this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
738 points (97.6% liked)

Movies

7528 readers
12 users here now

Lemmy

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!


Related Communities:

!books@lemmy.world - Discussing books and book-related things.

!comicbooks@lemmy.world - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

!marvelstudios@lemmy.world - LW's home for all things MCU.


While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

  1. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed

  4. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

    Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

    Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Too much bad cgi now days.

Look at top gun 2. I wasn’t excited at all to see it. I left the theater pumped and saw it four more times.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml 27 points 8 months ago (4 children)
[–] ours@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

True, what people want is seamless VFX.

I watched Argylle and everything looks so fake. Most of it was shot on a green screen. Half the charm of an extravagant spy movie is taking us to exotic locales.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but Argylle doesn't take itself seriously at all. Which for me was a good thing

[–] ours@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I didn't mind the light tone but still felt like a fake movie. Like something you would see a fake trailer for in another comedy.

Super-fake looking locations and stunts.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

When I first saw the trailer on TV, I assumed it was a cat food ad spoofing movie trailers.

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But also a ton of practical effects. The CGI was mostly there to help the practical effects, the movie wasn't full on CGI like Avatar.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

None of the planes shown in the film ever left the ground.

[–] CurbsTickle@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Unable to delete so editing instead. Leaving Lemmy.world due to privacy concerns.

[–] kokopelli@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The planes look good, but they are almost entirely CGI. The difference is that they used realistic flight maneuvers and reference lighting to make it look really good. Practical effects means little to no CGI and that definitely does not apply here.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is incorrect; take it directly from the movie's editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE1pOMpQvbw You can see at the 4 minutes mark where the actual jets in the movie were just stand ins, and VFX artists are told to use CGI to reskin them with the jets in the final movie.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

That is the Russian and F-14. I already acknowledged those two were CGI. We don't have access to an SU-57, and they are not flying F-14 anymore.

The F-18 are real planes with the send seat edited out.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Stop posting youtube. I don't watch youtube.

I posted an article that states clearly they flew the planes. Read it and stop posting youtube.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Video evidence is far more convincing than someone's say-so.

[–] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In a comment thread about CGI and VFX, you really want to talk about how accurate the video is?

[–] kokopelli@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Well, if that’s how you win an argument, I don’t read IGN.

But for those who are curious, in the first posted video he talks about a timeline walkthrough that the editor did. All the jets are CGI covers over F-14s painted grey with lighting markers, except the F-18s. HOWEVER, there were only ever 1 or 2 F-18s in the air, so when you see a squadron of them, the others are CGI.

So yes, there were some real jets, but that wasn’t the argument you made. You said the film was done practically, which is not true. Even if you have 2/4 jets really in the air, that’s not “practical” and still counts as CGI.

And I can see where you got this opinion, the news outlets at the time and all interviews spouted “NO CGI!!” Because it is good marketing, but it’s not true.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The cgi was used to remove the pilot of the f18. It wasn't all cartoon look physics bending bs.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.

However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That's what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And that’s my point. It wasn’t cartoonish special effects with bizarre physics.

It was well down.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Alright. Well I agree

Perhaps you did not get your point across in your downvoted comment

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

When cgi is done right, it enhances the movie. It’s nearly seamless. Too gun 2 combined great cgi with great practical effects. They didn’t just slap shit cgi over everything and expect people to love it. In thirty years top gun 2 will still look amazing.

I’ve watched it at home and in the theaters. It still looks good at home. Obviously it looks better in the theaters.

I’m not a fan of cruise but damn his vision was solid.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lots of practical effects as well. The flying was mostly practical. The used cgi to make the f18 look like a one seater but the flying was legit

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The flying was legit when looking at cockpits, but the planes were all fake. They actually created plane models that don't exist in real life. You can bet that unless it was a scene with several humans on screen talking face to face, about 90% of what you were seeing was made by a computer animator.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 8 months ago

A good story is a good story. Lots of CGI or no CGI doesn't change that fact. There are lots of movies with no CGI that are just garbage.

The issue is studios trying to avoid having to write a good story trying to mask a mediocre story with lots and lots of mediocre CGI. Why? Because it's faster to create lots of computer effects than to come up with a great story. It's also a lot easier to create an assembly line for CGI than it is to create one for great stories

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

I thought I was going to hate it. It seemed like a cash grab. I’m not a huge fan on Tom cruise. It was just a damn good movie. Movies have forgot they’re supposed to be entertaining. It was entertaining.