Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...

[Scott Rose]

Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...

Is there any movies out there where the CGI is acceptable.... or dear god.... perhaps good?

[bipe215]

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.

Steve

[Pogmusic]

I would prefer good CGI instead of real aircraft when destruction is involved.

[JohnB]

I don't find the B-24 in Unbreakable to be objectionable.
Better than most model crashes seen in films.

[Tiger Tim]

Is there any movies out there where the CGI is acceptable.... or dear god.... perhaps good?

Almost certainly, but you would never know it was CGI if it was that good.

[sandiego89]

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....

[Dan K]

I thought the Japanese film For Those We Love was quite good...CGI integrated with colorized combat footage.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juic9HiyAZE

[menards]

No CGI is a decent substitute for the real thing...


One of my fav scenes....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM

[maxum96]

No CGI is a decent substitute for the real thing...


One of my fav scenes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM

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.

[Scott Rose]

No CGI is a decent substitute for the real thing...


One of my fav scenes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM

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

[aerojock]

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?

[Saville]

No CGI is a decent substitute for the real thing...


One of my fav scenes....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM

I disagree:

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYcxjywx0o

move to the 1 minute 10 second mark and look at the Japanese plane that flies "underneath" the camera...

I was impressed with that when I saw the trailer in the theater. Ripples in the skin.

but....then go to the 1:20 mark and look at the planes flying down the valley - too many.

Or go look at the PH Battle of Britain sequence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HSpmiR8Uo

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.

[menards]

I disagree:

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGYcxjywx0o

move to the 1 minute 10 second mark and look at the Japanese plane that flies "underneath" the camera...

I was impressed with that when I saw the trailer in the theater. Ripples in the skin.

but....then go to the 1:20 mark and look at the planes flying down the valley - too many.

Or go look at the PH Battle of Britain sequence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HSpmiR8Uo

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.

[Saville]

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.

[Warbirdnerd]

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...