Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Tue Jun 24, 2025 1:09 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:05 am 
Offline
WRG Editor
WRG Editor
User avatar

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.


Image

Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

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.

Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 569
Location: Shalimar, FL
I would prefer good CGI instead of real aircraft when destruction is involved.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:43 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:04 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Canada
Scott WRG Editor wrote:
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.

_________________
Keep 'em Flying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:04 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 1199
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....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:51 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Minnesota, USA
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

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 543
No CGI is a decent substitute for the real thing...


One of my fav scenes....


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:31 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Outer Space
menards wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:08 pm 
Offline
WRG Editor
WRG Editor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 5614
Location: Somerset, MA & Johnston, RI
maxum96 wrote:
menards wrote:
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

_________________
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.


Image

Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:58 am
Posts: 148


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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:45 am
Posts: 518
menards wrote:
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 543
Saville wrote:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:45 am
Posts: 518
menards wrote:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:15 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm
Posts: 2923
Saville wrote:
menards wrote:

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...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 43 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group