John Holland Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I saw this today !! well what to say ? FX brilliant ! but what a pile of rubbish ! and dont mean LA falling into the Pacific ! Waste of huge amount of money !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I saw this today !! well what to say ? FX brilliant ! but what a pile of rubbish ! and dont mean LA falling into the Pacific ! Waste of huge amount of money !! Dont get me started on the 270/360 degree shutter angle he used:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 Go on Stephen !! get going !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted November 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2009 Please do go! I'm in the mood for a good rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted November 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2009 FX brilliant ! True, but some of the green screen in the movie is the worst I've ever seen. Was this shot on Genesis? I assume it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 I think the VFX shots were on the Genesis . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Panczenko Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I think the majority of the movie was Genesis, with some FX on RED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 If thats the case ? and even if some was shot on film , not a good ad. for Genesis , Red or Kodak !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted November 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2009 Acquisition format does not the movie make. I think a lot of the problem is that there is so much FXs that out minds just don't buy it. That's my theory at least . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 I agree !! my kids just say boring CGI without any input from me !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted November 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2009 What I think a lot of this has to do with is the budget of time, as opposed to money. We're spending a lot more money on VFXs it seems, but we're not spending as much time on them. Back in the Jurassic Park days, which I look back on Fondly from my younger days, CGI was expensive and time consuming, but there were fewer shots so I feel we focused more on them. Now with upwards of a few hundred VFX shots per film.. is it any surprise that not only are we spending more money on them, but less time so as to make the release windows etc. Again, just my theory. I recall, also, being pretty blown away by (at least) the FXs in The Fountain, because from what I recall they were mostly done optically and took the time to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 Hey i have to stop agreeing with you ! Its also i think that X-Box etc games are so good now , in fact look just like boring CGI we see on the "big screen" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted November 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2009 Quite true, or perhaps better put that we're been accustomed to CGI Animations (in films) since toy story. I recently bought Halo 3 ODST (my 1st AC and a few other members of my crew often just b/s 'round playing Xbox for kicks) and while I was playing it, I was a bit blown away by the cut-scenes, anamorphic framed, nice texture, higher production design than I've seen in quite a few other CGI endeavors.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 Yes we have got much to used to CGI and the magic has gone !! Stop motion and large scale model work still rule as far as i am concerned !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 As far as i know main/2nd unit was all genesis. thought it looked horrible regardless of what format was used. horrible motion blur, clippy highlights and plastic pink skintones. thought the fx varied greatly from truly superb to poor - loved the sequence where the first small plane escapes california. I enjoyed Day after 2moro sooooo much more then this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 I have decided that this Director has been given so much money to make so many crap films ! just wonder who he is sleeping with ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Jackson Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 ! just wonder who he is sleeping with ? and can he find someone else? My favorite Onion headline: "Mayan Calendar Predicts Catastrophic Movie about The Year 2012" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) It reminds me of that line from Jurassic Park, " Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." These guys get so caught up in how COOL this effect or that effect would be and great it would look, that they forget to actually tell a story. I am a HUGH John Cusack fan and will watch just about anything he's in because no matter what he seems to somehow rise above the material but he has made some bad choices when it comes to scripts. I haven't seen this one. I'll probably wait till it come on cable but I did see the ads and even in those short glimpses, it seemed a bit overblown, course it is a disaster movie and the next one has to top the last. Come to think of it, those old Irwin Allen mayhem pics were pretty long on effects and short on plot as well so in all honesty, what, with the exception of ticket prices, has really changed? :D Edited November 18, 2009 by James Steven Beverly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) Yes we have got much to used to CGI and the magic has gone !! Stop motion and large scale model work still rule as far as i am concerned !! It's funny you should say that John. Not so long ago, I was having a similar conversation with a couple of mates of mine about Avatar. Neither work in the film business but both are photographers. I was basically saying how I couldn't believe that they didn't resort to good old traditional methods with todays technology. I mean, the technology of today was all that was missing from those films in 70's and 80's, right?! And as far as I know Avatar is actually quite an interesting story, so I found it to be a real shame. They're argument was that the whole CGI created a different realism/world. A good point but I couldn't remove myself over the fact that when I watch a film I want it to have some inconspicuous fantasy but with a firm, solid foundation that relates to our everyday life. That for me is where the magic is! You grab something, run with it but you keep the interest by making our world a direct relation to whatever is being depicted. That is what Star Wars, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek etc....did. I feel like I've deviated a bit over the heading of this post but in the same breath I also think it relates to 2012. IMO where it is going wrong is that CGI is the MAIN ingredient in too many films......but then again who am I to say that these studios are making the wrong choices! Edited November 18, 2009 by Serge Teulon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 As far as i know main/2nd unit was all genesis. thought it looked horrible regardless of what format was used. horrible motion blur, clippy highlights and plastic pink skintones. thought the fx varied greatly from truly superb to poor - loved the sequence where the first small plane escapes california. I enjoyed Day after 2moro sooooo much more then this. never liked the look of the genesis. check out the Bank Job for lousy skin tones. 265 million dollar budget!! Is this the most expensive film ever made? one has to ask; why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Yeah, our Roland "Spielbergle vom Schwabenländle" Emmerich... He hated crappy German movies and bacame one of the most patriotic/bland Hollywood-directors :blink: But at least he said it is his last catastrophy-movie... But I still don't understand why some directors go crazy with digital cine-cameras at this technical stage... the results are their biggest enemy... Please, PLEASE Mr. Cameron, prove all the VFX-sceptics wrong with Avatar despite using an even more primitive camera... "Bank Job" was shot on the D-20 but I agree, colors and skin tones are a huge problem with every digital cine camera while in still photography colors became more natural with digital!? One engineer explained to me that the color filters are a compromise between transparancy (=effective sensitivity) and accuracy. That would explain why a DI with the ARRISCAN (same sensor as D-20) but RGB-colors (due to LED-backlight) has no problems with colors, despite being digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 never liked the look of the genesis. check out the Bank Job for lousy skin tones. 265 million dollar budget!! Is this the most expensive film ever made? one has to ask; why? The Bank Job was shot on the Arri D20 - which I personally think regarding the D21 update is the best out of the digital cinema cameras. I agree regarding the look of the Genesis, it is continuously disappointing. I would like to have seen Superman Returns in the cinema because I don't think anything after that has ever improved on that Genesis photography wise. Most television shot with the Genesis looks even Sony 750 at times with the exception of the bigger chip and lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 But at least he said it is his last catastrophy-movie... All his movies are a catastrophe, I can't fathom why people keep giving him money to make them, or why people still pay to see them! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 19, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted November 19, 2009 OK, I just saw the movie... so the sun's neutrinos turn from a particle into electromagnetic radiation in the form of microwaves??? And that's strong enough to melt the mantle and core (which I thought were already semi-liquid) but not enough to kill all the lifeforms on the surface??? And who builds rooms on a submarine ark that have flood compartment doors but grated ceilings leading to animal cages??? And it takes a month for a giant tidal wave to recede back to the ocean??? Anyway, about the photography. I hoped to see this digitally projected, just because all digital camera stuff seems to look better and sharper digitally-projected, but the theater I saw this in lied on their website and I saw a 35mm print instead. I'd say that 70% of the time, the Genesis photography was fairly comparable to most Super-35-to-2K work these days. The contrast was fine for most day exterior work and in the lit interiors. There were less noise level problems than "10,000 BC" had, and that was shot on film! (Most of the ugly steely noise I see in Genesis-shot movies comes from underexposure corrected in post with a lot of contrast added.) Obviously it's the scenes with fast motion shot with a 270 degree shutter that look the most electronic, and in a few scenes, that was compounded by an editor's decision to slow-motion the footage in post. Near the end, that panic/action stuff on the ark as it floods was some of the worst for smeary motion. Personally I like shooting on the Genesis -- it has more sensitivity than the RED or Arri-D21, it has less noise in tungsten balance than either, and it has more dynamic range than the RED. It also reproduces colors more accurately than any Bayer-filtered camera I've used so far. It's main problem is that it is bulky and heavy (like the F35) and it's limited to 1920 x 1080. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) I hoped to see this digitally projected, just because all digital camera stuff seems to look better and sharper digitally-projected, but the theater I saw this in lied on their website and I saw a 35mm print instead. Did you go and get a refund? Honestly, with the exception of scope films &*maybe* S35 to 2.35:1 cropped films (where DLPs are cropped on the top and bottom to generate the 2.35:1 aspect ratio), it seems like even 35mm 2K DI movies will look better in DLP, just because of the fact that a 35mm print these days ultimately is coming from a 2K file that is being duped at least twice, usually three times. Hell, I don't think there is a single optically-finished film showing in a first run theatre here right now. Most theatres only have one or two DLP projectors at this point, so you have to specifically request a DLP theatre usually, David. They will often have both film and digital copies of movies, playing at different times. So if you show up for a DLP show, you have to make sure the time you are seeing it at is the proper one and not the start time of a 35mm print. I know the nearest theatre to here has it looks like 7 screens (maybe 3-4 35mm prints interlocking the film to run on multiple projectors) are playing the new "Twilight" film tonight as well as one in DLP. So, if you aren't specific, you only have a one-in-eight chance of getting into the right theatre. Edited November 19, 2009 by Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now