|
Post by VES on Mar 3, 2005 2:11:57 GMT
Hines' Martians (that does sound funny...) Judging by what we've seen, what the budget keeps changing to.... ....at this rate, it'll be Gary Coleman with tentacles duct taped to him.
O.o.... eek.
*pictures Coleman jumping out of a cylinder at the main character*
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Mar 3, 2005 18:58:20 GMT
"what we've seen, what the budget keeps changing to.... ....at this rate, it'll be Gary Coleman with tentacles duct taped to him."
Or a fake Rubber Octopus, with Hines moving the tentacles, a la Johnny Depp as Ed Wood making a no budget film in "Ed Wood".
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Mar 3, 2005 20:58:33 GMT
In the "cast messages" ( ;D) there is a drawing on the wall behind that oh so tallented cast of a martian, its next to the movie "poster" (LOL) is that the one they used...?
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Mar 3, 2005 21:00:52 GMT
Oh and sky captain was crap, one way to make crap FX look good is to make the whole thing look crap and pretend you did it on purpose, the only thing more fake than the FX was the acting. Mind you compare it to Pendragon and its fu*king starwars.
|
|
|
Post by twistedrabbit on Mar 3, 2005 21:09:41 GMT
In defense of Sky Captain...it's a low budget movie with a big backing. The director had a vision and was lucky enough to spark interest...he never intended it to grow so big...but he ended up having to direct and it was his first movie. I didn't think it was that bad...just because the fact it had good music and a lot of action. Yes, the cg was bad...but most of the time it became the style.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Mar 3, 2005 21:20:05 GMT
In defense of Sky Captain...it's a low budget movie with a big backing. The director had a vision and was lucky enough to spark interest...he never intended it to grow so big...but he ended up having to direct and it was his first movie. I didn't think it was that bad...just because the fact it had good music and a lot of action. Yes, the cg was bad...but most of the time it became the style. To be fair I did like the ending with the ark rocket ship, very retro, and the sky platforms with the union jack on em were cool I just found it difficult at times with my brain screaming "THIS ISNT REAL!" but it did have Angelina Jollie so it wasnt a right off, its not one I would buy on DVD though.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 3, 2005 22:34:18 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Having only just got to see Sky Captain in the cinema I have to say I was very, very impressed. [/glow] I watched SKY CAPTAIN when it came out on DVD and I was impressed with it's style. Its a fun movie and a worth while addition to your sci-fi collection.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 3, 2005 23:06:21 GMT
The fighting machine is going to be both CGI and puppetry. Apparently its a ten foot model operated by a team of puppeteers. Didn't know that 'Airfix' did models that big in there sci-fi range
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Mar 4, 2005 8:11:54 GMT
Personally I was horribly disappointed by 'Sky Captain'. I thought the CG graphics were blurry (presumably to save money by rendering at low resolution), the actors were horribly mis-cast, and the plot was full of more holes than I could count. There are a lot of people too young to be able to appreciate "Sky Captain". Perhaps when you get older you'll have watched a few of the films "Sky Captain" is referencing, such as the old Flash Gordon serials, and '40s era "film noir," and then you'll understand why the film had the look it did. By the way, it's called "soft focus", not "blurry". And if you'd seen some Hepburn & Tracy romantic comedies, perhaps you wouldn't think Law and Paltrow were miscast. Gwyneth Paltrow in particular did a great job of a period "cool blonde" performance. And the plot holes were exactly the sort of thing you'd see in a '30s-style movie serial. "Sky Captain" was an homage to that kind of film. Too bad you didn't "get it".
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Mar 4, 2005 10:29:25 GMT
I agree with lensman, it was meant to look Soft, it was meant to look like a modern retro remake of a 30's movie and on that count it scored very high. The story was ok (Still don't get why a british aviator would be flying an american plane) and the cast was also ok. Plus ... you have to love a movie where the "british" save the day for a change, unlike all the hollywood tripe and history re-writing that goes on today. It is one i'll add to my DVD collection, but not until it hits the £7.99 mark Slick2097.
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Mar 4, 2005 10:39:26 GMT
I just think digital composite is a black art and only a handful of companies in the world can do it right. To me the live action composite in Sky captain looks like every scene was filmed in front of a rear projection green screen - WETA and ILM got the best composite abilities at the moment IMO.
Regardless of what the martians actually look like - if you can see the keyed composite layers overlapping each other on every frame it'll be annoying as hell to watch regardless of the actual design or implementation of the CG action sequences - unfortunately the big 'orange blob' and the striding tripod legs ( as has already been observed) are visibily composited even in a seriously low res web trailer...when the 'spidery' handling machine actually moves ( other than the still which does look cool) only then will we know if that 'fire' actually envelopes it or is another nasty 'fire, then machine, then fire' layer with a few 'other layers' on top for good measure...
I'm still in serious fear of the thunderchild sequence - water is just the hardest thing to do - we certainly aren't going to get the kind of CGI storm water we saw in clone Wars when Kenobi goes to inspect the clone army...
|
|
|
Post by Slick2097 on Mar 4, 2005 11:37:02 GMT
Sky captain was filmed entirely infront of a green screen, that was the point I think ...
I agree about the water ... it will be very very difficult to do. lets see what happens.
Slick2097.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 4, 2005 11:39:15 GMT
Although the water CGI in 'The Day After Tomorrow' I thought was very photo realistic.
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Mar 4, 2005 11:45:57 GMT
Yeah Day After tomorrow was great water CGI - who did that emmerich's own company or did he farm it out ? Perfect storm has awesome CGI water as well...how much did that cost ?
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 4, 2005 11:48:14 GMT
Without watching the 2nd disc of 'extras' I could not tell you.
|
|
|
Post by flynnsixtysix on Mar 4, 2005 11:52:25 GMT
funny - this may have been mentioned before - but I was just looking at gorns archive and noticed the old pre 911 concept picture of the FM's and noticed that the legs are basically the SAME as those in the trailer - NOW if they had already spent $8mill on the 'modern seattle' based version they'd likely have already had the CGI FM's mostly rendered - does that mean that THESE are in fact Hine's Martian FM's in all their glory - maybe he's just silvered them up a litte rather than the burnished brass in the picture - fully revealed in the concept art shot ?? home.wanadoo.nl/smien/pendragon/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Mar 4, 2005 11:58:45 GMT
I'm not sure if the (cgi)models would have been finished back in 2001. But I do believe the FM's will be basically the same. The 2001 concept for the HM for example, looks almost the same as the one published recently.
The reason I think they will look the same is, as Flynn stated, that the legs look simular, and that they are Mr. Hines' vision of the FMs, and it wouldn't matter if they appeared in an updated version or an authentic one.
edit: Oh, and not to forget the heatray!
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Mar 4, 2005 12:06:58 GMT
I have seen the 2001 art for the FM many times and looking at the newer shot of the FM, the legs (to me) are not the same. The HM legs are the same though, even though the 2001 art shows it to have 6 legs (copying JW?) and the new to have its original 5 with extra 'clutching' claws and arms.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Mar 4, 2005 16:32:03 GMT
According to an article I read ages ago dated before 9/11 the CG for the handling machines and some FM work had already been completed by Foundation Imaging, if these shots were technicaly superior to Pendragons in house effects does it not make sense for Pendragon to have used them in the new version?
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on Mar 4, 2005 16:40:17 GMT
Sky captain was filmed entirely infront of a green screen, that was the point I think ... But it wasn't mean to _look like_ it was shot entirely in front of a green screen: and I agree, it did... most obviously because of the lousy acting that created. IMHO the main thing that 'Sky Captain' demonstrated is that shooting a movie entirely in front of a green screen is a bad idea unless you have a very talented cast and director.
|
|