I watched Argylle and everything looks so fake. Most of it was shot on a green screen. Half the charm of an extravagant spy movie is taking us to exotic locales.
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.
This is incorrect; take it directly from the movie’s editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: https://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.
The flying was legit when looking at cockpits, but the planes were all fake. They actually created plane models that don’t exist in real life. You can bet that unless it was a scene with several humans on screen talking face to face, about 90% of what you were seeing was made by a computer animator.
Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.
However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That’s what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.
When cgi is done right, it enhances the movie. It’s nearly seamless. Too gun 2 combined great cgi with great practical effects. They didn’t just slap shit cgi over everything and expect people to love it.
In thirty years top gun 2 will still look amazing.
I’ve watched it at home and in the theaters. It still looks good at home. Obviously it looks better in the theaters.
I’m not a fan of cruise but damn his vision was solid.
A good story is a good story. Lots of CGI or no CGI doesn’t change that fact. There are lots of movies with no CGI that are just garbage.
The issue is studios trying to avoid having to write a good story trying to mask a mediocre story with lots and lots of mediocre CGI. Why? Because it’s faster to create lots of computer effects than to come up with a great story. It’s also a lot easier to create an assembly line for CGI than it is to create one for great stories
I thought I was going to hate it. It seemed like a cash grab. I’m not a huge fan on Tom cruise.
It was just a damn good movie. Movies have forgot they’re supposed to be entertaining. It was entertaining.
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…
True, what people want is seamless VFX.
I watched Argylle and everything looks so fake. Most of it was shot on a green screen. Half the charm of an extravagant spy movie is taking us to exotic locales.
Yes, but Argylle doesn’t take itself seriously at all. Which for me was a good thing
Yeah, I didn’t mind the light tone but still felt like a fake movie. Like something you would see a fake trailer for in another comedy.
Super-fake looking locations and stunts.
When I first saw the trailer on TV, I assumed it was a cat food ad spoofing movie trailers.
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.
Unable to delete so editing instead. Leaving Lemmy.world due to privacy concerns.
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.
https://www.ign.com/articles/how-top-gun-maverick-astonishing-practical-effects-were-achieved
That is false.
https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo
No it isn’t.
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.
This is incorrect; take it directly from the movie’s editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: https://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.
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.
That is false. Most of the flying is legit.
https://www.ign.com/articles/how-top-gun-maverick-astonishing-practical-effects-were-achieved
Lots of practical effects as well. The flying was mostly practical. The used cgi to make the f18 look like a one seater but the flying was legit
The flying was legit when looking at cockpits, but the planes were all fake. They actually created plane models that don’t exist in real life. You can bet that unless it was a scene with several humans on screen talking face to face, about 90% of what you were seeing was made by a computer animator.
It was full of good CGI
The cgi was used to remove the pilot of the f18. It wasn’t all cartoon look physics bending bs.
Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.
However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That’s what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.
And that’s my point. It wasn’t cartoonish special effects with bizarre physics.
It was well down.
Alright. Well I agree
Perhaps you did not get your point across in your downvoted comment
When cgi is done right, it enhances the movie. It’s nearly seamless. Too gun 2 combined great cgi with great practical effects. They didn’t just slap shit cgi over everything and expect people to love it. In thirty years top gun 2 will still look amazing.
I’ve watched it at home and in the theaters. It still looks good at home. Obviously it looks better in the theaters.
I’m not a fan of cruise but damn his vision was solid.
A good story is a good story. Lots of CGI or no CGI doesn’t change that fact. There are lots of movies with no CGI that are just garbage.
The issue is studios trying to avoid having to write a good story trying to mask a mediocre story with lots and lots of mediocre CGI. Why? Because it’s faster to create lots of computer effects than to come up with a great story. It’s also a lot easier to create an assembly line for CGI than it is to create one for great stories
It was a damn good movie.
I thought I was going to hate it. It seemed like a cash grab. I’m not a huge fan on Tom cruise. It was just a damn good movie. Movies have forgot they’re supposed to be entertaining. It was entertaining.