GreenEngineering3475Millennials, Gen-Z Want Original Movies and TV, Not Remakes — Survey
Can confirm. I’m 38 and I cringe every time I see a remake of some 20 or 30 year old movie or show. Come up with something original instead of going for the low hanging fruit. Also, use less CGI and more practical effects.
Too much bad cgi now days.
Look at top gun 2. I wasn’t excited at all to see it. I left the theater pumped and saw it four more times.
Top Gun 2 was full of CGI…
But also a ton of practical effects. The CGI was mostly there to help the practical effects, the movie wasn’t full on CGI like Avatar.
None of the planes shown in the film ever left the ground.
So there were planes?
And not just a chair and a green screen?
That sounds suspiciously like practical effects.
The planes look good, but they are almost entirely CGI. The difference is that they used realistic flight maneuvers and reference lighting to make it look really good. Practical effects means little to no CGI and that definitely does not apply here.
ign.com/…/how-top-gun-maverick-astonishing-practi…
That is false.
How Top Gun: Maverick’s Breathtaking Practical Effects Were Achieved - IGN
We spoke to director Joe Kosinski and star Miles Teller about how Top Gun: Maverick’s astonishing aerial sequences were achieved using unprecedented practical effects and a rigorous training program designed by Maverick himself, Tom Cruise.
chiisanaThis is incorrect; take it directly from the movie’s editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE1pOMpQvbw You can see at the 4 minutes mark where the actual jets in the movie were just stand ins, and VFX artists are told to use CGI to reskin them with the jets in the final movie.
Top Gun: Maverick editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE takes you on a tour of his AVID MEDIA COMPOSER timeline
That is the Russian and F-14. I already acknowledged those two were CGI. We don’t have access to an SU-57, and they are not flying F-14 anymore.
The F-18 are real planes with the send seat edited out.
No it isn’t.
"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (1/5)
Stop posting youtube. I don’t watch youtube.
I posted an article that states clearly they flew the planes. Read it and stop posting youtube.
Video evidence is far more convincing than someone’s say-so.
In a comment thread about CGI and VFX, you really want to talk about how accurate video is?
Well, if that’s how you win an argument, I don’t read IGN.
But for those who are curious, in the first posted video he talks about a timeline walkthrough that the editor did. All the jets are CGI covers over F-14s painted grey with lighting markers, except the F-18s. HOWEVER, there were only ever 1 or 2 F-18s in the air, so when you see a squadron of them, the others are CGI.
So yes, there were some real jets, but that wasn’t the argument you made. You said the film was done practically, which is not true. Even if you have 2/4 jets really in the air, that’s not “practical” and still counts as CGI.
And I can see where you got this opinion, the news outlets at the time and all interviews spouted “NO CGI!!” Because it is good marketing, but it’s not true.
That is false. Most of the flying is legit.
How Top Gun: Maverick’s Breathtaking Practical Effects Were Achieved - IGN
We spoke to director Joe Kosinski and star Miles Teller about how Top Gun: Maverick’s astonishing aerial sequences were achieved using unprecedented practical effects and a rigorous training program designed by Maverick himself, Tom Cruise.