Has anyone considered using CG exclusively for the COTC film/s?
There is really no limitation on what can be achieved these days with CG as we have seen in LOTR, Starwars etc. Or do you think a movie still needs real life actors to make it work?
CG option for films?
Moderators: kevinswatch, Orlion
I'd definatley prefer it to be live actors, some CG films make it hard to care for the characters.
But if you're all about the destination, then take a fucking flight.
We're going nowhere slowly, but we're seeing all the sights.
And we're definitely going to hell, but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Full of the heavens and time.
We're going nowhere slowly, but we're seeing all the sights.
And we're definitely going to hell, but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Full of the heavens and time.
-
Mr. Broken
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:49 pm
- Location: The arm pit of hell, Titusville Pa.
yes..rendering times would be very costly along with the room full of computers to get the job done.. ive been trying to render moving clouds and a scene that was going to be 30 seconds long took 18 days to do it in HD rendering (still in process)... but that is on one computer. I would like to see this movie with CGI of course but with real actors just like LOTR in an HBO Series 13 ep per book and narration.Sheol wrote:Isn't CG more expensive than b-list actors? I'm afraid that the cost of the movie might drive the studio to make it more sellable to audiences.
-
Fullmetal660
- <i>Elohim</i>
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: Hither and yon.
mentioned this in another post, but I hope to God they don't make a movie that relies too heavily on CG. I can't think of a heavily rendered CG movie that's really stuck as being of real quality. It's as if they spent all their money on F/X and skimped on the script and storyline.
LOTR had a good mix of CG and acting to carry it through. The other movies of late, like Indiana Jones, Transformers, etc. are somewhat shallow and forgettable.
Don't agree? Think back to the movies you love and perhaps have on your DVD shelf. Would you characterize them as heavily dependent on CG, or contain a good mix (like episdoes IV-VI of Star Wars)? For me a good movie is when the actors and script carry the movie and not rely on special F/X with fast editing to get you through the 2 hours. These days when directors film in front of a green screen instead of on location, I'm betting that the movie will be more of a netflix rental than a purchase.
LOTR had a good mix of CG and acting to carry it through. The other movies of late, like Indiana Jones, Transformers, etc. are somewhat shallow and forgettable.
Don't agree? Think back to the movies you love and perhaps have on your DVD shelf. Would you characterize them as heavily dependent on CG, or contain a good mix (like episdoes IV-VI of Star Wars)? For me a good movie is when the actors and script carry the movie and not rely on special F/X with fast editing to get you through the 2 hours. These days when directors film in front of a green screen instead of on location, I'm betting that the movie will be more of a netflix rental than a purchase.