The Avengers Page 35

  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:46:03
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Even in The Dark Knight, where they could afford to close the bloody main street of Chicago for a couple of (CG-enhanced) shots, they did a lot of the stunts with digital stuntmen.
    That was also because they couldn't blow shit up the way they needed to without breaking bits of Chicago. A lot are still practical effects (miniatures etc.).
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:47:52
    Derblington wrote:
    Lukus wrote:
    Derblington wrote:

    I've said, in multiple posts, that you make the shots you can and you use CG where you can't.
    Except these days even things that could be done without CG aren't half the time.
    Agreed, but this is getting very general when it started off with a specific case.

    I've explained my position a few posts up, I was responding to 2 very specific posts that were stating CG in a specific stunt as fact. I don't believe it is and I made my case.
    That scene in the forest did look like it was done in a studio with all the surroundings CGI'd in, dunno if they were but it looked like it.

    Edited by Aargh. at 18:48:07 13-05-2012
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 18:50:35 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    meme wrote:
    I think one key thing to notice about the over-reliance on CG is the amount of attention someone gets if they're filming something and go 'yeah, we're doing proper live-action stunts, we want actual sets and people falling off things' and whatnot, and that becomes the entire focus of the interview piece when it's published.

    Of course, it then turns out to be a load of bollocks - see Live Free or Die Hard, or Indiana Jones 4. Both claimed to have very little CG - I think Bruce Willis was even quoted as saying 'it all actually happens'.
    Isn't this kind of thing down to the details though? Technically, the stunts could be carried out by real people and then edited into the scene, it's down to interpretation whether that's "real" stunts or not. Do you have to be on-site and falling from a real building for it to be classed as real, or can you fall from scaffolding against a green-screen and superimposed into the location?

    Both those movies are full of CG, yes, but did they have a live stunt team? Cyril Raffaelli was the choreographer on LFoDH, iirc. He's an accomplished stunt performer so it could be true. No idea about Indy 4.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:54:37
    When they talk about real sets and real stunts and very little CG work, constantly hyping up that it's all 'very real', then the very first shot is of a CGI gopher, you know it doesn't come down to the 'details'.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 19:03:07 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yes, but a cg rodent doesn't mean they didn't swing on a rope or jump from car to car :)

    It's a film about a 50 year old relic hunting school teacher with a bull whip, set during the WW period with elements of the supernatural and focusing on aliens hiding beneath an Incan temple. It was never going to be real, details or not.

    Edited by Derblington at 19:03:44 13-05-2012
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 19:07:33
    You're doing a fantastic job of missing the point multiple times in this thread.

    The point is that they hyped up the movie as being particularly old-school, physical sets, physical stunts, physical physicalness, not CG heavy. That they didn't necessarily have a fully CG Indy doesn't matter (although I'm pretty sure they did for quite a few of the shots, the whip-swinging in Area 51 being a specific one that looks horribly artificial), they filled the entire film with as much CG as they possibly could have. Compare the scenes in Crystal Skull of, say, the jungle shots, and the going over the waterfall shots, and compare them with the jungle shots in the intro to Raiders, or the plane fall in Temple of Doom, and they not only look artificial and utterly lack tension, they also don't even look as good.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 19:19:19 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm not missing the point at all, you changed it between posts.

    You mentioned LFoDH said they were doing physical stunts and I posed a question on what constitutes physical stuntwork (do you need to be on location or can you perform the stunt elsewhere, is it enough that the the performer isn't digital or is there more to it)?

    In your initial post you weren't talking about the general use of CG, you were talking about stunts (or if you were you didn't actually write that). You then mentioned a CG rodent and CG backgrounds in Indy 4, none of which I'm contending but it's not related to the physical-ness of the stunts or the response I gave.

    I've not heard them say Indy 4 was going to be sparse on the CG but clearly it's not so that would be a retarded statement to make. I'm not all that bothered though, the film was shit :)

    edit: formatting.

    Edited by Derblington at 19:23:15 13-05-2012
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 19:32:10
    Derblington wrote:
    In your initial post you weren't talking about the general use of CG, you were talking about stunts (or if you were you didn't actually write that).
    No, I was talking about the general use of CG. I figured the context of the discussion beforehand (which was talking about the general use of CG) would have keyed you in to that.
  • themanfromdelmonte 13 May 2012 19:47:30 540 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Just been to see this. Pretty good, can't see why some think it's the 2nd coming though. Some dippy bits here and there, but the finale was good and it's the best movie to feature The Hulk imho.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 19:54:07 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I figured the words in the post ("yeah, we're doing proper live-action stunts, we want actual sets and people falling off things") were more important that general context of the thread, which has circled both topics for the last 2 pages.

    It was pretty obvious what my discussion point was though, considering I've written the word 'stunt' about 150 times, so whether I've read your post wrong or not, you've purposefully ignored mine (y)

    The internet is much harder than it needs to be.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 19:57:12 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    themanfromdelmonte wrote:
    Just been to see this. Pretty good, can't see why some think it's the 2nd coming though. Some dippy bits here and there, but the finale was good and it's the best movie to feature The Hulk imho.
    I've liked all 3 Hulk films for different reasons.

    Was Avengers supposed to be the sequel film to Incredible? Banner mentions destroying NY "the last time I was here" but nothing else was tied up - no mention of other characters and the physical representation of the Hulk was different both in voice and body shape. I assumed this was a new version again?
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 19:58:07
    Yeah, they got a different actor too.
  • Deckard1 13 May 2012 20:00:01 25,413 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Just got back from this. I thought it was fucking glorious.

    Called it

  • Derblington 13 May 2012 20:00:51 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Yeah, they got a different actor too.
    Tool :)
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 20:01:45
    We were talking about stunts and sets thus far. I mentioned them (and said 'and whatnot') to tie them into the general discussion that had formed. disusedgenius seemed to understand me perfectly well.

    EDIT: Sorry, that was a little harsh. Recovering from illness so I'm grumpy.

    Edited by meme at 20:05:19 13-05-2012
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 20:08:24 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    No worries, I didn't see it anyway :)
  • themanfromdelmonte 13 May 2012 20:10:58 540 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Derblington wrote:
    themanfromdelmonte wrote:
    Just been to see this. Pretty good, can't see why some think it's the 2nd coming though. Some dippy bits here and there, but the finale was good and it's the best movie to feature The Hulk imho.
    I've liked all 3 Hulk films for different reasons.

    Was Avengers supposed to be the sequel film to Incredible? Banner mentions destroying NY "the last time I was here" but nothing else was tied up - no mention of other characters and the physical representation of the Hulk was different both in voice and body shape. I assumed this was a new version again?
    I don't think it's meant to be a direct sequel to any of the movies that lead into it. That would require too much of a commitment by the audience and put off casual viewers. But not having a genesis for the characters with their own movies, would indicate that they're all intended to be the same characters, who featured in their solo outings.
  • Scurrminator Moderator 13 May 2012 20:10:58 8,285 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Derblington wrote:
    themanfromdelmonte wrote:
    Just been to see this. Pretty good, can't see why some think it's the 2nd coming though. Some dippy bits here and there, but the finale was good and it's the best movie to feature The Hulk imho.
    I've liked all 3 Hulk films for different reasons.

    Was Avengers supposed to be the sequel film to Incredible? Banner mentions destroying NY "the last time I was here" but nothing else was tied up - no mention of other characters and the physical representation of the Hulk was different both in voice and body shape. I assumed this was a new version again?

    You did see clips of incredible too when Stark was watching footage at Stark towers and again when Rogers was in a quinjet

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • morriss 13 May 2012 20:14:36 70,749 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think Marvel Superhoeroes lack personality, story line and any kind of coolness. (apart from Spiderman) Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America etc. - yawn.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 20:24:15 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    themanfromdelmonte wrote:
    I don't think it's meant to be a direct sequel to any of the movies that lead into it. That would require too much of a commitment by the audience and put off casual viewers. But not having a genesis for the characters with their own movies, would indicate that they're all intended to be the same characters, who featured in their solo outings.
    What?

    It is a sequel, hence all the films sharing characters and leading into this one. The cosmic cube, Loki as the villain, agent Coulson, etc. The individual films after this one are all set post-Avengers too, so the stories will continue up to Avengers 2 but they'll all be made so that you can jump in anywhere (even Iron Man 2 did that and it's the most direct sequel we have so far).
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 20:29:22 20,962 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    morriss wrote:
    I think Marvel Superhoeroes lack personality, story line and any kind of coolness. (apart from Spiderman) Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America etc. - yawn.
    They're all about character, it's the DC bunch that are nothing more than archetypes (and I understand why that is - they created them). Batman is nothing more than a man in a costume, he has very little character other than what he is, and it's the same with Supes and WW too. They are heroes formost.

    The Marvel stable built the heroes around the characters.

    Weirdly, the DC characters with the most personality are the ones they change - the Flash and Green Lantern.

    Edited by Derblington at 20:31:47 13-05-2012
  • RobAnybody 13 May 2012 20:32:03 824 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Is it just me or is Loki a lousy villain? He's just so ......... camp. And those horns on his head gear just look ridiculous.

    Part of the problem is Tom Hiddleston - the guy is a good actor, but as Loki he lacks screen presence.
  • themanfromdelmonte 13 May 2012 20:49:19 540 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Derblington wrote:
    themanfromdelmonte wrote:
    I don't think it's meant to be a direct sequel to any of the movies that lead into it. That would require too much of a commitment by the audience and put off casual viewers. But not having a genesis for the characters with their own movies, would indicate that they're all intended to be the same characters, who featured in their solo outings.
    What?

    It is a sequel, hence all the films sharing characters and leading into this one. The cosmic cube, Loki as the villain, agent Coulson, etc. The individual films after this one are all set post-Avengers too, so the stories will continue up to Avengers 2 but they'll all be made so that you can jump in anywhere (even Iron Man 2 did that and it's the most direct sequel we have so far).
    I think this is a semantic issue relating to the use of the word "Sequel." A continuation of the same universal continuity is not necessarily the same as a continuation of the same story. To me, if you can jump in and out, then I wouldn't count them as "Sequels." But hey, opinions and that.
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 21:12:49 5,141 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    RobAnybody wrote:
    Is it just me or is Loki a lousy villain? He's just so ......... camp. And those horns on his head gear just look ridiculous.

    Part of the problem is Tom Hiddleston - the guy is a good actor, but as Loki he lacks screen presence.
    Actually I thought he made a great baddie, which surprised me as I wasn't as impressed with him in Thor. He had a great arrogant, weaselly manner about him, imo. A lot had to do with the fact that Joss Whedon clearly liked writing for him and gave him a ton of good moments.
  • DFawkes 13 May 2012 21:37:16 22,059 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm a huge fan, I though Tom Hiddleston was really well cast. That seething contempt that bleeds out every word he says, plus of course the arrogant weasely manner disusedgenius mentioned. Fantastic, really well written character.

    There was a bit of campness there, but no more so than the same character in the comics - indeed I found that helped it feel a lot more entertaining than most. If it had been played too straight it might not have worked.

    I'd kick the living daylights out of the producers of Tipping Point - Ghandi

  • Khanivor 13 May 2012 21:49:42 39,883 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    His horn hat was fucking ridiculous though
  • Scurrminator Moderator 13 May 2012 22:43:48 8,285 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It was fine in the context of it being an Asgardian outfit. They all looked silly. There was even a line in Thor about it.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • bivith 13 May 2012 22:44:02 2,466 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Aargh.
    That scene in the forest did look like it was done in a studio with all the surroundings CGI'd in, dunno if they were but it looked like it.
    Nope, filmed in a reservation.

    This is an amazing article on the VFX work.

    http://www.fxguide.com/featured/vfx-roll-call-for-the-avengers/

    Anyone who calls CGI "lazy" needs to read this. I'm in awe of the work described.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 22:47:21
    It can be lazy filmmaking, doesn't mean it's easy obviously.
  • bivith 13 May 2012 22:48:45 2,466 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Ironically now with mo-cap even the CGI stunt doubles are based on real stunts done with stunt men in mo-cap suits!

    "The stunt team had worked out most of the fight in great detail, relying on wire work and tree rams, with Iron Manís stunt person wearing a markless mocap suit featuring black and white panels on location and witness cams set up to record his performance."
  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

Log in or register to reply