KILL BILL vol. 2

[colcake]

Finally the long awaited second part of the saga will be released on Friday. After being impressed by the cool Hong Kong style action in the first movie I hope the second part will be equal or even do better. My favriote part of this movie; NO CGI.Lets face it using CGI for every scene doesn't do crap for a movie. Anyone else have any thoughts before this Film is released into the wild?

[BAMSS04]

I havn't even seen the first one yet? I think it comes to Blockbuster tomorrow and I'll check it out if thats true.

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Lets face it using CGI for every scene doesn't do crap for a movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's face it, small minded people think this way. There was a time when it was said that using models, perspective, minitures and matte painting was considered "cheating" and that it took away from the realism of a movie.

Give me more CGI.

RB

[Omaru]

That said, I'd prefer all out CGI instead of splicing it together with real life footage, that does sort of kill the effect a bit.

[colcake]

When I watch CGI all i'm really watching is a fancy computer graphic.When I watch a Indiana Jones film I see bold stunts and cool special effects. I'd rather watch something like that rather than just having one completely computerized scene. Think about it thats why the New James Bond movies suck! Thats why a lot of new movies suck because they replace plot and good acting with just a bunch of cool looking graphics. Takin the easy way out if u ask me.

[BAMSS04]

Point taken. However, just because a movie has a lot of CGI does not mean its any less fun to watch than a movie with no CGI what so ever. CGI doesn't ruin a movie in fact a lot of times it makes it a lot better.

[Asteban]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Point taken. However, just because a movie has a lot of CGI does not mean its any less fun to watch than a movie with no CGI what so ever. CGI doesn't ruin a movie in fact a lot of times it makes it a lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="green"> This having been said, I must bring up the example of Lord of the Rings, that movie would have sucked so much ass without all the CGI it had. Although yes, I am looking forward to Kill Bill vol. 2 . . . . and watching vol. 1, because I haven't seen it yet. </font color>

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
When I watch a Indiana Jones film I see bold stunts and cool special effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know that a stuntman died during the filming of the first one ? Don't you ?

Brandon Lee might still be alive if CGI had come a little sooner. Something about that always seemed fishy to me though.

In any case, I want to agree with you. CGI does not necessarily, a better movie make, but it's safer than real stunts and sometimes it looks really bad ass. The trouble is too many directors are relying completely on CGI rather than good characters, good writing/acting and a strong plot.

[Razorback]

There is a reason why cgi is used now and will be used even more in the future. It is too expensive to make movies any other way. Plus, digital stuntmen don't die.

RB

[DarthMaulRat]

CGI has its place, its only when the director keeps saying 'bigger' for no damn reason. We don't need 500 monsters to pop out and attack simply because the movie hits a dull spot. But don't let 'no CGI' be the reason to see Kill Bill. See it for the amazing art direction, the humor, the great anime (which even I enjoyed, and I despise the majority of anime), and some supurb music. The music in the film comes from all different genres, but they all fit the scenes perfectly. Everytime I hear any of the songs, it brings me right back to the movie, the sign of great music placement (like 'Here We Go' and Punch Drunk Love).

[Razorback]

Kill Bill was pretty boring. I would have rather seen some cgi monsters pop out than what I saw. Yawn.

RB

[DarthMaulRat]

Ha! You can't win this argument, because I thought of an intelligent, flawless rebuttal:

My opinion is right and yours is wrong.

[Matt1]

He's got ya there, RB.

As for there being no computer effects in Kill Bill, where oh where did all those wires go? Oh that's right, digitally removed.

[Razorback]

Booyah! In his face! IN HIS FACE! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

RB

[ILovePapaSmurf]

<font color="purple">You know, I'm all 'Kill Bill'-ed out. I watched that film this past weekend about 7 times (thanks to my brother). Now, I am not as excited to see the second Vol. due to that fact, but the trailer is bringing me back to reality.

And dude, CGI rocks. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif</font color>

[colcake]

I'm not saying that cgi is the worst thing to ever happen to the film world. In fact I think its a pretty good thing. What I dislike is how CGI is overused in many new movies. It is sometimes used in completely unneccesary situations. CGI is being overkilled in many new movies.

[Razorback]

CGI is great. More CGI.

RB

[Omaru]

No, No, you'll kill us all.
I agree use where necessary, e.g to remove wires or just have an completely CGI film, but realise 10 years from now pople are going to laugh at films like revolutions because the cut of a CGI smith to the real one lying on the ground will look as crap and as laughable as the scene in ther terminator where arnies head gets replaced with a peice of rubber as he removes his eye.

[Razorback]

And they will laugh more at the crapy puppets in the old Star Wars movies.

RB

[Efexeye]

I agree that crappy CGI is an instant buzzkill- the suspension of disbelief just goes out the window. Some of the shots in the Super Burly Brawl at the end of The Matrix Revolutions that were CGI could have been done in live-action, and I would have been a lot happier.

Then again, who the hell am I? This stuff is the state-of-the art! I just don't like it when it's there just for its own sake. Makes me roll my eyes.

[Razorback]

I love when people say that... like people sit around going "Oh throw that in there! Yeah I know there is no point in having it but we are mad with CGI BABY! MAD! Hell, it will only cost us an extra $10,000 to add that useless bit of CGI. MAD! MAD!"

[Threadkiller]

That reminds me of the audio commentary by Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp on the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD. I kind of got the impression that they were both afraid that some Disney exec was going to come into the editing room and say that very same thing. "we are mad with CGI BABY! MAD" The CGI in that film was excellent though, imho.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What I dislike is how CGI is overused in many new movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">Has there been a movie that has overused CGI before? Not that I can think of.</font color>

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It is sometimes used in completely unneccesary situations. CGI is being overkilled in many new movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">I'm pretty interested in what new movies you think have overused CGI.</font color>

[Razorback]

Oh I'm sure, like most fanboys, he will mention movies that have "overused" CGI. What he won't be able to do is tell you how those scenes could have been done without CGI, for less money.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What he won't be able to do is tell you how those scenes could have been done without CGI, for less money.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">Exactly. Do you know how many peole would have had to wear made outfits for the clones in SW?

I actually asked the question because I was just waiting for him to say Lord of the Rings.</font color>

[Razorback]

Check this out... we were having an argument about the new Star Wars movies (on another board) and one of the arguments that was brought up was the "overuse" of CGI. A few scenes/shots were mentioned as a point of proof of just how bad the CGI looks when compared with real sets and minitures... problem was, the scenes/shots mentioned were NOT done via CGI.

Just more proof that dumbass fanboys are 1) full of shit 2) clueless and 3) clueless and full of shit.

[ILovePapaSmurf]

<font color="purple">Fanboys listen to what movie nitpickers say a lot. Whatever they think, they think..I think the CGI is one of the best things that can come to movies..it helps bring out the imaginative ideals of the script or movie ideas without looking too fake.</font color>

[Razorback]

Fanboys should all be shot and then urinated on.

CGI has made fantasy/sci-fi fun again. There was some bad CGI a few years ago (Jabba added scene in A NEW HOPE Special Edition was one) but for the most part todays CGI has enhanced movies.

Speaking of good and bad CGI, I also remember watching a video online that showed someone being hit by a car. People were convinced that it was just someones poor attempt at CGI and it was called a fake. It was later proven to be real... you see, most people have no idea how a human body acts when struck by a moving vehicle or how it looks flying through the air.

So many thought it was fake because... well, it looked fake. Often reality looks unbelievable and funny. A lot of CGI is actually dumbed down so that it looks "cool" and less realistic because reality looks like bad CGI (or something like that).

[Matt1]

Any "computery" cgi in the Matrix films didn't bother me all that much, since within the context of the story, all the fights are taking place within a computer anyway. In fact, maybe some of that "crappy" cgi was intentional.

[Efexeye]

I guess the shot that sticks out in my mind is toward the middle of the Super Burly Brawl when Smith and Neo are flying around- there is a shot where Smith decelerates, changes direction, and accelerates, and it just looks like someone drew it in there with Adobe. Are you telling me they couldn't have done that shot with wires and then edited them out? And that that wouldn't have been cheaper?

I love the bullet-time CGI- it advances the story and provides for some spine-tingling effects- but CGI is CGI. The shot of Legolas climbing the Oliphant in LOTR:ROTK is the same way- Sure, I've never seen an elf climb up the side of a giant monster before, but that doesn't change the fact that it looks fake. Another example is the current Nike commerical with all the different athletes playing other sports than their own- the shot of Marion Jones somersaulting on the vault is impressive, to be sure, but it looks so fake, and it's such obvious CGI, that it really takes me out of the moment.

One of the reasons I was kind of anti-Hellboy is the shot from the trailer where that huge thing is dragging him back towards its lair- it just looks really fake, and it takes me out of it. At least with a movie like TPM or AOTC, I know that most of the set is virtual, and it doesn't bother me as much. What bothers me is when they fuck up my suspension of disbelief- it just makes me lose interest. "Seamless" CGI is a fiction.

[Efexeye]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
CGI has made fantasy/sci-fi fun again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me that Blade Runner, a movie done with zero CGI, is a bad, or "un-fun" movie? Or that it looks fake? Or that matte paintings and miniatures should be relegated to the dust heap?

[Razorback]

I never said that non-CGI movies were bad. My point is that no one will produce a fantasy/sci-fi movie that way anymore. It costs too much and takes too long and requires way too many people.

BLADE RUNNER is probably the best sci-fi movie ever made, but it was also a financial flop.

[Efexeye]

I think Starship Troopers had some pretty believable CGI. Very believable, in fact- I can't think of one time when I thought anything looked too fake to believe. Plus, lots of physical blood effects complemented the CGI- the assault scene on Planet P when those flying things come over the wall and decapitate soldiers, then the soldiers fall and their blood sprays out on to the actual set, is, to me, what CGI should be. Or, as in T2, when all the T-1000 "destruction" effects were done physically and all the "reconstruction" effects were done digitally. That movie (and T3, for that matter) were great examples of how not to overuse CGI, even though there were many opportunities to do so.

[RobinHoodDaffy]

I think some of the CGI argument is that sometimes it is used by a director trying to cut corners. I also believe that some of the cut to CGI Neo scenes were jarring, but in the case of that movie it was a part of the plot that had to be there. The cuts to CGI Blade in Blade 2 were not important. They didn't do anything exciting with them, they just wanted to get the characters to move a little faster.

When CGI is used by a director with a vision, like Lucas, or Jackson that need another tool to tell a story that is a great tool! The CGI used by Disney to cut animation corners is not a story telling tool and just makes me think that they are indeed cutting corners.

So unlike I have come off before, I am not anti-CGI. I just want directors to have to think about what they are doing and use CGI like they use lighting or costumes. It is a tool to be used when they need it to tell a story.

[Razorback]

I hear ya... I just don't think that many directors use CGI simply to use it. There could be an argument made against what Jackson did with Two Towers and Return of the King when he used his MASSIVE engine for close-up scenes. Now THAT is an overuse of CGI... however, except for one scene, it works.

[RobinHoodDaffy]

Hey, what the f...........? RB replied to my post and I don't have to defend what I said! WHAAA HOOOOO! Unscathed again!
Massive was not the best for close-ups true, but tell me a good enough story and I honestly don't give a fuck what the effects look like. Or the cinematography, after all that is the birth of the independant film industry. Story tops all, and that is in films, novels, or hell even comic books. I hate books with great art and crappy stories. First and foremost tell me a story and I will forgive MOST mistakes.

[Razorback]

Speaking of cinematography... there should be an award given out for CGI cinematography because Attack of the Clones had some gorgeous shots. I can't wait to see Episode 3 since they are using even better technology this time. Two Towers also had that Forbidden Pool scene that was gorgeous (and CGI).

[Omaru]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Speaking of good and bad CGI, I also remember watching a video online that showed someone being hit by a car. People were convinced that it was just someones poor attempt at CGI and it was called a fake. It was later proven to be real... you see, most people have no idea how a human body acts when struck by a moving vehicle or how it looks flying through the air

[/ QUOTE ]

The opposite happened with me, I was convinced someone had got hit by two cars, and then about six months down the line I saw meet joe black and sighed a huge relief.

[Efexeye]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I just don't think that many directors use CGI simply to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be pretty ridiculous (and costly), if they did. My problem isn't with CGI, it's with badly timed or integrated CGI. Hell, I loved the Final Fantasy movie, Finding Nemo, Toy Story- all of them. I think the effects in Spider-Man are a lot better than the effects in Close Encounters- but fx alone do not a movie make.

[DarthMaulRat]

Speaking of the MASSIVE anthill shots, has anyone seen the trailer for Troy? That shot of the two armies colliding looks very believable, but I can't imagine how they did that shot unless they developed their own Massive program. Does anyone know who is doing the effects for this movie? If its anyone besides ILM, then I'm pretty suprised.

[Razorback]

I believe it is ILM.

[Matt1]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The cuts to CGI Blade in Blade 2 were not important. They didn't do anything exciting with them, they just wanted to get the characters to move a little faster.


[/ QUOTE ]
Don't really want to nitpick, but if you can tell me a way they could've done a shot where Blade jumped from the top of a five story building and landed on the ground, all while having the camera follow him down, without using a digital stunt-double, I'm all ears.

[Efexeye]

How about belaying him down in a Swiss seat and then digitally removing the wires? Of course, at that point, you'll probably spend the same amount on wire-removal as you would on a digital Blade....

[Efexeye]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
As for there being no computer effects in Kill Bill, where oh where did all those wires go? Oh that's right, digitally removed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, you mean Uma Thurman can't fly? That's it- I'm out on Kill Bill 2.

[DarthMaulRat]

First you have a guy jump from a building into an air bag. Then, using the same camera angle, you have the same stuntman jump from a ledge closer to the ground. You then splice the two together so it looks like one continuous jump. Of course you have to digitally remove the air bag, add digital shadows to where the air bag would be, set the film speed right so the stuntman appears to have the same amount of momentum on the second jump(which requires some math), and you would also have to shoot about 100 times just so you can get two seperate jumps that line up decently. Even that would be near impossible, so you would need an explosion or light flash of some type to help hide the transition.

Bottom line: it's possible, but having someone jump off a tall building is something that will cost a lot of money and could still look fake. You run the same risk of having fake looking CGI, but you'll save alot of money.

[colcake]

Well the best point I can bring up here is that movies where CGI looks fake and scenes become redundant bore me. Thats my opinion. If you don't like it thats ok. Call me ignorant I don't care. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[DarthMaulRat]

I love real effects when they're done right. Alien and Aliens are movies made better by their practical effects, namely the genius of Stan Winston. The Aliens look totally fake until they're covered in slime, and then all of the sudden they look like these real creatures that you fear. If the films were retouched with CGI today, they'd lose alot of their impact.

[colcake]

alien and aliens are kickass. I didn't really like the other sequels.

[Razorback]

Stuntman jumping into air bag: $10,000.
Insurance for stuntman: $5,000
Airbag and crew: $30,000
Digitally removing airbag: $3,000
Digitally animating a CG character who lands on feet: $20,000.

Cost: $70,000 plus... and one possibly injured stuntman.
Total time for sequence during production: 7 hours (or one whole shooting day)

Doing the entire sequence in CGI: $30,000. No injured stuntman. Completed in post production. No time lost during production.

(Sure, these numbers are way off but you get my point) /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Razorback]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Well the best point I can bring up here is that movies where CGI looks fake and scenes become redundant bore me. Thats my opinion. If you don't like it thats ok. Call me ignorant I don't care. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure you can get over it.

[Threadkiller]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Stuntman jumping into air bag: $10,000.
Insurance for stuntman: $5,000
Airbag and crew: $30,000
Digitally removing airbag: $3,000
Digitally animating a CG character who lands on feet: $20,000.

Cost: $70,000 plus... and one possibly injured stuntman.
Total time for sequence during production: 7 hours (or one whole shooting day)

[/ QUOTE ]

Realizing that critics will find fault no matter what method you choose: Priceless

[RobinHoodDaffy]

Touche! I just meant the fight scenes between him and Donnie Yen. They were distracting to me, and seemingly unnessasary, 'cause DAMN you have Donnie Yen forchrissakes! I didn't mean to nitpik every effect either.

[DarthMaulRat]

Just to clear anything up, I was trying to point out that the scene would be cheaper and most likely look better with CGI, not with a stuntman. I kept retyping that last sentence to get my point across, but my engrish no so good, eh?