Official TMNT 2 Trailer Discussion

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

http://img10.deviantart.net/339a/i/2...0a-d9jncte.jpg

I don't care what anyone says. If someone showed another person that and said it was a screenshot from the newest TMNT video game, they'd believe them. And if they didn't already KNOW it was from the movie, they'd swear it was from a video game until someone proved otherwise.

No, I'm never going to get over it. I cannot stand how fake every movie looks nowadays.

[Foombamaroom]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I don't care what anyone says. If someone showed another person that and said it was a screenshot from the newest TMNT video game, they'd believe them. And if they didn't already KNOW it was from the movie, they'd swear it was from a video game until someone proved otherwise.

No, I'm never going to get over it. I cannot stand how fake every movie looks nowadays.

I don't know WHY they had to green-screen the background. I mean, c'mon, even STAR WARS, a franchise that takes place in a galaxy far, far away with ships, aliens, and different planets, had practical effects. All this movie needs effects for is the CGI characters/objects and the occasional part of an action sequence, NOT backgrounds.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I don't care what anyone says. If someone showed another person that and said it was a screenshot from the newest TMNT video game, they'd believe them. And if they didn't already KNOW it was from the movie, they'd swear it was from a video game until someone proved otherwise.

No, I'm never going to get over it. I cannot stand how fake every movie looks nowadays.

I know, but round here, no one really appreciates just how bad the CG looks. They don't get it anymore.

But it's like I said, even SWTFA had god awful CG. The machine is broken.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I know, but round here, no one really appreciates just how bad the CG looks.

Sure I do.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Powder

Sure I do.

hahaha. You don't count. You have good taste, and standards.

I was talking about the kids.


This is the best shot of Rocksteady from the trailer...it's got all the reality of a Clay-mation Christmas special, maybe less.



BUT - I'll take this over the garbage from last year. Damn you Jared. Damn you to hell.

EDIT :

The earholes, in his leather cap...have seams. So, while they were mutating...a seamstress was in the back making cute outfits?

hmmm....

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I don't care what anyone says. If someone showed another person that and said it was a screenshot from the newest TMNT video game, they'd believe them. And if they didn't already KNOW it was from the movie, they'd swear it was from a video game until someone proved otherwise.

No, I'm never going to get over it. I cannot stand how fake every movie looks nowadays.

There was some interview/article that said the head VFX guy on this worked on the Star Wars prequels, right? Because much like those movies, all of the CGI creations we've seen here look like a video game awkwardly mixed in with live-action footage. But at least the prequels had the excuse of coming out 10-15 years ago.

The last movie did okay, box office-wise. It had a $125-150m budget, and it made enough to probably ensure the same budget level for the sequel. I can't know that for sure, but I'd think increasing the budget would be seen as a risk to the bean-counters. And hugely increasing the number of pure-CGI elements like this (including Krang and the Technodrome) would need an increased budget. So either this is about the level we can expect, or they're going to spend big money to polish them up and hope and pray this movie's BO is a lot higher than the last one's.

That situation is one of the few things about this movie that I'm actually curious about.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

The earholes, in his leather cap...have seams. So, while they were mutating...a seamstress was in the back making cute outfits?

One of the "best" things about the imbeciles making these movies, is that they pay way too much attention and put way too much detail into all of the exact wrong things. And all of the things they should put more work into, they half-ass because they know they can.

And the fans buy into it! They say, "Wow, look how much work went into (completely wrong thing), that shows how much they care!" No it doesn't, all it shows is a misplaced sense of priorities and a steadfast refusal to give a sh*t.

Bry: I'm expecting some of the textures to look slightly more realistic by the time the movie comes out but that's about it. You're not painting the Mona Lisa on top of some kid's finger paints experiment. The foundation is already too damaged, anything put on top of it will inevitably spoil.

[Commenter 42]

I'm 50/50 - they could look MUCH better, sure. We have the technology...

All things considered - it could have been so much worse. It's an acceptable level of effort - considering the talking orange from Star Wars is their current A game.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I'm REALLY thankful they didn't do this:

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-con...-3-600x377.jpg

Or this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6Y6dNlIgAA1WUT.jpg

Nightmare fuel. Looks like an alien 'blue door' Rocksteady.


Gotta agree that what they've gone with, at least in what little we've seen, isn't quite as believable as I'd like (and maybe as they'd have liked as well, who knows), but given the alternatives that were thrown out... it'll do.

In exchange though I will require better treatment of and focus on the Turtles and their own believably. (As long as they feel real they can beat up on guys in CGI-created costumes. )


Though I'm sure it's easy for me to shrug and accept it as I was never overly attached to B & R to start with. So I'll leave the real opinions/critiques to those who are.

[d_osborn]

You guys do know that FX are polished heavily throughout post-production, right? Remember how much the "Raph vs Hummer" shot changed from the first trailer to the release? Same here... this stuff will look more polished in the final product. It's really doubtful that the designs will change much, if any. Continue to flame on with that one.

I'm loving the B&R designs!

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

You guys do know that FX are polished heavily throughout post-production, right? Remember how much the "Raph vs Hummer" shot changed from the first trailer to the release? Same here... this stuff will look more polished in the final product. It's really doubtful that the designs will change much, if any. Continue to flame on with that one.

I'm loving the B&R designs!

Dude, they don't change the render engine. They might revise shots, but read the Rolling stone article - this is Bay, and like we discussed before, the dude is a cheap producer.

On the one hand, he is the reason some of the TF shots were so incredibly realistic, but hard surface allows for more cheats, and now that we've moved to a more cost effective render system, it's all going to look like play-doh.
Bebop IS too fat...his mass is WRONG ... that much Bay got right. The improvements, if any, will be minor.

[Foombamaroom]

Commenter, I agree with you that this CGI is awful. My eyes are pretty used to it by now, but at first, it was really sour. It's almost as bad as the CGI from Age of Ultron and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

But I don't know what you're talking about when you say the CGI in TFA was bad. That was some of the best CGI I've ever seen (with the exception of the motion capture characters.).

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Foombamaroom

Commenter, I agree with you that this CGI is awful. My eyes are pretty used to it by now, but at first, it was really sour. It's almost as bad as the CGI from Age of Ultron and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

But I don't know what you're talking about when you say the CGI in TFA was bad. That was some of the best CGI I've ever seen (with the exception of the motion capture characters.).

Dude, trust me - The talking Orange and the floating hologram were just as bad. There were even a few bad comps. When your eyes are trained to look for these things (not a claim of superiority or anything of the kind, just a result of years of looking at the stuff) it becomes more obvious.

I really enjoyed TFA - thought it was a lot of fun, but the two big CG characters were sub-par to the level of the industry today. There are many reasons for it, but in short, there's a big brain drain on the VFX industry right now, as wages have stagnated, and productions continue to devalued employees. Time and money have been halved, then halved again. Outsourcing is systemic.

Maybe you felt Orange was impressive - well, go back and watch Avatar, or parts of the latest POTA... and you can see we're moving backwards.

[Leo656]

I thought the "talking orange" was plenty bad enough to cover the whole movie. Holy sh*t, good rib, brother. Good rib.

Bebop and Rocksteady themselves, and how they're styled, how big they are, how they're dressed, the overall "look"... I'm kind of alright with those things, and I agree with those who say it's way better than I thought they'd look. But the actual execution of those designs in a three-dimensional space is horrible. This movie, like the last, is gonna have some serious "Roger Rabbit" sh*t going on, and no matter how pretty or fast or shiny it looks in motion my eyes do not like the contrast. I cannot handle it when the CGI is integrated so poorly that it looks like a cartoon next to everything around it.

[Foombamaroom]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Dude, trust me - The talking Orange and the floating hologram were just as bad. There were even a few bad comps. When your eyes are trained to look for these things (not a claim of superiority or anything of the kind, just a result of years of looking at the stuff) it becomes more obvious.

I really enjoyed TFA - thought it was a lot of fun, but the two big CG characters were sub-par to the level of the industry today. There are many reasons for it, but in short, there's a big brain drain on the VFX industry right now, as wages have stagnated, and productions continue to devalued employees. Time and money have been halved, then halved again. Outsourcing is systemic.

Maybe you felt Orange was impressive - well, go back and watch Avatar, or parts of the latest POTA... and you can see we're moving backwards.

Lol re-read my comment, dude. I said the CGI in that movie was great with the exception of the motion capture characters. Snoke and Maz looked awful. XD

Although... That talking orange looks better than Bebop and Rocksteady.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Foombamaroom

Lol re-read my comment, dude. I said the CGI in that movie was great with the exception of the motion capture characters. Snoke and Maz looked awful. XD

Although... That talking orange looks better than Bebop and Rocksteady.

LOl - k - my bad.

agreed.

And what the glorious hell was with big man's design? All I'm saying is Oldman did it better:


(posting this small cause, well, who wants to look at it any bigger than a postage stamp?) hee-be-jee-be.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Dude, they don't change the render engine. They might revise shots, but read the Rolling stone article - this is Bay, and like we discussed before, the dude is a cheap producer.

On the one hand, he is the reason some of the TF shots were so incredibly realistic, but hard surface allows for more cheats, and now that we've moved to a more cost effective render system, it's all going to look like play-doh.
Bebop IS too fat...his mass is WRONG ... that much Bay got right. The improvements, if any, will be minor.

Who said anything about changing a render engine? Big CG shots in modern trailers are rarely, if ever, locked. The character design and mechanics probably won't change, but the shot will be more polished and better looking. I figured this was common knowledge by now.

As for TFA, I've heard that the Maz and Snoke designs and shots were the last approved and came down to the wire. It sounds like quite a bit was being tweaked until the very last moment, including some pretty big last-minute decisions and new shots.

So is this thread really turning into an ILM-hating fest?! I love it!!!! This forum is like an insane Twilight Zone episode! I'm in deep with haters on this one! You guys have raged and trolled the PD forum threads for so long, that it now feels a little troll-ish to come in here and defend PD TMNT! ...or ILM! ...or William Fichtner! I really don't even come here for the TMNT discussion anymore. The entertainment is gold!

[Leo656]

By how much, though, honestly? It's not going to look right even then. People said all that about the last movie, and while it looked "better" than the trailers it still looked f*cking awful, just less and in different ways.

It's like getting dog sh*t on your shoe and trying to scrape it off, and you're able to get half of it but the rest is just too caked in there. So you now only have half a dog turd on your shoe. That's... better? Mathematically, yes, realistically, no, not really. You're still tracking sh*t everywhere.

[Powder]

It will be sharper, have additional details/texture, but it won't be any more realistic. So it's a moot point.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

Who said anything about changing a render engine? Big CG shots in modern trailers are rarely, if ever, locked. The character design and mechanics probably won't change, but the shot will be more polished and better looking. I figured this was common knowledge by now.

If you were making sense, We could have a discussion. Man, I know the actual process to get a shot to final, do you?
I'll be more clear, and see if we can't talk enough shop to square it all:

A few years ago, the decision to move away from brute force and monte-carlo algorithms was instituted. as a direct result of that render times were reduced, but at a cost to the quality of the render...but that change was negligible in the face of the hard financial costs to the studio.
Am I making sense yet? This is the part of the process that won't change, therefore the quality of the look of the shot will not improve.

They WILL play with the comp more. They will adjust some of the lighting elements in an attempt to better integrate the character, but as they move across the 2000 shots, each one will only get so much time. The bulk of the changes and polishing that the internet know it alls are alluding too, are predominantly changes to expressions, or camera positioning, etc. They can be anything, EXCEPT, as leo is pointing out, the integration of teh charecters beyond what is done in the comp. That's a render issue, one that does not change from vendor to vendor. Everyone has their own system, as you know, so the shots don't always match. each vendor may or may not have to construct their own assets, including the featured characters. The list goes on and on...

but yeah, if you want, lets talk common knowledge and how the only people in chat rooms are TROLLs who know nothing about the business.

Originally Posted by d_osborn

So is this thread really turning into an ILM-hating fest?! I love it!!!! This forum is like an insane Twilight Zone episode! I'm in deep with haters on this one! You guys have raged and trolled the PD forum threads for so long, that it now feels a little troll-ish to come in here and defend PD TMNT! ...or ILM! ...or William Fichtner! I really don't even come here for the TMNT discussion anymore. The entertainment is gold!

No one is hating on ILM... as I said before, these issues are systemic to the industry, and they didn't just begin yesterday. You know as well as I, there are huge issues going on, and the VFX industry is not what it used to be.