740
Millennials, Gen-Z Want Original Movies and TV, Not Remakes — Survey (www.indiewire.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/movies@lemmy.world
169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
[deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Top Gun 2 was full of CGI...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It was full of good CGI

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent