198 replies to this topic

[Steve Sensible]

Cheers for that Lauren. It looked like a lot of fun.

[Lauren Dayap]

Cheers for that Lauren. It looked like a lot of fun.

It was....my voice is still a bit shot lol



THink this is the whole panel (sans footage shown on big screen but I'm sure it was "taken" lol)

[Patrick A]

Stories like that always smack of PR spin to me, but it could be true?

If it is true in any movie I'd believe it in Blade:Trinity. Biel and Renyolds were both in amazing shape in the movie.

[Robert B]

That did bother me in Blade 2.


I also thought that it sucked on the first Raimi Spider-Man.

The only parts of Matrix 2 that I watched were the highway scene and the fight with a hundred Agent Smiths, and I thought both of those scene were really bad in terms of subbing CGI stuntmen for the real thing. I know that you obviously can't cut and paste together footage of Hugo Weaving to make a hundred of him for that scene, but I also didn't think the models were very well done. They were about on par with the stuff done with Robert Patrick in T2 (also not that great, but forgivable since it was so pioneering at the time), only Matrix 2 was a decade later and maybe should have been better.

There were definitely a few years there in the beginning of the decade where CGI was going through some wonky growing pains. I think part of the reason people remember stuff like LOTR and The Minority Report so fondly is that they were exceptions to that.

[Christian U]

The only parts of Matrix 2 that I watched were the highway scene and the fight with a hundred Agent Smiths, and I thought both of those scene were really bad in terms of subbing CGI stuntmen for the real thing. I know that you obviously can't cut and paste together footage of Hugo Weaving to make a hundred of him for that scene, but I also didn't think the models were very well done. They were about on par with the stuff done with Robert Patrick in T2 (also not that great, but forgivable since it was so pioneering at the time), only Matrix 2 was a decade later and maybe should have been better.

Absolutely, yeah. Which was weird because the first one worked its CGI very well.

[Steve Sensible]

Absolutely, yeah. Which was weird because the first one worked its CGI very well.

The first one didn't rely on fully CGI characters though - just lots of wire-work and virtual camera FX.

Some of the stuff in the burly-brawl didn't work in Reloaded, but it was still state of the art at the time. The thing that bugs me about it now is the comedic sound effects - the sound of skittles being toppled as he scatters lots of Agent Smiths and so on.

[Christian U]

The first one didn't rely on fully CGI characters though - just lots of wire-work and virtual camera FX.

Well, exactly. They knew when to use wires and not go fully CGI

[steveuk]

Well, exactly. They knew when to use wires and not go fully CGI

A little Matrix budget history -

Film 01 - $63m
Film 02 - $127m-$150m
Film 03 - $110m

Now, even taking these figures with a pinch of salt, it's certain that they had a lot more money to buy more VFX in the second and third films.

It's also worth remembering that some of the VFX techniques were invented for the films. They presented new problems that required new solutions.

But finally, and I do think this is the most important thing, the Wachowski's DIDN'T want realism in every scene. They set out to make a like action Anime movie and they wanted some of the action to be heavily stylized. The reason some things, objects or people don't move "properly" is because they weren't supposed to.

Unfortunately, in an otherwise live action film, the result is something that looks wrong to the rest of us.

[Christian U]

I know what you mean, but I think that effect worked just fine in some scenes - it's only when it doesn't work that it's problematic, and that to my mind was more because of the typical problems, like fully CGI characters somehow not having proper "weight" to them (can't really describe it any better).

I'll say that the special effects weren't the sequels biggest problems; I thought there were a lot of scenes that worked fine where that was concerned - I quite liked the bit on the highway in Reloaded, and there is that Flying Superman bit in Revolutions that I've used before as an example to how Superman's presence should look in an action film.

[steveuk]

I know what you mean, but I think that effect worked just fine in some scenes - it's only when it doesn't work that it's problematic, and that to my mind was more because of the typical problems, like fully CGI characters somehow not having proper "weight" to them (can't really describe it any better).

You're right, they didn't have the right weight, but my point is that (sometimes at least) that wasn't a mistake. It was intentional. The Burly Brawl is probably the clearest example of that. Neo's coat, the dynamics of the beaten Agent Smith's etc. were all directed by the filmmakers, rather than being simulated to create realistic movement.

I'll say that the special effects weren't the sequels biggest problems; I thought there were a lot of scenes that worked fine where that was concerned - I quite liked the bit on the highway in Reloaded, and there is that Flying Superman bit in Revolutions that I've used before as an example to how Superman's presence should look in an action film.

A lot of the highway chase is great, but at the end when the trucks collide, that's another scene where creativity and style was favoured over physics.

[Christian U]

You're right, they didn't have the right weight, but my point is that (sometimes at least) that wasn't a mistake. It was intentional. The Burly Brawl is probably the clearest example of that. Neo's coat, the dynamics of the beaten Agent Smith's etc. were all directed by the filmmakers, rather than being simulated to create realistic movement.

Okay, fair enough... I suppose the impression I get is simply because it is so similar to other fully-CGI characters that fail; it's the typical problem that somehow the movements aren't quite right, and most importantly that there's no weight to them.

Irritated the hell out of me with Spider-Man.

[steveuk]

Okay, fair enough... I suppose the impression I get is simply because it is so similar to other fully-CGI characters that fail; it's the typical problem that somehow the movements aren't quite right, and most importantly that there's no weight to them.

Irritated the hell out of me with Spider-Man.

It's one of the problems that can occur when characters are required to do impossible things. What sort of reference is there for a human being who is both impossibly strong, impossibly agile and impossibly double-jointed?

Even mocaping someone from Cirque du Soleil isn't going to get the job done.

[Steve Sensible]

It's one of the problems that can occur when characters are required to do impossible things. What sort of reference is there for a human being who is both impossibly strong, impossibly agile and impossibly double-jointed?

Often it's not so much the movement of the character though, so much as how they move through the air. Our brain is mind-bogglingly good at judging things like a parabolic arc that an object takes through the air - it's how we manage to catch a ball for instance - so when something's even slightly off alarm bells ring.

The most recent example of that was in Thor, when he confronts the Destroyer. The Destroyer turns away, then swings at Thor, sending him flying. There's a briefest moment where Thor's momentum changes, but you notice it instantly.

[Christian U]

It's one of the problems that can occur when characters are required to do impossible things. What sort of reference is there for a human being who is both impossibly strong, impossibly agile and impossibly double-jointed?

Even mocaping someone from Cirque du Soleil isn't going to get the job done.

True. I suppose that is why I like wire-fu so much - throwing people through the air is still often the most realistic way of showing somebody thrown through the air, even when he's attached to wires.

[Robert B]

My problem in the Matrix wasn't so much that they didn't move like people, but that they didn't look like people. I'm sure that's part of the reason the characters all wore sunglasses in those movies, but it still didn't work for me.

[steveuk]

True. I suppose that is why I like wire-fu so much - throwing people through the air is still often the most realistic way of showing somebody thrown through the air, even when he's attached to wires.

Not always... as I know from bitter experience!

My problem in the Matrix wasn't so much that they didn't move like people, but that they didn't look like people. I'm sure that's part of the reason the characters all wore sunglasses in those movies, but it still didn't work for me.

I think it was just style. The design work on the films is amazing, the films themselves (the last two anyway), not so much.

[Christian U]

Not always... as I know from bitter experience!

Heh. Do go on...

[Matt Linton]

It's one of the problems that can occur when characters are required to do impossible things. What sort of reference is there for a human being who is both impossibly strong, impossibly agile and impossibly double-jointed?

Even mocaping someone from Cirque du Soleil isn't going to get the job done.

I think this is the problem with the Hulk, as well. People complain that he looks fake or is obviously CGI - of course he does. He's a 7-8 foot tall mass of muscle leaping around. We have no realistic frame of reference for what that looks like, so our brains instantly recognize it as artificial.

[Dave Wallace]

I think this is the problem with the Hulk, as well. People complain that he looks fake or is obviously CGI - of course he does. He's a 7-8 foot tall mass of muscle leaping around. We have no realistic frame of reference for what that looks like, so our brains instantly recognize it as artificial.

I don't know if that's the only reason - if you look at a film like Hellboy or Pan's Labyrinth, the animatronic creatures look more "real" than most CGI models, despite being just as fantastical.

I think it's very difficult to accurately capture the feel of real, living creatures, even with the most cutting-edge modern CGI, and few films do it well.

[craggy]

I still think some of the animatronics in 80s films are far more realistic than some CGI gubbins from more recent films. heck, I might as well remind people of the merits of big matte paintings instead of stupidly complex (and likely more costly) CGI backgrounds if you're just going to be whooshing past them or focussing on some dude's gloves or something.