quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The average person will not notice the things you have. CG graphics is the way it will be done. There are not enough B-17s, P51s and ME-109s to make a movie anymore. This is not like the 1960s Battle of Britain. Don't go to the movie. I, however, suspect it will make money.

Bruce, I have absolutely nothing against CGI - IMHO this is great and fantastic tool to create stunning movies!

But why they always make the CGI unrealistic and unhistorical?

With little help from proper people CGI scenes would be both nice looking and realistic - is that too much to ask?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
The "Battleship" movie will cost 200.000.000 US$ - are they crazy!?!?! [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The average person will not notice the things you have. CG graphics is the way it will be done. There are not enough B-17s, P51s and ME-109s to make a movie anymore. This is not like the 1960s Battle of Britain. Don't go to the movie. I, however, suspect it will make money.

Bruce, I have absolutely nothing against CGI - IMHO this is great and fantastic tool to create stunning movies!

But why they always make the CGI unrealistic and unhistorical?

With little help from proper people CGI scenes would be both nice looking and realistic - is that too much to ask?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
The "Battleship" movie will cost 200.000.000 US$ - are they crazy!?!?! [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I see what you are saying, but people want spectacular these days. George Lucas has said many times he doesn't do "art" films, he does Saturday afternoon matinees. Just try and take the entertainment value. I know just from the trailer a lot of what is shown is aerodynamically impossible. However, as myth busters have shown us many times, most of the special effects from Hollywood are not what happens in real life. As an engineer, I have said on a number of occasions, "That's not possible." My wife tells me to shut up and enjoy the movie.

Every time I hear an explosion in a space movie I go, "You can't hear a boom in a vacuum".[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The average person will not notice the things you have. CG graphics is the way it will be done. There are not enough B-17s, P51s and ME-109s to make a movie anymore. This is not like the 1960s Battle of Britain. Don't go to the movie. I, however, suspect it will make money.

Bruce, I have absolutely nothing against CGI - IMHO this is great and fantastic tool to create stunning movies!

But why they always make the CGI unrealistic and unhistorical?

With little help from proper people CGI scenes would be both nice looking and realistic - is that too much to ask?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
The "Battleship" movie will cost 200.000.000 US$ - are they crazy!?!?! [X(]

I think he's talking about the details I pointed out about the German fighters in my post. And, no; it's not too much to ask to make great CGI combined with a real effort of historical and physical accuracy. I totally agree with that sentiment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I see what you are saying, but people want spectacular these days. George Lucas has said many times he doesn't do "art" films, he does Saturday afternoon matinees. Just try and take the entertainment value. I know just from the trailer a lot of what is shown is aerodynamically impossible. However, as myth busters have shown us many times, most of the special effects from Hollywood are not what happens in real life. As an engineer, I have said on a number of occasions, "That's not possible." My wife tells me to shut up and enjoy the movie.

Every time I hear an explosion in a space movie I go, "You can't hear a boom in a vacuum".[:D]

I know Bruce... I know... people want shallow spectacles with things blowing up (and preferably in 3D)...

BTW, I don't like 3D movies - I prefer good 2D movies (but those are rare these days)...

I do enjoy spectacular scenes but only if they stick to the realm of possible (even for SF)... I simply can't, just like you, "digest" explosions in space and all other similar craziness...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The average person will not notice the things you have. CG graphics is the way it will be done. There are not enough B-17s, P51s and ME-109s to make a movie anymore. This is not like the 1960s Battle of Britain. Don't go to the movie. I, however, suspect it will make money.

Bruce, I have absolutely nothing against CGI - IMHO this is great and fantastic tool to create stunning movies!

But why they always make the CGI unrealistic and unhistorical?

With little help from proper people CGI scenes would be both nice looking and realistic - is that too much to ask?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
The "Battleship" movie will cost 200.000.000 US$ - are they crazy!?!?! [X(]

I think he's talking about the details I pointed out about the German fighters in my post. And, no; it's not too much to ask to make great CGI combined with a real effort of historical and physical accuracy. I totally agree with that sentiment.

P.S. I think 3/4 of that $200,000,000.00 is Liam Neeson's compensation for being in that movie. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I see what you are saying, but people want spectacular these days. George Lucas has said many times he doesn't do "art" films, he does Saturday afternoon matinees. Just try and take the entertainment value. I know just from the trailer a lot of what is shown is aerodynamically impossible. However, as myth busters have shown us many times, most of the special effects from Hollywood are not what happens in real life. As an engineer, I have said on a number of occasions, "That's not possible." My wife tells me to shut up and enjoy the movie.

Every time I hear an explosion in a space movie I go, "You can't hear a boom in a vacuum".[:D]

I know Bruce... I know... people want shallow spectacles with things blowing up (and preferably in 3D)...

BTW, I don't like 3D movies - I prefer good 2D movies (but those are rare these days)...

I do enjoy spectacular scenes but only if they stick to the realm of possible (even for SF)... I simply can't, just like you, "digest" explosions in space and all other similar craziness...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
I still say most people by a very large percentage won't notice. All that research you want done costs money and, since it is his money, he gets to spend it where and how he wants. It would be nice if it was historically accurate, but it's his call not ours. It won't stop me from seeing the movie. I have spent my entertainment dollar on a lot worse movies.

A couple of which are

No Country for Old Men
The American
The Terminal
Burn After Reading

and quite a few more.

There were parts of Saving Private Ryan I truly disliked. I saw the film once, I won't see it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

And if the Germans had actually had Pattons in the Battle of the Bulge the outcome might have been a lot different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

And if the Germans had actually had Pattons in the Battle of the Bulge the outcome might have been a lot different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The average person will not notice the things you have. CG graphics is the way it will be done. There are not enough B-17s, P51s and ME-109s to make a movie anymore. This is not like the 1960s Battle of Britain. Don't go to the movie. I, however, suspect it will make money.

Bruce, I have absolutely nothing against CGI - IMHO this is great and fantastic tool to create stunning movies!

But why they always make the CGI unrealistic and unhistorical?

With little help from proper people CGI scenes would be both nice looking and realistic - is that too much to ask?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
The "Battleship" movie will cost 200.000.000 US$ - are they crazy!?!?! [X(]

I think he's talking about the details I pointed out about the German fighters in my post. And, no; it's not too much to ask to make great CGI combined with a real effort of historical and physical accuracy. I totally agree with that sentiment.

P.S. I think 3/4 of that $200,000,000.00 is Liam Neeson's compensation for being in that movie. [:D]

I like Liam Neeson, I thought Taken was a good film, but I don't think I will go to Battleship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

And if the Germans had actually had Pattons in the Battle of the Bulge the outcome might have been a lot different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

"Saving Ryan's Privates" wasn't too bad, though the T-34-turned-Tiger Tank, and the infamous "P-51 Tankbuster" remark tend to kill the suspension of disbelief. "The Thin Red Line" makes Saving Private Ryan look like a movie in the same league as The Shawshank Redemption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

And if the Germans had actually had Pattons in the Battle of the Bulge the outcome might have been a lot different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Funny how the first bot in many months to reach the AE forum lands here, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub

I'd dare to say that we've already seen a few spambots on THE THREAD!!! ... human ones ... [:'(][;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

And if the Germans had actually had Pattons in the Battle of the Bulge the outcome might have been a lot different.

No. They did. Didn't you remember seeing 'The Battle of the Bulge'? It was a true piece of cinematic crap. We stopped the German advance in the Ardennes by rolling fuel barrels from a fuel dump under their treads. Destroyed 'em all. [8|]