Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 5614 Location: Somerset, MA & Johnston, RI
Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Is there any movies out there where the CGI is acceptable.... or dear god.... perhaps good?
_________________ Scott Rose Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry
Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere. ------------------------------------------------------- This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you, consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions) So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.
Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm Posts: 719 Location: Johnson City, TN
Don't know, but my biggest gripe is that they put too many airplanes on screen and they don't get turns looking right. Straight and level can look amazing though.
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am Posts: 5614 Location: Eastern Washington
I don't find the B-24 in Unbreakable to be objectionable. Better than most model crashes seen in films.
_________________ Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see. Note political free signature. I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.
Agree that the B-24 in Unbroken was very good, and agree with bipe that formation scenes are way overdone- Pearl Harbor comes to mind- the CGI of single aircraft was quite good, but it looked awful when then had 80+ aircraft filling the scene.
I thought the fictional German aircraft in Captain America were excellent.
Flight with Denzel Washington
C-130 crash in Mission Impossible, but surprise, Tom Cruise bailed out just in time....
I never get tired of watching that scene. I even have the movie on DVD.
Unbroken has the best flying CGI scenes I've seen.
The whole movie is worth the fight seen between the Tomcats and the Zekes
_________________ Scott Rose Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry
Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere. ------------------------------------------------------- This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you, consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions) So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.
Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.
this is not a movie and it has been out for sometime so I am sure CGI has improved. Except for the tail light maybe being too bright I thought this was very convincing. The aircraft seem to move at a fairly accurate rate, not too fast like Pearl Harbor. What do you think?
If it's the REAL real thing, then I agree with you.
But now that we have excellent CGI, I can't handle AT-6's painted to look like Zero's in big budget films.
CGI itself is not the problem. You can make the aircraft look and behave extremely well...like that Mosquito and Spitfire video.
The problem is what they DO with CGI....directors think masses of airplanes in a tiny space, and impossible maneuvers are awesome. That is the problem.
Go look at the trailer for the much maligned Pearl Harbor:
Pretty good....here the closeness of the Brit airplanes mirrored reality in the early parts of the battle. And the one on one's were good.
So CGI is not a problem.
It's how they USE CGI that is the problem.
And you have to admit that even in Pearl Harbor, the CGI destruction of flying airplanes was MUCH better than the balsa stick and paper model explosions of the 1969 Battle of Britain.
Last edited by Saville on Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
If it's the REAL real thing, then I agree with you.
But I can't handle AT-6's painted to look like Zero's in big budget films.
CGI itself is not the problem. You can make the aircraft look and behave extremely well...like that Mosquito and Spitfire video.
The problem is what they DO with CGI....directors think masses of airplanes in a tiny space, and impossible maneuvers are awesome. That is the problem.
Go look at the trailer for the much maligned Pearl Harbor:
Pretty good....here the closeness of the Brit airplanes mirrored reality in the early parts of the battle. And the one on one's were good.
So CGI is not a problem.
It's how they USE CGI that is the problem.
And you have to admit that even in Pearl Harbor, the CGI destruction of flying airplanes was MUCH better than the balsa stick and paper model explosions of the 1969 Battle of Britain.
Were there any airworthy A6M zeros available in 1979 when they were filming "The Final Countdown"? I'm not sure if there was. I'm sorry you disagree.... but for me no CGI editor would ever be able to make that low speed, low altitude barrel roll in a tomcat look anywhere near as good as it did in real life.
Were there any airworthy A6M zeros available in 1979 when they were filming "The Final Countdown"? I'm not sure if there was. I'm sorry you disagree.... but for me no CGI editor would ever be able to make that low speed, low altitude barrel roll in a tomcat look anywhere near as good as it did in real life.
No there weren't any airworthy Zeros in 1979 so I don't hold that against the film makers. And since they didn't have the excellent CGI that they have today, I don't fault them for using AT-6's. But if I see that today I would have a problem with that.
And I agree with you about the Tomcats - so long as the Navy is willing to help out, use the real thing.
But that is precisely my point...if it's the REAL, real thing, then I agree with you.
If it's a "fake" real thing then I do not agree with you. For instance, take Dunkirk:
They fixed up the exhaust area of a camera plane to look something like a Spitfire. Could it not have been just as easy to mount a GoPro on a Spitfire looking forward?
Don't be sorry that we disagree...for me it's not a big issue nor an emotionally charged one.
Were there any airworthy A6M zeros available in 1979 when they were filming "The Final Countdown"? I'm not sure if there was. I'm sorry you disagree.... but for me no CGI editor would ever be able to make that low speed, low altitude barrel roll in a tomcat look anywhere near as good as it did in real life.
No there weren't any airworthy Zeros in 1979 so I don't hold that against the film makers. And since they didn't have the excellent CGI that they have today, I don't fault them for using AT-6's. But if I see that today I would have a problem with that.
And I agree with you about the Tomcats - so long as the Navy is willing to help out, use the real thing.
But that is precisely my point...if it's the REAL, real thing, then I agree with you.
If it's a "fake" real thing then I do not agree with you. For instance, take Dunkirk:
They fixed up the exhaust area of a camera plane to look something like a Spitfire. Could it not have been just as easy to mount a GoPro on a Spitfire looking forward?
Don't be sorry that we disagree...for me it's not a big issue nor an emotionally charged one.
Planes of Fame's A6M5 made it's first flight with the Sakae engine on 6.28.78 and started a 6 month tour of Japan in July of 79...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 54 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
