Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

I've just seen some more of this and its truly awful vfx work. I'd be ashamed if I'd churned out work looking like that.
 
Mr.D said:
They must have the same PR people as Russ Andrews.

:laugh:

Are you questioning the redoubtable quality of products available from Russ "500% mark-up" Andrews??

Maybe the Sky captain vfx designers should have used oak cone feet under their SG workstations? No doubt there would have been a noticeable improvement in texture-mapping and colour matching :rotfl:
 
Well - I watched it last night and thought it was pretty good. Not exactly a no brainer. Reminded me a lot of "Rocketeer", and I think had the technology been available back then, Rocketeer probably would have looked more like this IMO.
Why can't people just "watch" films? Is that not what they are there for? Why does every single new innovation have to be ripped to pieces in front of our very eyes?
For what it's worth, I think the lack of colour added to the atmosphere and I thought the SE were pretty good...but what do I know, I'm just a paying customer... :rolleyes:
 
Because its incredibly pretentious to claim something you have done in order to hide poor work is a great stylistic achievement , especially when it looks as bad as Sky Captain.

You can do good effects work and make it look like an aquatint and stylistically representative of a bygone age without resorting to making it look like mushy horrible crap. Since when is an overblown promist filter and over the top foreground background edge wraps indicative of the 30s anyway.

Answer ...its not but its an easy way of hiding all your bad work.
 
Just watched it, it raised a few chuckles!

A good film, tongue firmly planted in cheek for the length of the film, i'd give it around a 7.5/10.

The PQ is horrible. It seems very washed out and far too soft.
 
Mr.D said:
Because its incredibly pretentious to claim something you have done in order to hide poor work is a great stylistic achievement , especially when it looks as bad as Sky Captain.

You can do good effects work and make it look like an aquatint and stylistically representative of a bygone age without resorting to making it look like mushy horrible crap. Since when is an overblown promist filter and over the top foreground background edge wraps indicative of the 30s anyway.

Answer ...its not but its an easy way of hiding all your bad work.

So Mr D, when do we get to see your latest movie released globally, eh? As a previous poster said, why can't we just watch a movie for the sheer enjoyment and not pull every little bit of the details to shreds. Not all movies are meant to be serious or perfect. Lighten up, :lease:
 
Well Harry Potter 3 was out a few months ago . Alfie is out in a couple of weeks and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will be out in spring next year.
 
Mr.D said:
Well Harry Potter 3 was out a few months ago . Alfie is out in a couple of weeks and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will be out in spring next year.

And your point being? Are you someone of importance in the movie world? Should I have respect for you? I seem to recall the effects in Harry Potter 1 being particularly dire!
 
Well you did ask.
 
Mindcrime said:
And your point being?
You asked him the question, he answered it honestly. What's your problem with that?
Are you someone of importance in the movie world? Should I have respect for you? I seem to recall the effects in Harry Potter 1 being particularly dire!
As you might have gathered by now, Keith does visual effects work for a company in Soho (London) that is used in many blockbusters.

I actually partly agree with your point, but you picked the wrong person to say "so what do you know about the subject, anyway" to... :laugh:

Cheers,
Liam
 
Mr.D said:
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will be out in spring next year.

How's it looking?

I can't wait for this one :smashin:
 
lmccauley said:
You asked him the question, he answered it honestly. What's your problem with that?

As you might have gathered by now, Keith does visual effects work for a company in Soho (London) that is used in many blockbusters.

I actually partly agree with your point, but you picked the wrong person to say "so what do you know about the subject, anyway" to... :laugh:

Cheers,
Liam

Well, all he did was mention a few up and coming movies - it didn't really answer my question; you actually answered my question for me and now I know who Mr D is I'll be quiet and go back to my dark, dank corner. I thought he was just another person bemoaning a movie coz it wasn't 'perfect' as most people expect this day and age. Everyone is just far too critical.
 
Games Guru said:
How's it looking?

I can't wait for this one :smashin:

Hard to say really... very good VFX supervisor (best in the UK one of the best in the world did Band of Brothers) Some of it has a nice look to it. Not sure I'm happy about the placement of Zaphods extra head and the Vogons look a little silly (which sort of works for this I suppose) The actor playing him ( crazy guy out of the green mile) seems to relish the role though.

It is only the first book though from what I can gather , it doesn't run into the restaurant at the end of the universe as did the bbc tv series.
 
Mindcrime said:
Well, all he did was mention a few up and coming movies - it didn't really answer my question; you actually answered my question for me and now I know who Mr D is I'll be quiet and go back to my dark, dank corner. I thought he was just another person bemoaning a movie coz it wasn't 'perfect' as most people expect this day and age. Everyone is just far too critical.
Ah, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Actually, I was going to expand on your original point, but got distracted.

All the technicalities behind how the effects are made mean nothing to the majority of people that watch a film. It doesn't matter if they used a swoolly filter or a jiggidypog. It does matter if an effect jars the viewer out of the story back to real life.

I haven't seen SCatWoT (wow, what an acronym!), but I found that there was some quality to the picture in Chronicles of Riddick that made me think "this is not real". I prefer it when sfx make me think "...". Nothing. I don't want to realise that they are effects. I hate seeing a stunt like the helicopter falling off the bridge in the second Charlie's Angel film - it just pushes me back into the real world thinking "that was dumb". I'd much rather see stunts like when Kimble jumps off the dam in The Fugitive. That makes me think "Wow, Kimble is really brave & smart".

Do the effects in Sky Captain detract from the story, or enhance it? Did they save a lot of their sfx budget by not doing the jiggidypog thing correctly? Did that make any difference to the audience's appreciation of the film?

Cheers,
Liam
 
To me, personally, it didn't detract from the movie at all, I really did think that it added to that whole 'aged' and 30's movie feel. The thing is we know that the movie is all CGI, just accept it and watch it for the enjoyment it brings. Nothing looks to out of place in the movie, ala the chopper scene in Angels 2 you mentioned, or the outrageous stunts in Torque, 2 fast 2 furious etc etc. I just don't let these ruin the movie for me, maybe I am strange and don't like to look too much into a movie, to analyize every little detail - I want to enjoy! :D
 
Well I saw it and thought it was mildly diverting. It is too softly focused and there is clearly evidence that it is slightly ropey effects that have been "dressed." However it is a reasonable enough romp and no worse than some of the other offerings of late. Couldn't understand why the redoutable "cap" had chosen a P40 warhawk as his steed- he'd have probably been better off walking. Although if the company production company had anything to do with Pearl Harbour it would be explained because they'd have some good CGI for a P40 after all the sequences they'd done for the earlier film. I'll take my anorak off now.
 
Well ILM did most of Pearl Harbour and they did some of Sky Captain ( I've asked some people who work there how much they actually did) . Then again ILMs bluescreen work is not that highly regarded. I'd say DD and potentially Cinesite are better regarded in this area ( and compositing generally).
 
Just saw this....

In this day and age, with CGI so advanced, I was surprised to see that they used actors made of wood! :D
 
Kazuya Mishima said:
In this day and age, with CGI so advanced, I was surprised to see that they used actors made of wood! :D

:rotfl: Be honest though- did that really prove a suprise?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom