D footage, perhaps showing either the evolution of the footage or that they did what they could in a remarkably short timespan. I feel sure that this is not how the movie is going to look (stylistically)- the heat ray is too apocalyptic in places. There's nothing wrong with that- what we've seen is perfect in the sense of a music video...
|
|