Sky Captain and ... crap, are we there yet?

[miker]

http://www.apple.com/pro/video/conran/index.html

haven't seen the movie myself, but it does look very stylised by necessity rather than choice, and has some very mixed reviews.

interestingly it was shot on HD video and complete bluescreen sets.

i've always thought cgi sets are a nuisance - you may as well make an animation. using star wars as a benchmark, it's so easy to see the differences in the actors performances between the new and classic trilogy. it's so obvious when an actor is acting to nothing when compared to an actor interacting with his environment. i know which i find more convincing.

Sky Captain then - an expensive cartoon?

[twister!]

Originally posted by miker:
it's so easy to see the differences in the actors performances between the new and classic trilogy. it's so obvious when an actor is acting to nothing when compared to an actor interacting with his environment. i know which i find more convincing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I completely agree - a shame Lucas can't see it though. A good example is Gollum in LOTR - Andy Serkis was only supposed to supply the voice to the CG character. However Jackson saw that Serkis had so much extra to offer with his physical contribution to the character. And not only that - the responses from the other actors were much better when he was in the scene.

Another good comparison is the current Open Water - shot on DV with pretty much just two actors and no CG. And it's a great film - I doubt we'll be able to say the same of Sky Captain.

[eidde]

hmmmm.... is it just me, or does film making like this - acting to a blue screen - take the fun out of the whole potential theatrical experience?

Christ, I think acting would be a pretty crap job, if every time you turned up for work you were always in a big blue room and talking to yourself, rather than 'stepping into a world of wonder...' a big amazing set crafted by hundreds of people to make a convincing new world....

There are hundreds of skilled tradepeople who could probably have built these sets for him, if I suppose he'd had the money, or inclination to pay them.

This kind of thing is part of that same 'One Person is amazing talented genius...blagh blah' distracting you from the fact that film making is collaborative. Every one involved is as important as the rest, not just the CGI designer.
(which could be one person slaving over a PC/MAC for 10 years) - big deal.

Oh and while Im kind of ranting - what???? Star Fucking Wars trilogy (?) FINALLY released on DVD...?
Really, what took so long? Behind on a mortgage payment?
That man is unbeleivable - what depths will he go to next time?
Industrial Light and Magic are a fucking dinosaur, who have been clearly surpased (as highlighted above) by other special effects companies.
As for THX...whatever... nice idea, good student film - some interesting thoughts the director had when making it, shame subsequent history has shown him to be one of the blank faces of the machine he was so upset by at the time.

[twister!]

Originally posted by eidde:
...shame subsequent history has shown him to be one of the blank faces of the machine he was so upset by at the time.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nice. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[miker]

I hear that Sky Captain cost $70m to make - though I have no idea if that's the true figure the first time director had to work with.

Anyone know what the budget was on The Rocketeer, that other 30s serial inspired movie?

[m0dsie]

I haven't seen Sky Captain... and I don't really have any intention too either. One thing that confused me from the trailers is - who the hell is their target audience?

[curtinparloe]

Originally posted by miker:
it's so easy to see the differences in the actors performances between the new and classic trilogy. it's so obvious when an actor is acting to nothing when compared to an actor interacting with his environment. i know which i find more convincing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's more of a problem with younger actors, specifically those who haven't been acting on stage. What with the months of rehearsals and so on (and sometimes the actual performance), a stage actor will have been performing to nothing and got used to it, whereas a screen only actor will be expecting the physical set, someone to play against, etc.

The imagination is like a muscle. Without excercise it will atrophy.