The Avengers Page 34

  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 17:33:56
    Me too. Back later.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 17:35:21 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I googled her after Iron Man 2 actually :p
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 17:35:56 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    They might have changed their mind on the move, the take might have been bad, they might have shot the scene badly. There's plenty of reasons it could have been CG. Personally I'd be surprised if there was a single scene without CG in it in the entire film.

    Saying that, I have quite a high tolerance for it nowadays - much higher than before I did it for a living, oddly enough.
  • nickthegun 13 May 2012 17:36:33 59,908 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I know you probably watch a lot of films, but theres the limit of human agility and then theres things that happen in films.

    The two dont often look the same.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • Derblington 13 May 2012 17:47:31 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm not saying they won't have touched up stuff like adding the actors' face if the double looks at the camera, or props (Hawkeye's arrow) or background where necessary. What I am saying is that there is simply no need to create a CG body-double on simple shots where a double with the athletic ability is already on hand and a few quick edits will make it appear seamless.

    A kip-up is nowhere near the limit of human agility. A quick search of youtube will produce hundreds of kids doing it, never mind someone who's trained for years to flip and spin all over a floor mat. Why would it be CG in a Hollywood production costing 200 mil, where they can hire the very best in the world, yet you wouldn't question it in a Jackie Chan or Tony Jaa film?

    She jump kicks a guy and falls back into a suicide kip-up. It's not even a particularly strenuous scene, comparatively. Most of this is more impressive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fouvwilGWc

    Damien Walters will blow your mind if you think hand-springs are made on computers.

    Edited by Derblington at 17:51:13 13-05-2012

    Edited by Derblington at 17:54:09 13-05-2012
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 17:54:38
    One of Jackie Chan's big complaints about breaking into Hollywood is that they didn't want him to do half the stuff he does in his Hong Kong movies because it would up the insurance rates like anything. Plus what disussedgenius said, there could be all sorts of reasons why they might have chosen not to go with an actual shot. Maybe it didn't work out the way it should. Maybe the lighting was off. Maybe somewhere continuity didn't match up. Maybe the stuntwoman wasn't available that day. Who knows? Maybe it is live-action but it's so touched up it just looks CG.

    Sometimes they also just do CG for the sake of CG. Blade 2 is a good example, where they did this entire lengthy swordfight completely in CG for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Or Green Lantern's frankly awful looking costume.
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 17:56:57 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Like I said, just because they could have filmed it, that doesn't necessarily mean they did. A large part of the CG industry spends its time covering for mistakes in production, directors changing their mind or general covering of the films arse.

    I don't know for sure whether that scene was CG or not, I just mean that the fact that they had a gymnast doesn't mean that was what got used in the final thing. One of the companies would have had a digital double for the character anyway, after all.
  • nickthegun 13 May 2012 17:59:11 59,908 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The first time I realised that theres loads more CG than you think was, amazingly, watching the extras to panic room.

    One of the first shots in the movie is just a simple zoom but it goes through the handle of a cup or a teapot or something. It doesnt (or didnt) look CGI at all. Nothing blatant, just allowing a camera to go through a smaller space than you would expect, but the entire movie had loads of really subtle effects that you would never think were CGI.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:03:46
    Mine was watching the behind the scenes of Monk. There's nothing in that show that needs to be CGi, ever, but just about every shot does so they can save massive amounts of money and reduce the time to set up shots.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 18:04:00 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    They didn't want Chan to jump off the side of buildings, it's a bit different, and Injury to the stars halts production and costs money, it's the entire reason they hire stunt people. This isn't Johansson doing the stunt.

    I understand that things can go wrong and touch ups are needed. Shit happens - the stunt woman in Tranformers 3 died so they used footage from Bad Boys 2 to replace it. But this is such a simple stunt, it makes no sense to make this CG and then do what they've done in other parts of the film with real people.

    I don't see the CG in that stunt or scene, personally. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I've seen a lot of this kind of stuff (I have a general interest in gymnastics/martial arts/dance) and I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

    The scene in front of the flood lights in Blade 2 is obviously CG, it looks fake, as well as a few other shots (usually with extreme camera angles and the characters leaping/falling around them).
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:05:40
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 18:06:01 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    The first time I realised that theres loads more CG than you think was, amazingly, watching the extras to panic room.

    One of the first shots in the movie is just a simple zoom but it goes through the handle of a cup or a teapot or something. It doesnt (or didnt) look CGI at all. Nothing blatant, just allowing a camera to go through a smaller space than you would expect, but the entire movie had loads of really subtle effects that you would never think were CGI.
    It goes through a keyhole in a door, doesn't it? Fincher likes his long panning shots that move around and through objects, he uses it in Fight Club too.

    Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdbpCc3OLgA

    Edited by Derblington at 18:16:03 13-05-2012
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:21:12
    Derblington wrote:
    They didn't want Chan to jump off the side of buildings, it's a bit different
    It's not, actually. In his first 'Hollywood' movie, they wouldn't even let him run on set, he ad-libbed a scene where he got out of a car, rolled across the bonnet and ran into a building. They said 'No, we can't let you do that, just get out the car and walk'.

    I'm sure I read an article once where they actually blamed the rise of CG partly on the ridiculous insurance costs it needs to have stuntpeople do even the most minor thing, so even simple shit gets thrown at the computer.
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 18:21:26 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm pretty sure that Fincher came from an FX background (possibly ILM, even) before going into directing, he's definitely one of the real top-end 'VFX' Directors, for me. Ridley Scott always seems to have a great approach to it as well.
  • nickthegun 13 May 2012 18:22:08 59,908 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yes. That kind of demonstrates everyone's point.

    The entire house was cgi. The. Entire. House.

    Edited by nickthegun at 18:22:48 13-05-2012

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • Derblington 13 May 2012 18:25:21 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    For the record, I know a little of what goes into making films and stunts. I watch a lot of movies and making of's and I have a general interest in martial arts, etc. I'm not trying to argue that The Avengers uses a lot of CG even in the mundane scenes, Hollywood is fake.

    I was responding to these:

    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Some of the jumping about, flips and that was CGI.
    GuiltySpark wrote:
    Surely when Black Widow got flipped back, and she landed on her neck/hands, and flipped back up, it was pretty obvious CGI.
    Which I disagreed with and was then called a "CGI denial-ist", and every one else seems to have jumped at my post explaining why I don't think that stunt was fake. I'm happy to proven wrong but I don't see the CG in that specific scene, personally. Until that happens, I'm not entirely sure why it's more likely to be fake than real.
  • graysonavich 13 May 2012 18:25:32 7,345 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    It really makes you appreciate older films. I can't remember the Hitchcock film where he zooms through a big sign on top of a building near the start. A really great shot but it's something you'd see and not even blink an eye these days - because it would be 100% CGI.

    Edited by graysonavich at 18:26:26 13-05-2012
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:26:17
    That Panic Room clip manages to change a pretty impressive bit of film making into a good bit of animation work. Seems like a lazy way of doing something that could be 90% done practically.

    Edited by Aargh. at 18:26:50 13-05-2012
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:26:56
    Speaking of Fincher... http://www.hollywood.com/news/Fincher_failed_to_gain_insurance_for_MaraCraig_motorbike_stunt/11420297
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:27:29
    graysonavich wrote:I can't remember the Hitchcock film where he zooms through a big sign on top of a building near the start.
    You're thinking of Citizen Kane.
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 18:28:40 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    meme wrote:
    I'm sure I read an article once where they actually blamed the rise of CG partly on the ridiculous insurance costs it needs to have stuntpeople do even the most minor thing, so even simple shit gets thrown at the computer.
    It's also the filming and crew costs of it all - take out the stuntmen, crashmats, wires, costs of locking down the location etc and it's a much easier, efficient shoot schedule. 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.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 18:29:08 13-05-2012
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 18:32:05 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Yes. That kind of demonstrates everyone's point.

    The entire house was cgi. The. Entire. House.
    I know it was, I've seen it. You can't push a camera from the bedroom, through a bannister, into a keyhole, through a gap above a kitchen top, a coffee pot handle, another work bench, a ceiling and floor-board, etc, etc. So you make the shots you can and you match them up with CG assists. They didn't make the whole house in CG and then only use that, they replicated the house to bridge the different shots.

    I've said, in multiple posts, that you make the shots you can and you use CG where you can't.
  • morriss 13 May 2012 18:33:56 70,976 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Or you become creative.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:34:16
    graysonavich wrote:
    It really makes you appreciate older films. I can't remember the Hitchcock film where he zooms through a big sign on top of a building near the start. A really great shot but it's something you'd see and not even blink an eye these days - because it would be 100% CGI.
    I still love the ultra-long shots in things like Goodfellas and whatnot, so well done you don't even really notice it's a single shot that's about five minutes in length. Nowadays they do multiple shots and patch them together with CG.
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 18:36:04 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Better than randomly zooming in on the back of some guy's blazer...

    /glares at Hitchcock's grave
  • Lukus 13 May 2012 18:37:23 19,107 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    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.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • graysonavich 13 May 2012 18:37:49 7,345 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    There's a nod to the restaurant entrance seen in some generic Valentines film called 'This Means War'. (time stamp fans will note they're both at 33 minutes as well). It's worth watching just to see how bad cinema has become.
  • Deleted user 13 May 2012 18:38:56
    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'.
  • Derblington 13 May 2012 18:41:46 21,614 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    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.
  • disusedgenius 13 May 2012 18:44:14 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    That was the film where he rides a fighter jet, no? :)

    But really, this is just the reality of budgeting and scheduling feature films nowadays. Effects has always been about being able to do bigger stuff cheaper. The real trouble nowadays is that truly anything can be done - which is just too tempting for a lot of film-makers out there. If modern CG is bad you can bet on it being either a terrible idea in the first place or underfunded/not enough time. Most of it goes completely unseen.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 18:45:16 13-05-2012
  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

Log in or register to reply