Jump to content


Photo

2012


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 16 November 2009 - 01:20 PM

I saw this today !! well what to say ? FX brilliant ! but what a pile of rubbish ! and dont mean LA falling into the Pacific ! Waste of huge amount of money !!
  • 0

#2 Stephen Murphy

Stephen Murphy
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2009 - 02:51 PM

I saw this today !! well what to say ? FX brilliant ! but what a pile of rubbish ! and dont mean LA falling into the Pacific ! Waste of huge amount of money !!



Dont get me started on the 270/360 degree shutter angle he used:-(
  • 0

#3 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 16 November 2009 - 02:54 PM

Go on Stephen !! get going !!!
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 16 November 2009 - 03:09 PM

Please do go! I'm in the mood for a good rant.
  • 0

#5 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2009 - 06:31 AM

FX brilliant !

True, but some of the green screen in the movie is the worst I've ever seen.
Was this shot on Genesis? I assume it was.
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 November 2009 - 06:34 AM

I think the VFX shots were on the Genesis .
  • 0

#7 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:38 AM

I think the majority of the movie was Genesis, with some FX on RED.
  • 0

#8 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:15 PM

If thats the case ? and even if some was shot on film , not a good ad. for Genesis , Red or Kodak !!
  • 0

#9 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:17 PM

Acquisition format does not the movie make. I think a lot of the problem is that there is so much FXs that out minds just don't buy it. That's my theory at least .
  • 0

#10 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:37 PM

I agree !! my kids just say boring CGI without any input from me !!
  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:41 PM

What I think a lot of this has to do with is the budget of time, as opposed to money. We're spending a lot more money on VFXs it seems, but we're not spending as much time on them. Back in the Jurassic Park days, which I look back on Fondly from my younger days, CGI was expensive and time consuming, but there were fewer shots so I feel we focused more on them. Now with upwards of a few hundred VFX shots per film.. is it any surprise that not only are we spending more money on them, but less time so as to make the release windows etc. Again, just my theory.
I recall, also, being pretty blown away by (at least) the FXs in The Fountain, because from what I recall they were mostly done optically and took the time to get it right.
  • 0

#12 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:46 PM

Hey i have to stop agreeing with you ! Its also i think that X-Box etc games are so good now , in fact look just like boring CGI we see on the "big screen"
  • 0

#13 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:58 PM

Quite true, or perhaps better put that we're been accustomed to CGI Animations (in films) since toy story. I recently bought Halo 3 ODST (my 1st AC and a few other members of my crew often just b/s 'round playing Xbox for kicks) and while I was playing it, I was a bit blown away by the cut-scenes, anamorphic framed, nice texture, higher production design than I've seen in quite a few other CGI endeavors....
  • 0

#14 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 November 2009 - 01:05 PM

Yes we have got much to used to CGI and the magic has gone !! Stop motion and large scale model work still rule as far as i am concerned !!
  • 0

#15 Stephen Murphy

Stephen Murphy
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2009 - 01:06 PM

As far as i know main/2nd unit was all genesis. thought it looked horrible regardless of what format was used. horrible motion blur, clippy highlights and plastic pink skintones. thought the fx varied greatly from truly superb to poor - loved the sequence where the first small plane escapes california. I enjoyed Day after 2moro sooooo much more then this.
  • 0

#16 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 November 2009 - 01:13 PM

I have decided that this Director has been given so much money to make so many crap films ! just wonder who he is sleeping with ?
  • 0

#17 Phil Jackson

Phil Jackson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:10 PM

! just wonder who he is sleeping with ?



and can he find someone else?


My favorite Onion headline: "Mayan Calendar Predicts Catastrophic Movie about The Year 2012"
  • 0

#18 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 17 November 2009 - 10:04 PM

It reminds me of that line from Jurassic Park, " Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." These guys get so caught up in how COOL this effect or that effect would be and great it would look, that they forget to actually tell a story. I am a HUGH John Cusack fan and will watch just about anything he's in because no matter what he seems to somehow rise above the material but he has made some bad choices when it comes to scripts. I haven't seen this one. I'll probably wait till it come on cable but I did see the ads and even in those short glimpses, it seemed a bit overblown, course it is a disaster movie and the next one has to top the last. Come to think of it, those old Irwin Allen mayhem pics were pretty long on effects and short on plot as well so in all honesty, what, with the exception of ticket prices, has really changed? :D

Edited by James Steven Beverly, 17 November 2009 - 10:05 PM.

  • 0

#19 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 18 November 2009 - 11:58 AM

Yes we have got much to used to CGI and the magic has gone !! Stop motion and large scale model work still rule as far as i am concerned !!



It's funny you should say that John.
Not so long ago, I was having a similar conversation with a couple of mates of mine about Avatar. Neither work in the film business but both are photographers.

I was basically saying how I couldn't believe that they didn't resort to good old traditional methods with todays technology. I mean, the technology of today was all that was missing from those films in 70's and 80's, right?!
And as far as I know Avatar is actually quite an interesting story, so I found it to be a real shame.
They're argument was that the whole CGI created a different realism/world. A good point but I couldn't remove myself over the fact that when I watch a film I want it to have some inconspicuous fantasy but with a firm, solid foundation that relates to our everyday life. That for me is where the magic is! You grab something, run with it but you keep the interest by making our world a direct relation to whatever is being depicted.
That is what Star Wars, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek etc....did.

I feel like I've deviated a bit over the heading of this post but in the same breath I also think it relates to 2012.

IMO where it is going wrong is that CGI is the MAIN ingredient in too many films......but then again who am I to say that these studios are making the wrong choices!

Edited by Serge Teulon, 18 November 2009 - 11:59 AM.

  • 0

#20 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 18 November 2009 - 02:39 PM

As far as i know main/2nd unit was all genesis. thought it looked horrible regardless of what format was used. horrible motion blur, clippy highlights and plastic pink skintones. thought the fx varied greatly from truly superb to poor - loved the sequence where the first small plane escapes california. I enjoyed Day after 2moro sooooo much more then this.



never liked the look of the genesis. check out the Bank Job for lousy skin tones. 265 million dollar budget!! Is this the most expensive film ever made? one has to ask; why?
  • 0


Abel Cine

CineTape

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Technodolly

Visual Products

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

CineLab

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Opal

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera