Originally Posted By mawnck <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy2fJsCkUn4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...fJsCkUn4</a>
Originally Posted By tonyanton I'm really excited to see this. I like the little China Girl character.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It looks super CGI/greenscreen in every single frame. To the point you wonder why not just go ahead and make it computer animated. It looks though like it could be good though.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>To the point you wonder why not just go ahead and make it computer animated.<< Because animation is for kids. Duh. ;-)
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'm beginning to see many people's point of over CGIing .. every single major film .. where the actors are barely in any real sets any more. And the only thing surrounding them are green backdrops .. making their interaction seem, to a degree, artificial. A bit of a "disconnect". Compare Johnny Depp version of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ... <a href="http://www.foodbeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/willy-wonka-choc-factory.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.foodbeam.com/wp-con...tory.jpg</a> To Gene Wilder's version: <a href="http://www.midgetmomma.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/00287507.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.midgetmomma.com/wp-...7507.jpg</a> I'll take 'real' any day!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm beginning to see many people's point of over CGIing .. every single major film .. where the actors are barely in any real sets any more.<< Someone posted a link a couple weeks ago showing how CGI is used in just about every TV show for "location" shots. It's so well done, I have no clue that they didn't do these shots for real. But this movie, Alice in Wonderland, 300... there's something that screams THIS WAS FILMED ON A GREENSCREEN SET to me. I don't know why it is easier to recreate a bustling New York street with tracking shots than it is to show someone in a field preparing for battle, but it just never looks quite right. Maybe the more fantastical elements are already suspect to our eyes, so the artificiality seems more apparent than something set in familiar locations. Dean's example of the two Wonkas is a great one. The Tim Burton version felt completely plastic. The Gene Wilder version created a factory that looked like it just might really work.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA These kinds of movies almost have a -- no, they actually do have -- a particular 'look' to them. The CGI is so crisp and clear and other-worldly, that it becomes artificial. Funny too that when they produce the Pixar animated movies, we marvel at how realistic water and rock and metal and fur seem to look. Then, in a live action movie with 98.9% CGI, it looks so incredibly fake and peculiar.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>These kinds of movies almost have a -- no, they actually do have -- a particular 'look' to them.<< Yep. Kind of a video game look. Overly airbrushed or something.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: It doesn't bother me if they have animated backgrounds as opposed to 'real' backgrounds. As long as the story is good, that's what should make the movie good. Sometimes I think we can allow ourselves to over analyze things like this too much and end up ruining an, otherwise, good experience.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I was talking about CGI movies recently, and noticed that I prefer the 'look' of a movie like 'Skyfall.' It's gritty, but it looks realistic, as if they're actually there filming that crazy stuff on location. Now, they may very well be using tons of CGI in "Skyfall" -- thing is, it doesn't look like it. And when you compare the big chase scene in "Skyfall" when Bond is on the back of a car fighting with someone -- it looks a heckuva lot more realistic than that ridiculous Jeep / fencing sequence in 'Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull' Anyone else feel that way?
Originally Posted By leemac This trailer is definitely a step up from the first. It is certainly a very visual movie - I guess having the same production designer as Alice has led to a similar look (and Robert Stromberg has gone on to direct Maleficent too). The female leads are impressive - Mia Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz are three of the best out there today so to have them all in the same feature is impressive casting (and probably has helped to make this a $250m movie!). There are two things that I'm concerned about: 1) The dialog was a little too "now" in places - the comment from Franco for the Munchkins "to take five" jarred me a bit. 2) It seems like a very simple plot - the usual charlatan trickster who eventually becomes all he claimed to be.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <1) The dialog was a little too "now" in places - the comment from Franco for the Munchkins "to take five" jarred me a bit.> Ugh. Me too. I'm not even sure that would have been an expression he would have used in that time period.
