Warbird Information Exchange

I'm highly allergic to CGI, but I've heard (but not seen) that the Ju 87 Stukas in Captain Corelli's Mandolin are pretty good. - FWIW.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

i hate cgi. If it's not real, i can't buy into it. I'm just going to say Memphis Belle. Put out over 20 years ago, it's not that bad. At least they used real b-17's and it opened the door to a new generation of people and put the story out there again.

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

If it's good cgi, you'll never know it. I doubt that there has been a major film released in the last ten years that didn't have some cgi in it, even if it was only to change the labels on product-placement soda cans.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

i think if you really know your planes and what your looking for, i think you would be able to tell what's real and what's not. Plus, if your on wix enough, there's going to be great info of what planes are going to be used in upcoming films

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

Agreed. It's solid for the small stuff. However 'good' CGI excludes 'full' vehicles and creatures front and centre of the screen. If the CGI wonks understand Newton's laws and basic physics, the director won't allow them to apply it because everything has to be cranked up to 11 like all the other films - so the performance of the vehicles is almost always overcranked, in movement, look, and viewing location.

If you don't know how an aircraft really flies (like most people) you may not notice, so there's no problem for the makers, just anyone who knows reality when it's not there.

We may see 'good CGI' aircraft as incidentals in movies. We won't see good CGI aircraft as a major prop-element anytime soon, if ever.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I´m of the opinion that "King Kong" proves you wrong on both points.
I´ll be very interested to see how Dambusters turns out.

Looks like a very nice video game animation. Better, but not 100%.
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

Apollo 13 had some good CGI stuff.
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

You're welcome to be of the opinion I'm wrong - but it isn't proof. We can agree to differ. (And I'm often wrong.)

Sure. I just wish Jackson would try to film a few more new stories rather than redoing others' work. Not a major criticism, just my preference. I don't see any reason to redo the Dam Busters given the thousands of other stories out there awaiting the budget and effort.

Back on topic, Jackson's team made a short film for the Australian War Memorial's Over the Front Great War display. There is a lot of CGI in it, including a CGI kite balloon, and multiplied aircraft (a vic of SE-5as become a squadron etc.) and overall it's very good, and to be fair, pretty convincing even to someone who knows some of the realities of the subject. The odd thing though is after spending thousands and huge effort to get all that stuff right, they leave the tailwheels on the Fokker Triplanes while they are sitting mid-screen, shot from the formation's wing. What an odd oversight!

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

An "Operation Tidal Wave" movie would be awesome!

_________________
I was gratified to answer promptly, I said "I don't know". - Mark Twain