Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 28, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
And you're telling me you couldn't tell? Time to book in for an operation to remove those cateracts, methinks...

I was thinking the same thing. It was so fake looking it was a joke, a Bugs life looked more real.

Bullet time is impressive as it is a cool new camera trick using REAL actors, this reloaded stuff was silly as it was ALL 3d which any nerd with a computer could come up with.

MindFad · May 28, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
In the first movie, when Trinity raised up and did her kung fu thing in the opening sequence, every jaw dropped in the theater. Why? Not because we'd never seen ass-kicking before. Not because the fight was anything unusual. It was because it looked so damn real. Same with the subway fight scene with Agent Smith.

The Wow factor that set the first one appart was the realism.

In Reloaded, everytime they tried to do something even bigger, they resorted to pure CG. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that thought, "meh, CG *yawn*".

Scenes like the spinning Neo-on-a-pole require CG. There was no way some of that stuff could been done with the multiple camera shot (Trinity thing you mentioned). That was my point is all. But you're right -- we are spoiled by the effects, and you're almost always going to be able to see the CG when it pops up, but what can you do? Technology will get better, artists will get more talented, directors will be inspired to create more elaborate and cooler shots.

I personally tired of bullet-time after seeing MR. Hopefully they will improve on it more with the next film.

Skywalkers new Hand · May 28, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:

I personally tired of bullet-time after seeing MR. Hopefully they will improve on it more with the next film.

Don't count on it as they filmed them at the same time and the next one is out in 6 months. I bet it will be just as crappy as they don't have any time to take feedback or make changes.

thunderous_funker · May 28, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Scenes like the spinning Neo-on-a-pole require CG. There was no way some of that stuff could been done with the multiple camera shot (Trinity thing you mentioned). That was my point is all. But you're right -- we are spoiled by the effects, and you're almost always going to be able to see the CG when it pops up, but what can you do? Technology will get better, artists will get more talented, directors will be inspired to create more elaborate and cooler shots.

And I'm saying the choice to go with "bigger, more elaborate" over realistic and imaginitive is what makes MR not nearly as good as the first. They didn't break new ground, they just spent more money.

MindFad · May 28, 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by istallion:
In the 100-agent smith battle, the buildings, people, lights and camera were all CG. Except for probably where smith talks to neo under the dogpile and when smith infects the agent/grocery lady

Not all of it, but a good portion (air stuff). Real fighting, bunch of compositing, and 3-D.

But why is everyone having a fit because 3-D characters were used? These are the tools that we have at our displosal to create awesome scenes like that. "That was so fake" -- well, yeah, no ****.

Sure, some of it wasn't real, but you know that. You can't deny that scene was awesome.

MindFad · May 28, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I'm saying the choice to go with "bigger, more elaborate" over realistic and imaginitive is what makes MR not nearly as good as the first. They didn't break new ground, they just spent more money.

I agree with you there. It was part one with more fighting and techno music. Hopefully the third will add something magical to the formula.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 28, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Not all of it, but a good portion (air stuff). Real fighting, bunch of compositing, and 3-D.

But why is everyone having a fit because 3-D characters were used? These are the tools that we have at our displosal to create awesome scenes like that. "That was so fake" -- well, yeah, no ****. Sure, some of it wasn't real, but you know that. You can't deny that scene was awesome.

Because it looked fake, when something looks as stupid as that did it takes you out of the reality that the movie creates. It would have had a stronger effect if they used Hand puppets.

MindFad · May 28, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Because it looked fake, when something looks as stupid as that did it takes you out of the reality that the movie creates. It would have had a stronger effect if they used Hand puppets.

Yeah ... right. I thought Final Fantasy was stupid, too.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 28, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Yeah ... right. I thought Final Fantasy was stupid, too.

Yes it was but it was at least 3D the whole movie. You didn't suddenly see a character go from human to 3D when they wanted to do a fancy trick.

Animatrix is fine as it says 3d throughout.

MindFad · May 28, 2003, 05:50 PM

They decided 3-D was needed for that shot, so they used it. I thought it was nicely done. You thought it was a bad shot because you noticed it was CG? Blame the animator. People just seem to be whining about it only because it was 3-D, when it had to be used, or because they "noticed" it was CG. 3-D is what it is -- you're going to notice, but it's just one of those tools. I wouldn't expect people to see the scene and think, "wow, that was CG -- how stooopid" just because it was CG.

thunderous_funker · May 28, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
They decided 3-D was needed for that shot, so they used it. I thought it was nicely done. You thought it was a bad shot because you noticed it was CG? Blame the animator. People just seem to be whining about it only because it was 3-D, when it had to be used, or because they "noticed" it was CG. 3-D is what it is -- you're going to notice, but it's just one of those tools. I wouldn't expect people to see the scene and think, "wow, that was CG -- how stooopid" just because it was CG.

If you can't make a shot look good and realistic, don't do it.

If using CG to complete a scene suddenly makes half the audience loose all sense of wonder and appreciation and start comtemplating their snack rather than the movie, don't do it.

It's not worth doing if it detracts from rather than enhance the audience's sense of wonder.

Please forward this response to George Lucas.

Nicko · May 28, 2003, 06:03 PM

LOL does it really matter? Is not the Matrix virtual reality anyway? Reality is subjective.

MindFad · May 28, 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If you can't make a shot look good and realistic, don't do it.

If using CG to complete a scene suddenly makes half the audience loose all sense of wonder and appreciation and start comtemplating their snack rather than the movie, don't do it.

It's not worth doing if it detracts from rather than enhance the audience's sense of wonder.

Please forward this response to George Lucas.

Hahaha. *quietly e-mails to geaorge*

Well, I see where you're coming from, but I didn't feel that way at all watching the scene. I noticed the CG immediately, but it didn't distract me at all (though I did instantly start paying attetnion to animation; it's a habit). BUT it wasn't distracting. I thought it was very well done, and obviously took a long time to do. Boils down to a matter of opinions, I suppose. I'll still see the next one, though.

I don't know about George's next flick. Ahem, I might wait for the DVD after sitting through Ep. II.

thunderous_funker · May 28, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Hahaha. *quietly e-mails to geaorge*

Well, I see where you're coming from, but I didn't feel that way at all watching the scene. I noticed the CG immediately, but it didn't distract me at all (though I did instantly start paying attetnion to animation; it's a habit). BUT it wasn't distracting. I thought it was very well done, and obviously took a long time to do. Boils down to a matter of opinions, I suppose. I'll still see the next one, though.

I don't know about George's next flick. Ahem, I might wait for the DVD after sitting through Ep. II.

Agreed. It's a question of taste. It obviously rubbed me the wrong way. I appreciate the hard work of CG artists, but in some ways it still feels like a bit of a cop-out to just completely render a scene, IMO.

The original Matrix blended it so well you were unaware of it most of the time. Peter Jackson does it brilliantly in LOTR. Just takes a bit more imagination and creativity to solve the problem without going all CG, IMO.

Of course, in a few more years the CG stuff will be completely indistinguishable from real stuff so it will be a moot point. For now, however, I can really tell the difference.

It's the same qualitative difference between the performances actors give in front of a blue screen and the performance actors give on a real set they can interact with. To me, it's a very dramatic difference.

istallion · May 28, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
Not all of it, but a good portion (air stuff). Real fighting, bunch of compositing, and 3-D.

But why is everyone having a fit because 3-D characters were used? These are the tools that we have at our displosal to create awesome scenes like that. "That was so fake" -- well, yeah, no ****. Sure, some of it wasn't real, but you know that. You can't deny that scene was awesome.

Not according to the Wired interview with Gaeta. No compositing, just motion cap. and hand animated parts. That was my point, that the 'slow' scenes where you just see neo fighting a few close smiths, look fine. Parts could look better, but they usually only look fake because they are 'impossible'.

shanraghan · May 28, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If you can't make a shot look good and realistic, don't do it.

If using CG to complete a scene suddenly makes half the audience loose all sense of wonder and appreciation and start comtemplating their snack rather than the movie, don't do it.

It's not worth doing if it detracts from rather than enhance the audience's sense of wonder.

Please forward this response to George Lucas.

Well, you do have a point, it is important that a scene looks consistent to maintain its power, however, I can't help but be a little put off by your comment there. Back when the original Star Trek was on the air, special effects weren't nearly as advanced as they are now and there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell they could make it look realistic. Yet, they tried the best they could, in spite of their limitations. If we allow ourselves to be too bound by what looks realistic, then we run the risk of not trying new things simply because the process hasn't be refined. Someone has to take that first, feeble step. Keep in mind this isn't particularly a defense of Reloaded, as it didn't exactly take a new step anywhere, aside from new ways of looking inside bodies and up ladie's skirts. Also, even realism in a film isn't alway important: the French surrealists didn't go for realism at all in their sets, and instead stylized their sets and scene composition to portray the environment and events in a more subjective light. After all, the film itself isn't real.

Ozmodiar · May 28, 2003, 11:54 PM

Something I've noticed with CG characters is that the more you see a scene heavy with them, the more you believe they're real. Take Jar-Jar, for instance: when you first see him in Ep 1, he looks like Roger Rabbit. Seriously, he looks so animated and sticks out so much that it's almost laughable that ILM tried to pass him off as real. The more times you watch the movie, though, he seems more realistic. This happens for me, anyway, I don't know about the rest of you.

I'm going to see Reloaded for the second time next week, and I won't be surprised if I think CG Neo looks more like Keanu Neo (KeaNeo?).