You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

The Matrix Relaoded Official Trailer

Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 1:29am

Post 1 of 170

THEent

Force: 50 | Joined: 26th Mar 2003 | Posts: 39

Member

Rating: +2

yes boys and girls official trailer is here www.thematrix.com
enjoy eek eek eek eek
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 1:53am

Post 2 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

Oh boy oh boy oh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyvoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boyoh boy!
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 2:03am

Post 3 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

HOLY F'IN CRAP!!!!

Dear god, how can I freaking wait another month! Screw the naysayers, that was awesome!

blabadablaaablaasblaaaaaaaaa (turns into blabbering fool)
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 2:38am

Post 4 of 170

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

YOW! That, then X2, then later, we got Revolutions, and The Return Of The King. This is truly a great year for movies. Sequels especially.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 2:41am

Post 5 of 170

no_hole

Force: 278 | Joined: 14th Oct 2002 | Posts: 197

Gold Member

yes a great year it will be indeed. biggrin biggrin
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 2:53am

Post 6 of 170

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I am so freakin' skippin' school....May 15 isn't that a Wednesday...Oh well I'll be the first in line.

Canta mad
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 3:03am

Post 7 of 170

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Dude ok now WTF. The Oracle died a couple of years ago how the hell is she in this movie???

Canta mad
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 3:29am

Post 8 of 170

MidnightJester

Force: 532 | Joined: 20th Nov 2002 | Posts: 277

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

To say what my friend said, this movie will have you entering a boy and leaving a man.

That trailer (and the others) made me believe him.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:45am

Post 9 of 170

anonymous

Looks amazing!

Hey Canta, they say she did enough filming before she died, so she'll be in it for a little bit.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:56am

Post 10 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

To say what my friend said, this movie will have you entering a boy and leaving a man.
Erm, its just the Matrix. The first film wasn't even that great. Looks like it will be better this time, a good action flick, nothing more, nothing less. Give me Return of the King anyday, or DXM - when is that out anyway?
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 9:24am

Post 11 of 170

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

made me laugh

everyone is still trying to create scenes from the first film, now they have got a whole load more things to copy.

Good luck, if anyone pulls off any of those scenes let me know how you do it. eek
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 11:13am

Post 12 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Honestly I think the effects look a little poor redface
Many contrast mismatches and the CG Cars look very CG. Actually I didn't see anything I haven't seen before, as in the first matrix.

But it looks cool! I'm really looking forward to see the film.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 12:28pm

Post 13 of 170

Coyote Moon

Force: 40 | Joined: 21st Jan 2002 | Posts: 66

Windows User

Member

I caught the new trailer this morning & I will definately be getting tickets to this little beauty.
I caught the first one twice at the cinema....not because it was that good, but because the scumbags behind me decided to bring a years supply of food with them. Why do people do that?
They spend half an hour trying to get a crisp/chip out of a bag reeeeeaaalll slowly. oink oink oink

Should I end up with the greedy fat family behind me this time, I'm liable to break out with my own bullet time and "I know Kung Fu" moves. evil

I guess the only thing I'm not looking forward to, are the sucky fan films where people wear black shades, black coats and suddenly start referring to themselves as, "The One" whilst trying to do a bullet time effect in a film with absolutely no plot....but that's just me.
I'd love to see some plot amidst the bullet casings falling to the ground in slomo!
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 12:58pm

Post 14 of 170

chainsawash

Force: 200 | Joined: 17th Jul 2002 | Posts: 34

Gold Member

Because someone asked the 15th is a Thrusday, just so you can plan on playing hooky or *cough* yup, I'm feeling sick that day wink
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 1:51pm

Post 15 of 170

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

cantaclaro wrote:

Dude ok now WTF. The Oracle died a couple of years ago how the hell is she in this movie???

Canta mad
The woman who played the oracle did die, yes. However, she died just after completing her scenes for the second film. She didn't start filming her scene for Revolutions at all, so she's going to be in "another form". Or so I have heard.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 1:56pm

Post 16 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Having seen the trailer, looks like it's going to be a whole lot of fun. Hope it hasn't lost some of the slower-paced moody noirish stuff that the first one had at the start.

Some of the effects looked decidedly dodgy...digital doubles looked sub-Spider-Man at least. Still, looks like it should be a pretty rocking action movie.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 4:34pm

Post 17 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

tarn - I agree on the digital doubles, despite what I've read on how they were made, and how good they're supposed to be. . . I think they suffer for the cloth. I think the suits look a little too smooth, a little too perfect. . . thus far, Blade 2 has had the best cg character animation I've seen yet. . . .

okay, it's official, 'the Twins' are the coolest characters in the whole movie!! f*ck neo, f*ck morpheus, f*ck the agents! The Twins ROCK!

I'd also like to say that I'm pissed!
they used Rob Dougan's song "I'm Not Driving Anymore" in the trailer.
I had been planning for about 2 months now to use that in my movie Therapy, and now everyone's going to think that I ripped it off from the Matrix Reloaded Trailer!! stupid dumb luck!

Last edited Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:40pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 4:53pm

Post 18 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

I thought the CG of the people looked rather awesome. The part where he's spinning on the pole, see if you can find the spot where it transitions between CG and the real footage of the actor.

DXM will be out in...2.5 months?
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 5:19pm

Post 19 of 170

Coyote Moon

Force: 40 | Joined: 21st Jan 2002 | Posts: 66

Windows User

Member

Can't say I agree on the Blade 2 CGI character animation.
In the fight against the Vampires at Blade's hideout, it looked nasty and way too much like a game, and was way too obvious.
Personally I think LOTR's had some damned good CGI going on and of better quality.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 5:34pm

Post 20 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

every movie has a moment of poor digital effects. . .
in Attack of the Clones, (one of them) is where anakin stands on the back of that cow-type creature in the grassy field with amidala

in spiderman, it's the overhead scene where peter parker is leaping from building top to building top

in blade 2 it was the silhouette fight scene in front of the lights (however, if you look at still frames, it looks real, it's the motion animation that was bad, not model and render quality)

LOTR didn't really have a lot of HUMAN character animation. . . and what they did have was always a very minor part of whatever scene they were in. but what I'm talking about is HUMAN character animation being the focal point of a scene

my point isn't that all the cg characters of blade 2 were perfect, but overall, they've been the best we've seen
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 5:39pm

Post 21 of 170

Coyote Moon

Force: 40 | Joined: 21st Jan 2002 | Posts: 66

Windows User

Member

"they've been the best we've seen"


I know exactly what you're saying Ice, I just disagree!
It's cool, we all have our opinions.


I'm more interested in a cohesive flow, than watching frame by frame!

Last edited Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 6:50pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 5:57pm

Post 22 of 170

TheLimey

Force: 50 | Joined: 18th Dec 2001 | Posts: 32

Member

CHeck this is out:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.05/matrix2_pr.html

It's John Gaeta, the guy who made bullet time, talking about how the fx for Reloaded, focusing on the Neo vrs 100 Agents fight.

To accurately capture Neo and Smith's face they filmed their heads using five sony high def cameras, bypassed all the electronic stuff so the picture was going straight into workstations totally uncompressed which was pulling about 1 gig a second. And thats just the beginning.

This isn't just a film, this is a whole new way of making films. A really really REALLY expensive way of making films.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 6:47pm

Post 23 of 170

THEent

Force: 50 | Joined: 26th Mar 2003 | Posts: 39

Member

hell yea
its awsome trailer one of the best i ever seen so far....

Why you people complaining about CG and FX man if u look without frame by frame it was done very perfect for me especialy when the agents all jump on neo its so awsome
and i know why we complaine because we HAVE NEVER seen anythin glike this...!!! maybe in comple of years there might be a movie that will have good CG character in close ups and then we will tell its a matrix reloaded ripoff lol like the bullet-time
Its juts awsome
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 6:50pm

Post 24 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Actually I didn't need frame by frame to see the the contrast mismatches... smile



You do realize that "the matrix" is anything but new? Neither was the first... Or do you actually think the matrix invented bullet-time?
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 6:53pm

Post 25 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

the first movie I remember seeing a bullet-time effect in was the first Blade movie. the scene in the park where Blade meets Deacon Frost for the first time
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 7:01pm

Post 26 of 170

MechaForce

Force: 4654 | Joined: 3rd Aug 2001 | Posts: 1934

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Well the 2nd matrix has a TON of new stuff when it comes to special effects landmarks.

I wanna crap my pants it's so cool.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:46pm

Post 27 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Hey, Sollthar, I'd like you to explain what you mean by "Contrast Mismatch" beacuse I've been working in a photo lab for over 5 years, and no such thing exists. I think you just made up a term to complain about.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:51pm

Post 28 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

I think I'll elaborate so you know why you're wrong, ok?

Contrast isn't real. Really, it's a concept. There is contrast between lights and darks, but you can't say this:

Oh, that last frame had a contrast of 18.7 "contrasties" and that next frame has a contrast of 19.6 "contrasties," MATRIX SUX0RZ!!!!

Now, if you'd like to come down from your cloud where everything you say is writ, and all your little pet terms for things that don't exist are real, and tell me what you REALLY think is wrong with this movie, feel free.

Until then, I think you're blowing smoke in the face of the best looking movie ever made.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:54pm

Post 29 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

One more thing, if you think you can come back here and talk about "f-stops" and "aperture control" along with neat-o terms such as "film stock" and "color saturation," and think you're going to fool me, you're not. So don't try. I know a lot more about these things than you could ever hope to.

Matrix forever.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 8:59pm

Post 30 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

He's kidding folks, no need to get angry...
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 9:02pm

Post 31 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

Oh, and why does everybody feel the need to say that The Matrix isn't doing anything new? Like hell it isn't!

Look! They used CG characters! Blade also used CG characters! They're just trying to immitate blade!

Yes, I know that some of you probably didn't mean it that way... smile


Matrix style -> cool
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 9:31pm

Post 32 of 170

jarar1

Force: 390 | Joined: 1st Nov 2001 | Posts: 228

Gold Member

On the Blade 2 DVD, if you listen to the director's commentary track, he pretty much throws a fit at how bad the animation is in the silioette fight. He says there are 2 CG scenes he was very, very unhappy with, but doen't elaborate on the second one.

And for the record, I thought that trailer absolutely ROCKED! Even if the Matrix isn't just chock full of totally new ideas. (Someone feel free to name something that is totally original.)
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 9:45pm

Post 33 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

original: Insane car fight
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 9:58pm

Post 34 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Yeah, note that it's a car fight. biggrin
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 10:20pm

Post 35 of 170

averagejoe

Force: 3592 | Joined: 31st Mar 2001 | Posts: 710

VisionLab User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I might be remembering my movie order wrong but I seem to remember the now famous "bullet time" FX used in that dodgey scifi flick that called itself "Wing Commander" (the game was much better twisted ) When they did their jump to hyperspace or where ever. Instead of frozen in time bullets, it had a pretty decent cup spill frozen in time.

All that aside, I am sure the "Year of the Matrix" will be a good one. I have no expectation for the thing, barring only that it will be fun.

biggrin

Last edited Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 10:23pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 10:21pm

Post 36 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Wow.. Now thats a lot of anger... You should check your blood pressure my friend... smile


You're right, I made that word up. Maybe you know that english is not my native language and I didn't want to insult your knowledge, please accept my apologies.

What I mean with this is that the contrast of plate one and the contrast of plate 2 do not match. That is a problem many composite shots have and most probably the main reason that gives away layered effects.

And as you say you know a lot about this subject (more than I ever will) you should know what I am talking about.
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 10:59pm

Post 37 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

average joe, Blade was released on Aug 21st of 1998
wing commander on Mar 12 of 1999
and The Matrix was released Mar 31st of 1999

so actually, Wing Commander wasn't ripping off the Matrix. . .
Posted: Fri, 11th Apr 2003, 11:36pm

Post 38 of 170

THEent

Force: 50 | Joined: 26th Mar 2003 | Posts: 39

Member

The matrix script was written in between 1996-1997 remember it takes a one year to film
so basicly i noticed around net allot of people saying but John gaeta Cleared it off Saying the matrix didn't invent bullet-time there was commercials and anim's
Wachowskie (matrix makers)
saw anim when a guy doing bullet-time and they said they want to do it for real
so they did
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 12:54am

Post 39 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

From all my reading I'm yet to find anything that these new Matrix films are doing better than previous films. As before there are many claims of new technologies but none of it is true as far as I can see.

Digital doubles have been used well in many films, but the highest standard has to be Obi Wan in EP2 during the fight with Jango Fett - these shots even on close inspection are flawless. The only new thing that is being done is putting so many digital doubles on the screen at the same time - hardly amazing. But lets think of this another way... The Two Towers had a whole CG army, it might not be based on actual people but it was far better rendered and more realistic than the stuff in this Matrix trailer.

I'm quite surprised the effect don't look better, a lot better - the high quality trailer really makes some of the effects look last generation. It does look like a fun film, but there is nothing new here, just lots of fun effects & bad acting wink

By the way, bullet-time was NOT created for the Matrix, it had be used before in several commercials - they just took it to the next level with more than 270 degree movement.

P.S. 2.5 months till DXM?? sad
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 1:33am

Post 40 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Oh, that's clever. You make it seem that if I disagree with you, I'd have to say that I don't know anything about this. Well, sorry, I disagree with you.

If you could explain what you mean by "plates," that would save me a lot of time ranting.

By the way, the shots you speak of, with the 100 agents, are all CG. There are no plates, there's nothing real. Everything is rendered at the same time, it wouldn't work any other way. There is no background footage, no compositing.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 1:43am

Post 41 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Schwar - please point out an effect that looks last generation, and tell me how it could be done to look better.

LOTR sucked. The CG effects looked good, but they didn't look real. The effects in that trailer looked real. And don't forget that the trailer you downloaded was compressed for Sorenson III, hardly lossless. It'll look even better on DVD and the big screen.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 2:18am

Post 42 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

Actually, the CG army in TTT was only shot from extremely far away angles. I was dissappointed (kind of...It still was awesome) that there were no shots close up, and inside the action, like the introduction of the first one. How can you inspect the CG if you never get close to the action?


Personally, I think the CG in most films is obvious, even for the Matrix. I agree that it doesn't look real, but that's because I've started to get a trained eye. Instead of concentrating on how real the CG is, instead look at what they're doing with it. Personally, I think the CG is rendered well enough that it doesn't detract from the film in any way, and I'm betting that many of you will say that some things are CG when they are in fact real.

But tell me this: What film has built it's own highway for a scene? What film has an extra hour of footage just for the videogame? What film spent months motion-capturing for a fight in CG? What film has one of the best choreographers creating a fight that takes place almost completely in 3d? What movie has martial art fights taking place in cars and on top of them while dodging through traffic and gunfighting, all at the same time?

Schwar: 2.5 months...Who knows, maybe it'll be less. I'm giving you a safe estimate. Oh, and the 3d in that doesn't look real, but you're still looking forward to it. razz
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 2:23am

Post 43 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Are you trying to tell me that the special effects don't look good because they're elaborate? That's absurd!

The special effects don't look real because nothing like that could ever really happen. Your mind says, "wait a minute, people can't really do that," and you make your opinions accordingly.

What they're doing looks fake because it's impossible. Don't fault the cg.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 9:36am

Post 44 of 170

Vega70

Force: 280 | Joined: 9th Apr 2001 | Posts: 295

Gold Member

I'm disapointed Aaliyah died during filming. Still, Monica Bellucci iss omething to look forwards to. As for this years anticipated film for me.. gotta be 'Kill Bill' !!
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 10:22am

Post 45 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

First of all, why do you think I speak about the shots with the many agents? I never said that. Are you a mind reader as well?
Oh, and for the record... That is most probably a composit shot as well. Most CG shots are rendered in layers wich are later to be composited. But I guess a genius like you will know that. wink


Well, anyways. I am not speaking about the shots with the many agents, I'm speaking about the shots at the beginning. The second shot (she jumping through the window), the shot where the agent is seen to jump out of the building and the shot you see of the agent falling down (where the chroma mask is clearly visible).

In that first shot, there is a sudden change of contrast about 4 or 5 frames before the cut.

In the second shot with the agent, you can compare the contrast of him and the contrast of the building where he jumps out of and they do not match, but they should.

Same in the shot with the agent coming down.


And for the other record... I never said Matrix sucks. I said it looks cool and I'm looking forward to see a cool looking action flick. But I don't fall for that "we do hyper new super special effects"-hype, cause they simply don't. And thats the only reason I am even pointing this out.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 11:12am

Post 46 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

First off, check the attitude at the door, Phrosted. It has no place here. Let's keep the discussion fun and interesting, not descend into childish tantrums.

As Sollthar has already explained, he was referring to the shots of Trinity falling, which do indeed have rather awkward 'contrast mismatch'. That may not be an official term, but it describes the problem perfectly.

For your info Phrosted, 'plates' are the different elements of an effects shot. For example, you might have your 'background plate', on top of which you composite your actor. Sollthar isn't making that up, he's been doing this stuff for years. smile

One shot that I'm a bit perplexed about is the one in which the agent leaps onto the car bonnet and crushes it. I remember this being the one shot from the previous trailers that made me go "WHOAH!" But looking at it now, maybe in bigger res, or maybe a different version, it seems to have lost something. The car is still absolutely superb, but the agent looks like something done in Poser.

I think the reason people are debating the merits of the effects in these trailers so much is that the Matrix films do kind of depend on their effects. Some films that have effects can still be damned good even if the effects are sub-par or even actively poor. Donnie Darko and Jaws are both genius films, even though their effects aren't mindblowing (in fact, Jaws' effects are positively appalling at times). However, films like Star Wars and the Matrix will fall apart entirely if the effects don't do their job. That's why it's such a crucial issue.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 11:18am

Post 47 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Last generation - the quality of the CG trucks on the freeway which have a serious lack of dynamic reflections as the bike passes them (although the seen looks good). And the multiple agents as the fly off Neo - some look okish, some look very very CG (as does the agent that jumps on that car bonnet). No where near the level of quality and solidness of digital doubles in AOTC.

And that crappy shot of Trinity jumping out of the building, there is no interaction with her surroundings - it looks like they stuck her on a skateboard and pushed her past a blue screen.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 11:21am

Post 48 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Yeah, what Tarn said smile
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 1:18pm

Post 49 of 170

THEent

Force: 50 | Joined: 26th Mar 2003 | Posts: 39

Member

forget the friggin CG look but just enjoy the film LOL
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 1:28pm

Post 50 of 170

Coyote Moon

Force: 40 | Joined: 21st Jan 2002 | Posts: 66

Windows User

Member

I've just downloaded the trailer and I have to say that at the speed this runs, things are hardly that noticable.
I'll be more interested in the story & fight choreography.
I'll say it again, this looks amazing, stunning and I can't wait cool
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 3:25pm

Post 51 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I don't really see this crappiness in CG doubles that everyone is talking about...Frame by frame is one thing, but at full speed, everything looks great. Really, I don't recall films having such ambitious effects, except possibly for Ep. II.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 5:02pm

Post 52 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You're wrong Tarn. Raimi filmed a 'Plate shot' in Evil Dead 2, but it contained no CG...lol (I'll leave you to work this one out)
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 5:26pm

Post 53 of 170

jarar1

Force: 390 | Joined: 1st Nov 2001 | Posts: 228

Gold Member

Personaly, I don't really care if the effects aren't perfect. As long as they're convinging enough in the context of the story, rather than detracting from the story, I'm cool with it. I don't really think every new effects-driven movie has to be a quantum leap in effects technology.

If, when watching the movie in the theater, durring that car-fight, I'm bored enough to be paying attention to reflections, I'm going to be pissed about more than the effects.

And as far as who did it first, the first use of bullet-time, though of course it wasn't called that yet, was in the GAP commercial "Swing", with everyone swing dancing to "Jump, Jive, and Wail" in khakis.

But the "bullet-time" the 'Matrix' claims to have done first, and as far as I've been able to find out did, was having the subjects move durring the shot.

Previouse uses, from commercials, to 'Wing Commander', all had totally static characters, frozen as the camera swung around. The Matrix was the first to have the characters actually moving within the swing-around, such as the subway fight between Neo and Smith, whereas the shot of Trinity kicking near the beginning has her still.

And for whoever mentioned it, the bullet shot in 'Blade' wasn't bullet-time per say. It was a locked-down shot, just in hyper slo-mo with a cg bullet.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 5:47pm

Post 54 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

jarar1 wrote:

I don't really think every new effects-driven movie has to be a quantum leap in effects technology.
Agreed. In fact, I'm looking forward to the day when that won't be the case. CG is now getting to the stage when improvements will be small and subtle rather than the huge leaps we've had ever since The Abyss at the end of the 80s.

The great stuff will come along once the craft has settled down, and people can concentrate on the art. Once CG is just another tool to create the film, in the same way as the prop or costume or lighting departments, then we'll see films featuring great effects.

In a strange way, the more commonplace the effects become, the better they will be. Once effects are just another part of a movie, and not the main driving force behind it...that'll when the real good stuff shows up.

jarar1 wrote:


If, when watching the movie in the theater, durring that car-fight, I'm bored enough to be paying attention to reflections, I'm going to be pissed about more than the effects.
Very good point! People get nitpicky over trailers because generally there isn't much story or character or whatever to get your teeth into - all you have are the visuals. Once Matrix Reloaded itself comes out, hopefully we'll be able to talk about the cool action sequences and car chases and superhero coolness, rather than just the visuals - in just the same way that when I think and talk about Lord of the Rings, the effects are certainly not top of my interest list.
Posted: Sat, 12th Apr 2003, 6:24pm

Post 55 of 170

Seven

Force: 1470 | Joined: 22nd Apr 2002 | Posts: 120

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

If there is ONE thing I have learned about visual effects in trailers and visual effects in the actual movie is : They are hardly ever the same.

I think we all remember first seeing the Spider-Man trailer. Well in several shots of the trailer, Spidey is swinging around NY in his suit just doing his thing. But in the actual movie, those shots were completley changed to be at night, and with Spidey in his wrestling costume. And the first trailer that showed the Hulk looked a bit cartoony, but in the next trailer, he looked better. So I guess all I'm saying is, nobody should pass judgment on how good the special effects for any movie should be, by just watching the trailer. The final product is almost always better. It certantly wont be worse. Anyway, thats just my $0.02
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 1:59am

Post 56 of 170

Greyo

Force: 617 | Joined: 17th Jun 2002 | Posts: 325

Windows User

Gold Member

i thought that everything inside the matrix was a computer anyway so the agents are cgi characters. That how my hearts going to ecplain any bad effects to my mind anyway smile
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 3:02am

Post 57 of 170

THEent

Force: 50 | Joined: 26th Mar 2003 | Posts: 39

Member

jarar1 wrote:


But the "bullet-time" the 'Matrix' claims to have done first, and as far as I've been able to find out did, was having the subjects move durring the shot.

AS I SAID BEFORE!!!!!!!! MATRIX DIDN'T CLAIM ITS THE FANS WHO CLAIMED the Effects Supervisor for both sequals John Gaeta he said he didn't invent bullet-time it was used in commercial and Japan ANim but never in a movie so wachowskie decided they want to see the ANIM come to LIVE
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 4:03am

Post 58 of 170

no_hole

Force: 278 | Joined: 14th Oct 2002 | Posts: 197

Gold Member

you guys pick the smallest detail and make it like its a big huge thing when its really not. The part where trinity jumps out the window looks Absolutely fine to me, i can see nothing wrong with it. I guess since you guys couldn't make anything close to what the matrix has become all you can do is sit there and critisize it instead of enjoying a great film.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 4:37am

Post 59 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Can't make anything close to The Matrix? We'll see about that in a few years... wink
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 6:42am

Post 60 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

a couple of things. . .

Sollthar wrote:

. . . why do you think I speak about the shots with the many agents? I never said that. Are you a mind reader as well?
Oh, and for the record... That is most probably a composit shot as well. Most CG shots are rendered in layers wich are later to be composited. But I guess a genius like you will know that. wink . . .
sollthar, typically not true about totally cg scenes. if there is no element of live footage in them, they run it all in a single render. it saves time and resources that way. besides, the interaction of character models in that scene is insane, the digital masks for compositing would be ridiculously complex. did you read the article on 'Wired' that TheLimey posted? you should, it's an excellent insight into how that scene (among others) was put together. so you don't have to go digging for it again, here it is :
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.05/matrix2_pr.html

schwar - lack of dynamic reflections on the trucks?! if you ask me, they needed to tone down the reflections on the trucks! those were some of the shiniest, clean, mirrored bumpers I have ever seen on semi trucks.
and trinity jumping out the window. . . of course there's no interaction with her surroundings, she's falling through the air! there's nothing to interact with!

tarn - perhaps it's just me, but Jaws never struck me as a 'genius film' biggrin
as for the agent crushing the hood of the Olds Intrigue. . . I'll reserve judgement till I see the final product in theatres. as Phrosted said, we are watching a compressed internet version, and due to the overall production quality of the film we're talking about, I find it hard to believe that they'd let a Poser-esque agent model slip into the final product.


I think everyone needs to remember that these effects were not made by some second rate company. these people have been doing this FULL TIME as a JOB for decades. this is what they do, this is all they do, and regardless of what any of you think, they know more than we do about digital special effects.
like Phrosted said, a lot of the reason these effects look fake, is because WE KNOW THEY'RE EFFECTS! it's all psyochological. we know it isn't possible, so when we see it, regardless of how real it looks, we know it to be fake. to be an effect
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:58am

Post 61 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar is correct about CG being rendered in multiple passes. Star Wars and the Final Fantasy movie both rendered shots with multiple elements, then combined them later. Gives the director more leeway.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 12:06pm

Post 62 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Oo, someone watched the production report on the special DVD. Looks like I'm not the only one who watches 'Making-of' featurette's religiously.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 12:13pm

Post 63 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Iceman..

Nearly all CG shots in film are rendered as separate elements, in AOTC there were some shots that were made of over 500 layers of CG objects (in After Effects of all things) so that George could take them away as he wished. One pass rendering is very limiting.

Yes the bumpers were shinny in the trailer but that didn't stop them from not reflecting the right things. Lastly, if you fall a great distance the air does effect you profoundly, loads more than being pulled along the ground on a skateboard in front of a blue screen.

As for making something as good as the Matrix - give me $100million or however much it cost and I'll try smile (or I'll just run off to Mexico)
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 5:26pm

Post 64 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +3

it's wrong to compare wide sweeping shots from AOTC to the tightly knit action of Matrix Reloaded. in scene as panoramic as the ones in the battle scene, it's very easy to render multiple layers. in something as compact as the sequences in the neo v smiths fight, it's much more difficult, and is actually easier to do in a single pass. take the digital garbage in Fight Club, for instance.

one pass rendering can be limiting, in certain circumstances. in this case, if you've read anything about how the neo v smiths fight was made, then surely you must realize that this scene really can't be created in multiple passes just by it's shear dynamics! look at, I mean really look at it! how many passes could they have taken? it really would be the most feasible to do it once.

I'm still not seeing what you're talking about with the trucks oh the highway. . . exactly what wasn't being reflected that should have? I saw reflections of cars, road, sky, and even trinity's bike as it zoomed passed. what do you think they missed?

yeah, when you're falling from that high, it would appear to have a lot of wind. . . coat tails and hair flapping, etc. etc. about that : trinity has short hair held back by gel or hairspray, and she was wearing skin tight leather, which has nothing loose that would be capable of flapping in the breeze, so to speak. and for the agent, they didn't show enough of him in the trailer to make an adequate assumption about how much his suit was catching the wind.
and if you think they pulled them along the ground on skateboard, you're being ridiculously nieve. it's more than like that they had wind generating fans on set, and they were suspended on cables. now, we won't know for sure until the dvd comes out, and we can all look at the featurettes; but I can't stress enough that you all need to remember that these aren't people who cut corners on their productions.

these effects producers and directors are the ones in hollywood for a reason. if you think any of you fools can do better, then by all means, give 'hollywood' a call and have a nice long chat about why you should be the ones in charge of all this.
honestly! if one didn't know any of you better, they'd be inclined to think that you're all a bunch of wanna-be's who think they are the be all end all of filmmaking and effects!
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 6:12pm

Post 65 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Why is it that people need to have a hostile attitude when discussing about something like that?

But why can't one point out things you think are little wrong without beeing attacked by someone and beeing called arrogant or a wannabe?
Come down people, we are talking about a film. It's just a film! Hello? smile



I said "most probably" this is a layered shot. I don't know, I just assume. I assume because I watch a lot of making ofs and I am a regular digital production reader and "most" (remeber, i didn't say "all" - again) CG makers say that they prefer to render in layers. That doesn't make me god, and that doesn't make me arrogant. Just a person with a little knowledge assuming something.
Maybe it is rendered in one shot. Cool for me. Maybe your opinion is different, hey! i have no problem with that. Why should I? crazy
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 7:21pm

Post 66 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Ice_Man wrote:

then surely you must realize that this scene really can't be created in multiple passes just by it's shear dynamics! look at, I mean really look at it! how many passes could they have taken? it really would be the most feasible to do it once.
Not really. There's nothing in that scene that demands it be done in a single pass.

If I was doing it, I'd want the Agents as one layer (perhaps more, but probably one), the background as another, atmospherics as another, and possibly Neo as a separate one too.

Ice_Man wrote:

and if you think they pulled them along the ground on skateboard, you're being ridiculously nieve.
Heh, I think schwar meant it looks like she's being pulled along on a skateboard, not that they actually used a skateboard. lol

Doesn't really matter *how* they did an effects shot, it's the end result that matters. And, to my mind, that shot looks rather amusingly like she's being pulled along on a skateboard. Now, it might make sense in the film, but in that short shot in the trailer, that's how it comes across. To me. No need to get aggressive, as Sollthar said. It's not like somebody has insulted your mother.

Ice_Man wrote:

these effects producers and directors are the ones in hollywood for a reason. if you think any of you fools can do better, then by all means, give 'hollywood' a call and have a nice long chat about why you should be the ones in charge of all this.
I'm going to archive that comment for future usage. I recommend you look after your hat, as you may be required to eat it.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 7:58pm

Post 67 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

and what benefits would you get out of doing that scene in 4 layers?
don't bother saying render times will be better, because they really won't be. instead of spending a long time in a single pass, you'll spend multiple shorter periods doing it in sections.
you can't manipulate screen positions of layers any, due to the intense interactions, so that's not a viable reason
and messing with the color balances of individual shots would be a waste of time too. . . they're all from the same 3d scene, so they've all got matching lighting. . .
only time will tell on this. none of us will really know for sure until we can see a 'making-of' featurette on the DVD when it comes out. till then, all it is is mere conjecture

Tarn wrote:

Now, it might make sense in the film, but in that short shot in the trailer, that's how it comes across. To me.
if it's how it comes across to you, then stop stating it as fact. opinion is far from fact. and both you and schwar have been saying things as if your word alone is law. the was you have been saying, you seem to leave no room for possibility that you may be wrong,

Tarn wrote:

I'm going to archive that comment for future usage. I recommend you look after your hat, as you may be required to eat it.
hoping for a little "pot calling the kettle black" getback huh? not going to happen. I know I'm not in hollywood, which is why I make no pretenses to the contrary
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 8:15pm

Post 68 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Archiving comments so that you can use them against someone in the future is the act of a child. Don't read malice, aggravation or violence into this statement, I mean none.

I think that you guys are simply trying to avoid the central argument, which Sollthar started by the way, which is that the effects in the trailer look crappy.

For the record, I think they look phenominal, and are in no way inferior to anything that I've seen thus far, and I've seen every movie that you've cited.

None of you have qualified your statements as to why you think particular shots look bad. You say reflections suck, but you don't say which or why. You say that movement looks bad, but don't say why, just that it does. Please, if you want someone to take you seriously, and perhaps win them over to your side, elaborate.

Unless you give us something specific to look for, we're not going to agree with you, and that goes for everyone.

Also, remember that this is a quicktime video, compressed for optimal transmission over the internet. Textures aren't going to look sharp, and neither are details. Colors look different on your screen than they do mine.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 8:54pm

Post 69 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +5

First of all let me say that I have no problems accepting your opinion phrosted, even though you somehow feel you have to attack me verbally cause mine is different. (at least in your first posts)

If you want me to point out with pictures (I have from the trailer) why I said what I said (wich wasn't that the effects look "crappy" by the way) I can do that:





These two pictures are one frame after each other, and trinity changed slightly in contast in one frame. If you don't see it on your monitor (you're right, things look different on most monitors) you can open them in Photoshop and compare the contrast.



That is the "contrast mismatch" I was talking about (picture is made brighter to make it more visible). If you compare the contrast of the background and foreground you'll see that they don't match.



That is the Chromakey mistake I was referring to. That dark line is a weakly keyed chromakey, you see it better in motion though.



That is what I said, nothing more, nothing less. if you like the effects, I am absolutely fine with that! I like them too! I just said that "some look a little poor" and I think those errors shouldn't happen in a multimillion dollar project by pros. If you think different, once again, no problem with me.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:00pm

Post 70 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

I think the "poorly" chromakeyed line that you speak of is actually his jacket flapping in the wind that isn't, technically, there. biggrin

I have no way to prove that either of us is right, though

In the Trinity scene, I think the reflection on her butt might be a shade more blue, but I could be wrong. Otherwise they look the same.

On the other "contrast mismatches" you referr to, you'll have to answer a question for me. Are you pointing out the fact that the blacks inside the building are not the same as the blacks outside of it?
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:10pm

Post 71 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I think everyone here should calm down, and be nice. Yes, maybe some people do use wrong terminology, but that's what we're all here to do, LEARN this stuff. Oh, so if sam Raimi used the wrong terminology (Unlikely) you gonna call him up and tell him he doesn't know dick about film-making and that you should step in and do his job? Don't come here spouting that you are god himself, and proclaimeth that you know all there is to know about [subject], because people will just think your an arrogant buttpipe.

Theres no need whatsoever and all emphasis on that word, for ANYONE to badmouth Sollthar. If anything he should be looked up to, because some of his Cinema submissions are something we all aim to achieve.

And to that I say, down with Phrosted, and other belittling, arrogant buttpipes. And hurrah for Sollthar and his creativity, ambitions and spirit. If it wasn't for you guys, there would be no hope left for the movie industry, and it would be over-run by people like Phrosted who believe their knowledge is an example of how big their penis is. Leave your technical mumbo jumbo 'I know it all' attitude at the door.

Have a nice day everyone...!
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:20pm

Post 72 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

that was NOT cool, Obi unsure

seriously uncalled for. twisted


and if you don't have the balls to actually swear, then keep your stupid highschooler mouth shut
(I refer of course, to your unclever substitute of 'buttpipe' for asshole)
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:24pm

Post 73 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

No no no no... please! That's not what I intended! Please...
Not down with anyone and no hurrays to anyone. Let us stay friendly and peaceful! Come on, we are talking about a film and noones live depend on it.
I didn't mean to start an argument like that. I am sorry. redface


And Obi, thank you for defending me, but it isn't necessary and especially not in that tone. Please!!


Let us stop it here and just enjoy the film when it comes to the cinema!
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:25pm

Post 74 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ROFL! I heard that somewhere. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:27pm

Post 75 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Eck.. I'm sorry for that outburst, but my intentions were sinceer. I just don't want anyone in this community to be fighting, because thats not what movie-makers do. We stick together, and help each other out.

I apologize to you Phrosted, but you can see where I was coming from.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:29pm

Post 76 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

That's awesome. You told everyone to calm down and be nice, and then called me an arrogant buttpipe.

If Sollthar is so high and mighty, wouldn't he KNOW the terms that we're all here to learn? Someone that knows it all, as opposed to the know-it-all you make me out to be, should know his terms.

To say that Sollthar's opinions and statements of fact should never be questioned because of his prowess in Alam-DV is utter poppycock. I salute Sollthar for his creativity, but not for making up words to describe phenomenon that I have yet to observe and verify.

The above statements to not speak to Sollthar's incompetence, because I don't think he is (incompetent), they speak to your blind devotion. Wake up, nobody's perfect, and that includes the both you, Sollthar, myself, and the makers of the Matrix.

I didn't bash Sollthar's last attempt, I asked his to clarify because I'm genuinely interested in what has to say. I applaud Sollthar because when he made up that word, he admitted it, and corrected himself. Not only did he correct himself, he's used screen shots and given good explanations to try and show his point of view.

This thread is about technical mumbo-jumbo, if you're so adamant on learning new terms from the master, DON'T COMPLAIN about it!

Oh, and if you're going to take the Lord's name in vain, please at least have the decency to capitalize it.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 9:35pm

Post 77 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

*Sigh*
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 10:04pm

Post 78 of 170

moebius

Force: 4436 | Joined: 24th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1727

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hmm, judging from Sollthar's screencaps, I'd have to agree with him that the chromakeying on some shots is somewhat suspect. Is it me, or does the 3rd shot in particular have a distinct home-movie feel to it? biggrin

Anyway, it probably won't detract from my enjoyment of the film when it comes out smile
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 10:11pm

Post 79 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

MOE! long time no read, my friend! you should get on ICQ so we can talk more. . . . biggrin


anyway, I'm gonig to be inclined to disagree on the 'home-movie feel'
the chroma spill (if in fact, that's what it is) is greatly exaggerated when the red circle is put around it. and what's more, I don't think it's a spill issue, unless they were using black screens in stead of green or blue (which is incredibly unlike due to the color of his suit)


if it is chroma spill, then I think it's still a little better than 'home made movie'. . . smile
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 10:23pm

Post 80 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

To add to what iceaman said, it's not noticeable in motion. The scene is less than a second long, and I had to freeze frame to see the detail myself.

I think if it is, indeed, an error, that it's more likely that the agent's chin is bleeding on to the greenscreen than vice-versa. As Iceman said, if the screen was bleeding on to the agent, it would be a green line, not black. It could also just be a shadow on the bottom of his head, I have no idea.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:40pm

Post 81 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Phrosted, Iceman and Obi...everybody please calm down. Just as things return to civilised debate on this thread, suddenly someone kicks it off again.

The reason people defend Sollthar, Phrosted, is because he is a trusted and valued member of this community. He has been around these parts for over 500 days. And whilst, yes, he has proven some considerable skill with using AlamDV, I think you'll find that most people respect him because he has just finished his first professional feature film, which premiered in Germany just a short while ago. You, on the other hand, have been here for 24 days and have made 15 posts. When you first start posting, it's generally not a good idea to start having a go at the regulars. But now we've got that out the way, welcome to the community and let's hope the rest of your stay isn't quite as heated.

Keep the discussion civilised and friendly, that way we can all learn something new.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:51pm

Post 82 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Ice_Man wrote:

and what benefits would you get out of doing that scene in 4 layers?
don't bother saying render times will be better, because they really won't be.
Erm...it's got absolutely nothing to do with rendering times. So you're right, I won't bother saying that. smile

The primary reason is that it gives you more freedom. That's what it's all about. You render the entire scene in one pass, and that's all you have to work with. If you notice a mistake, or want to change something, just something small perhaps, you have to re-render the entire thing. If you have everything as separate elements, it gives you more freedom and power in the choices you can make in compositing and editing and, if you decide to change something, you might only need to re-render a few elements, rather than the entire thing.

As a very basic example, let's imagine you have a scene that features smoke. If you render the smoke as a separate element (this won't affect its interaction with the surroundings in the slightest by the way), you can alter the opacity of that smoke beyond its initial render. You can even choose to remove the smoke entirely if your creative decisions take you down that route.

Let's say you're doing a huge space battle. If you render the ships on several layers rather than in just a single pass, you have more choice when it comes to compositing.

In fact, ideally you would have everything as a separate element - and I'm talking live action too. If you could have actors and background and everything as separate plates, it would make things a lot easier, and give you more creative freedom. Of course, this is generally impractical, but the idea is there.

Ice_Man wrote:

if it's how it comes across to you, then stop stating it as fact. opinion is far from fact. and both you and schwar have been saying things as if your word alone is law. the was you have been saying, you seem to leave no room for possibility that you may be wrong,
The very nature of this kind of discussion includes the presumption that we are stating our opinions. It is absurd to think that we should all have to add "this is just my opinion" disclaimer's at the end of every sentence. It should be self-evident.

That's just my opinion, though.

Ice_Man wrote:


Tarn wrote:

I'm going to archive that comment for future usage. I recommend you look after your hat, as you may be required to eat it.
hoping for a little "pot calling the kettle black" getback huh? not going to happen. I know I'm not in hollywood, which is why I make no pretenses to the contrary
Er, no, that's not at all what I meant. I wouldn't be that petty, as well you should know. I was simply referring to your comment that nobody here can produce 'Hollywood quality' effects. Perhaps I should have put a smiley on the end. You shouldn't assume that every comment I make is designed as a personal insult, Ice Man. As a regular here, I would like to think you know me better than that.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:55pm

Post 83 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Phrosted wrote:

Archiving comments so that you can use them against someone in the future is the act of a child. Don't read malice, aggravation or violence into this statement, I mean none.
Heh, I don't mind being called a child. Makes me feel young again. smile

However, you shouldn't assume that I was planning on using anything against Iceman. I bear no ill will towards him at all. I was merely suggesting that he was being overly pessimistic.

Please calm down and try not to see the worst in every innocent comment.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:58pm

Post 84 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Huh, there were about 4 posts in between when I started writing that rant and when it got posted.

Obi: Thanks for the apology, and I offer mine. Not everything I said in there was completely untrue, though. biggrin

I don't know about you, but I think that "plates" are going the way of the stoneage. Arguably the most complicated shot in the movie uses none, and I think it looks the most convincing. In theory plates may be more useful, but I think that in practice they give way to the "contrast mismatches" that Sollthar's is trying to point out.
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:59pm

Post 85 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I would think its quite possible that every agent was rendered as a separate layer that can then be switched on and off as needed in a compositing application just to get perfect balance - the number of agents does not effect this as it would have all been created as one 3D scene. Rendering out a few to many agents would have then given the directors to option to drop some agents without the whole thing having to be rendered again. This is fairly common practice which started way back with ID4. Since compositing application have become so fast and accurate now it gives the director the most flexibility. I've seen it being done with HD AOTC footage in After Effects at a live demonstration - it was pretty impressive.

I also feel that I can comment on the quality of the CG figures which were meant to be "the best ever created on film" after sampling, and briefly using, the highest quality 3D scanner on the market today. Basically the quality was astounding, and having seen some of the still renders, footage and rapid prototyping made from such equipment the matrix stuff simply looks ok - not amazing. I hope the trailer isn't reflective of the film and that we really see something that is better than Obi Wan or Two Towers.

Lastly, I see no problems with the terms that Sollthar uses. He is a man who all the CSB-Digital team respect for his talent and humility.

Lets keep this discussion nice people smile
Posted: Sun, 13th Apr 2003, 11:59pm

Post 86 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Tarn: Smilys are the key to not seeing the worst in every comment. Hell, I thought that last one sounded pretty combative, although I'm sure that's not the nature in which it was given. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:03am

Post 87 of 170

Obi

Force: 627 | Joined: 22nd Mar 2003 | Posts: 505

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Phrosted wrote:

As Iceman said, if the screen was bleeding on to the agent, it would be a green line, not black. It could also just be a shadow on the bottom of his head, I have no idea.
I agree here. But, the picture is of the Agent in motion, and it could just be that the bottom part of his chin is shadowed, just like the right of his nose.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:04am

Post 88 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

I'm sure the agents could be switched on and off, but I'm not sure they would be. Case in point: In the pile-on scene, the position and actions of each agent is dependant of the movements of the ones below and above it. I'm pretty sure that the scene was rendered as one large effect from the start, such hugh levels of interaction would be difficult to say the least, if agents were constantly being added and removed.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:10am

Post 89 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, that is true for that shot - it would not really help to be able to switch them on and off, but the one where they are all in the air is a different matter.

As for the blue/green screen leaving a coloured fringe unlike Sollthar's image which has a blackish outline - that isn't really true. Depending on what they used to chroma key the footage a black outline is very possible - many applications try to suppress this kinda bleed by killing colour, Chromanator for instance biggrin
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:17am

Post 90 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The line around the agent's chin is green, though...try brightening your monitor a little bit. It's a dark green, but it's definitely green. But as the shot is post-grading, the specific colour of it is largely irrelevant (especially as the scene is presumably taking place within the green-tinged matrix world).

I think one aspect of rendering that people often get confused by is that interaction of objects would not prevent things being rendered separately. The whole scene is created as a single 3D scene (probably), but each bit is then rendered separately. They're not actually separate as far as the scene is concerned, as it was created and animated.

Rendering the Agents and any dust/etc created by them as separate layers would enable you to change some of the Agents' movements without having to re-render the entire thing. You could just re-render that specific Agent, and surrounding Agents that are affected indirectly, and render the dust/etc once you've got the rest locked down.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that's how they did it, because I have no idea how the Matrix effects people like to do things. I'm just saying how I would want to do it if I were creating such a scene.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:24am

Post 91 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

I think everyone was just getting a little pissed off...

The trailer featured some of the most amazing effects I've seen, and it does hold new, never-before tried effects, as well as new uses of old effects. People shrug this off for some reason, saying that The Matrix has never done anything new, that the effects look like crap (which they don't), and that many films have better examples of the effects (which is impossible, because they are entirely different movies with entirely different scenarios).

There is talk of AOTC having better digital doubles, that in fact look real. The thing is, there were totally different things going on in AOTC as opposed to The Matrix. AOTC didn't have long shots of multiple Jengo Fetts engaged in martial arts with Obi Wan. That's a whole different issue than having a CG person falling or getting thrown by an explosion. In fact, the whole end of the movie looked totally fake, but no one cared because it still carried the scenes effectively.

Its human nature for us to get angry when people seem to never be satisfied. It feels like nothing will ever be good enough for them, and they'd still point out flaws if it was all done for real. Then, they don't seem to care if other films harbor the same, if not worse, effects (spider-man). I'm not taking personal attacks here, but I think personal prejudices against the films are playing into how you perceive the effects. If you thought the first Matrix sucked, or you feel that it didn't deserve to get so much attention, its human nature to not want the second one to be good.

Most of you know of Halo, the FPS for the Xbox. Many people thought Halo was awesome, and yet there were others (Schwar, Kid) that felt it was a mediocre game. Now, there is a trailer for Halo 2 floating around on the 'net, and I, among other people, find it totally awesome, because it's another taste of what I thought was a great FPS. Other people, like Schwar, probably just see some generic 3d animation, and go about their way, thinking that the rest of us are fools for getting so excited. wink

I think the same analogy applies to this trailer.

Oh, and Sollthar, that blue tint is really obvious if you go frame-by-frame in the trailer. If you go a few frames further, though, you'll notice that there is a flash of white. I think that blue tint is either the codec interacting with the white frame, or an editing trick to give the shot more of a kick when the white frame appears. I very much doubt that it will be like that in the film. The trailer wasn't intended to be watched frame-by-frame, and some things that might be pleasing to the eye in motion, like those single white frames, look funny when played frame-by-frame.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:30am

Post 92 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

Oh, and if you go to the 2:17 mark, right when the code appears, if you look at the first few frames, you'll notice some of the white screen is left behind with the falling code for a few frames. More proof that the change in Trinity's color may be due to the codec. smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:41am

Post 93 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

tarn - the scenes you gave examples of (space scene, smoke, etc.) are drastically different in construction than the neo v smiths fight (since John Gaeta and company have dubbed it the 'bully brawl', that's what I'm going to call it from now on, as it's easier). the smoke scenes and space battle would be convenient to render in a multipass format, but the dyanamics of the bully brawl make it almost impossible to play around with! the action is so tightly knit, and the choreography is so dependant on EVERYONE, to remove an agent or two here and there would totally disrupt the whole scene!

yes, it should be evident that what you say here is opinion, but you have to realize that with every thing you say comes with an inherent tone. now, when posting on the internet, the original intended tone is often confused for something else.
now, when you post an opinion, without stating the possibilty for error, the tone that comes through is one of 'statement of fact'. this misinterpretted tone is solidified when you repeat that 'opinion' over and over again.

which brings me to the next thing. . . . the 'tone' of your comment on eating my hat was a very adversarial one. whether that's what you intended it to be or not, is irrelevant. unless clarified, it only matters how I recieved it. since you didn't clarify, it was misinterpreted. as phrosted says, and you yourself even, a smily, or other indication would have helped clarify intent.

Schwar - perhaps you could give us an example of this ultra high quality 3d scanner in action?
and the deal with tightly knit interaction as in the 'bully brawl'; it's the masks that would be the ridiculous hard part of layering that sequence. because models are crossing over behind each other all the time. . . there's just so many of them all doing that, that the composite masks for each plate would be insane!
now, with today's innovations in compositing methods, I'm not saying it's impossible, either. . . just improbable

Sidewinder - some very good points 'nuff said from me on that


both phrosted and I have said this a couple times, and sidewinder too. . . . this is a compressed internet version, the odds that this is what it will look like on the silver screen are slim to none.


lastly, I'd like to say that I don't know about the rest of you, but I am human. humans make mistakes. I could be wrong about everything I've said in this thread. but I leave that as an option. since I didn't work on Matrix Reloaded, I truly do not know what it will be like, or why things look as they do. I can only draw conclusions that from what I see, and what I see, is a compressed internet video.
now, with the exception of schwars master opinion on the semi trucks wink , I am done in this thread. I hope all of you enjoy the movie, and if you were in Grand Rapids, I'd say "see you at 'Studio on May 15th!"
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:43am

Post 94 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

sidewinder wrote:

Its human nature for us to get angry when people seem to never be satisfied. It feels like nothing will ever be good enough for them, and they'd still point out flaws if it was all done for real.
Of course. That way we have continuous improvement and you get people like Gaeta coming along and refining the bullet-time process. If he'd watched those commercials and thought "yeah, that's good enough", then the technique wouldn't have developed to the stage it is at now.

That doesn't preclude being impressed, of course. The miniature work in Lord of the Rings astounds me. The car chase in Matrix 2 is a sequence I'm looking forward to as much as anything else this year. But you can be impressed and still see room for improvement. And there always will be room for improvement - it's why most effects films date fairly quickly, because people are constantly pushing the envelope of what is possible.

I wish I had seen The Abyss or Terminator 2 in the cinema. Just to get the excitement of the pseudopod and that T-1000. Moments when cinema truly broke through into a new arena. Same feeling I got when watching The Matrix - that they'd finally perfected - or nearly, anyway - the liberated camera. But you don't want to stop there, you want to keep pushing, striving for the next thing.

sidewinder wrote:

If you thought the first Matrix sucked, or you feel that it didn't deserve to get so much attention, its human nature to not want the second one to be good.
I'm sure that's the case with most people. Although I am no longer a major fan of The Matrix, I do hope that the sequels are great. The Matrix is a hugely important film for the blockbuster movie and action genres - it showed that you could make an action movie that had some intelligence. I feel that it has been surpassed in many areas, and has dated quite a lot - hopefully the sequels will bring it back.

It's a great time for blockbuster movies. Star Wars, Spider-Man, Lord of the Rings, Matrix...so much competition, each of them trying to do their best. It can only mean more and better films for audiences.

sidewinder wrote:

Other people, like Schwar, probably just see some generic 3d animation, and go about their way, thinking that the rest of us are fools for getting so excited. wink
Then again, we are all entitled to our own opinions. If somebody does not like The Matrix, it's only natural that they are not going to be particularly excited about the sequels. That's perfectly reasonable.

When it comes down to it, saying the effects glimpsed in this Reloaded trailer are in any way 'bad' is silly. They're evidently not bad. Sub-standard, perhaps, sure. The same goes for Spider-Man - the effects in that should not really be defined as 'bad'. It is a testament to the amazing quality that effects can aspire to these days that we can criticise these kind of shots. The standard is so high that things that would have been absolutely mindblowing just 10 years ago can now be criticised slightly just because they're not up to the optimum possible quality.

I think that's probably a good thing...I think. tard biggrin
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:56am

Post 95 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Ice_Man wrote:

yes, it should be evident that what you say here is opinion, but you have to realize that with every thing you say comes with an inherent tone. now, when posting on the internet, the original intended tone is often confused for something else.
Indeed. Having been on the internet for the best part of eight years now, I've encountered this more times than I care to remember. It rarely happens around here because most people know each other to some degree, so can read intent and attitude with unusual clarity. This could be why Phrosted had a little difficulty, as he doesn't have the advantage of knowing (for example) that Sollthar is a cool guy. Anyways, that's all in the past. Let's all be friends now. biggrin

Ice_Man wrote:

which brings me to the next thing. . . . the 'tone' of your comment on eating my hat was a very adversarial one. whether that's what you intended it to be or not, is irrelevant.
Ah, I guess it was meant to be adversarial. I saw your comment as a challenge - consider the challenge heartily accepted. smile Get back to me in a couple of years...

Ice_Man wrote:

Schwar - perhaps you could give us an example of this ultra high quality 3d scanner in action?
I was with Schwar when we had the system demonstrated for us. We were both fairly blown away by what we saw. Real-time hand-held 3D scanning at an astonishing point cloud resolution (schwar might be able to give specific details of the precision of the instrument, can't remember myself).

Whilst I knew the basics of 3D scanners, I had no idea they were that fast and that accurate. Really quite remarkable stuff.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 1:04am

Post 96 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Good points sidewinder. that contrast change of trinity could actually be cause of the codec. Most probably it is, yeah. Didn´t think of that. And I guess that most of the thing I pointed out will look different in the final film.


But nevertheless you forget one thing about effects: The way they are set in scene.

I personally think that if an effect looks good are not is mainly dependant of how it is set in scene, or if you like the style or even more simply, if you like what the effect shows.

I for example have a great affection for fire. I love fire. I think fire is the most beautiful thing in this world so what impresses me most in this trailer (and did in the first matrix) are the shots with the fire/explosion. smile
Other people don´t see more than another explosion in one of those hollywood films.

As in Independence Day. When I was in the cinema I was hugely impressed by these motherships flying through the clouds and over the city. I showed it to my mother when the film came out and all she said was: "Bah, UFOs... that is silly.". And that was the end of the discussion... smile


Films are about asthetics, nothing else. It is about what you find beautiful or interesting to watch and what you don´t. And there is no right and no wrong in that, peoples feeling of beauty is different.

Me for my part, I have never been into Animes or other asian influenced stuff. That isn´t what I find interesting. I don´t really like the style and Matrix is very much in that style, and most probably that is why the trailer doesn´t impress me much. But that goes for me only.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 7:51am

Post 97 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Sidewinder - you know the shot in AOTC where Obi Wan reaches out to grab his lightsword using the force and Jango Fett fires off his little metal rope which goes round Obi Wans wrist - that was CG. Thats fairly close up as well. All the fairly close action on the CG agents in the trailer is either a big blur or fairly low quality like the bit where one jumps on the car. I still can't see any new or amazing effects in the trailer that people are talking about - all looks like fairly normal stuff and some of it just looks a little nasty at the moment. Hope its all sorted for the release.

As for the 3D scanner.. check out http://www.3dscanners.co.uk/homenew.htm - the website is fairly poor but the quality of the product (which costs about £180,000) is amazing. Several companies us this scanner to reverse engineer car and plane engine parts. If you were to scan your face we could basically see the pours of your skin on the 3d model.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 9:05am

Post 98 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

I for example have a great affection for fire. I love fire. I think fire is the most beautiful thing in this world so what impresses me most in this trailer (and did in the first matrix) are the shots with the fire/explosion. smile
Yeah, the shot of the bike rider landing in front of the explosion is a great shot. Brilliantly composed. And a veeeery nice explosion.

You seen Starship Troopers? That had the biggest effects ever done for a movie...although I expect it's been surpassed now by something.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:27pm

Post 99 of 170

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

As filmmakers we all know that the purpose of a trailer is to get public interest for the film. A lot of times the trailer is produced while the film is still in production. If the trailer was created after all editing and such was finished there wouldn't be enough time to get people excited for the movie before it hit the big screen. So I believe that the Matrix II trailer is actually just a preview of the semi-finished film. Give 'em a break and let them tweak and polish the final. I'm sure it'll be awesome beyond all belief.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 12:52pm

Post 100 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Pretty much all the publicity of the Matrix sequels has focused on the special effects and the cool action. Now, whilst this is funky, it's a bit limiting. Nothing much for me to get my teeth into and get excited about.

I seem to recall the first Matrix film hung its whole advertising campaign around 'What is the Matrix?', which was brilliant. Intriguing, exciting, made you wonder what you were about ot see. Hinted at a film bursting with mystery, suspense and interesting ideas - as well as cool action and effects.

Anyway, I'm going to shut up on this topic until I've seen the actual film.

If the discussion is this heated over the trailer, imagine what it's going to be like once the film is out! I think I'll have to go buy some special armour to wear when posting...
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 1:01pm

Post 101 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, that was a very nice explosion. I love the structures in it. Well filmed explosions have great structures of fire. It's almost like they would be alive... smile


Starship troopers? Sure! I have seen that film 6 times or so. I love it. Greatly cynical and with some awesome Special Effects that did impress me very much.

I like massscenes. Thats why the massscenes in Lord of the Rings TTT or the Anubis Warriors in the mummy returns impress me so much. Those is something I am very easily impressed with.


You know what is funny? I have watched Army of Darkness again a few days ago and that film still impresses me! smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 1:03pm

Post 102 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Old Harryhousen films still blow me away completely. Sure, the effects might not be in the slight bit realistic, and I certainly wouldn't want to see stop-motion effects in the Matrix or the next Lord of the Rings, but for their time Harryhousen's stop motion effects were quite astonishing. True melding of art and a master of his craft.

The skeleton battle in Jason & The Argonauts. Great stuff. smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 1:23pm

Post 103 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yes, I totally agree! Those Harryhousen Skeletons look great and are always fun to watch!

I think I've seen the AoD Endbattle more than every other scene from every other movie in my whole life. And even today after it's finished you can see me smiling bigtime thinking "Whoa... That was soooo cool. Let's do that again!" lol



Oh, and I just remembered another thing. I was very impressed with the effects in "The Others". You know why? When I read the end titles and there was a quite big SFX Team named I thought "Wait a second... I didn't see one single effect shot???" and then I watched the MakingOf and there i saw they used bluescreen, greenscreen, CG elements, CG fog, miniatures and all kind of that stuff and I didn't see it. That was impressive... smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 9:12pm

Post 104 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Sollthar, they mentioned it in the article in Wired magazine: The Wachowskis had the animators of Akira and Metropolis create a reel of explosions and nothing else. They say that anime cartoons treat explosions like they're intelligent characters, and they were going for that in The Matrix.
Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 9:18pm

Post 105 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

You guys seen the Wonderful Days trailer? That's got some great animated explosions. Looks like a superb film, too.

Last edited Thu, 17th Apr 2003, 8:33am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 14th Apr 2003, 9:45pm

Post 106 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, as I said. The explosions do look cool! And I´m looking forward to hopefully seeing more of those in the final film... smile
Posted: Tue, 15th Apr 2003, 9:02pm

Post 107 of 170

fanofthepeople

Force: 200 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 12

Gold Member

First off let me say that this website and the members have catapulted me to the once intrest I had in movie making to now a life driven goal. I love all of these films because they show the creativity that the professional industry is lacking. Now to the reply. I love the matrix. I am probably the biggest matrix fan ever! I have watched that movie over thirty times in the theater and have watched it over 100 times at my house. I love it. Special effects are made by people like us. Thinking of incredible, imginative ideas and tryng to put them on screen in a attempt to describe our dreams and fantasies. Of course, we dont have the resources to do this and neither does the film industry. If we could we would spend a whole life time tweaking and perfecting one movie with multiple special effects and even an the end watching the whole movie completed, we would still see a flaw. A flaw that we can not describe because right now, we have no way of showing the human creativity to its fullest on film. We will one day. But right now we have to settle for close renditions and even closer ideas that when heard sound awesome, but when seen never compares to what we think. I have waited for this movie since the first one came out. All of the ideas and things running in my mind that I would like to see, wont be in the film, or will they?
Posted: Tue, 15th Apr 2003, 9:30pm

Post 108 of 170

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Its visually amazing... but erm... well I'll leave my opinion open till I have seen it. wink
Posted: Thu, 17th Apr 2003, 2:16am

Post 109 of 170

anonymous

Ice_Man wrote:

and if you think they pulled them along the ground on skateboard, you're being ridiculously nieve.

these effects producers and directors are the ones in hollywood for a reason. if you think any of you fools can do better, then by all means, give 'hollywood' a call and have a nice long chat about why you should be the ones in charge of all this.
skateboard... that's how i'd do it. so what if I have a smaller budjet than the wachowskis' catering budjet!

regarding hollywood, ask John Gaeta. in the special features of the matrix dvd (or perhaps 'the matrix: revisited', or both), you can see him wearing a t-shirt that says "down with hollywood".
not to sound like i agree with everything he does regarding the subject (or even that i know what he thinks), but my opinion is that these are the sort of effects and stuff that 'hollywood' can't work out properly, and is not willing to due to the risk.

sure, they did a 'bullet-time' (using the term to refer to all types of the effect) in commercials and other films and stuff, but Gaeta worked out how to combine several techniques and stuff to make an original effect.

in the new features (matrix2+3, enter the matrix, animatrix, etc), you have to respect and appreciate that they are 'pushing the limits'.
we here are all saying "oh, that had a few things missing" or "you can see her transparency mask" [hehe sounds like a nudity reference].

sure, some movies may do one or two really super-dooper (!) effects which blow us away for a few seconds, but to think of and attempt many, many visual effects in a live-action [and yes, this term is quite blurry in this case] feature from before pre-production is quite gamely. the wachowskis are very lucky to have joel silver and that WB guy (sorry, guy, i don't know your name) behind them on this project. [yes, it's easier now, but before - the first matrix - there was no gaurantee that it would make money]

anyway, i never seem to post unless i'm on a soap-box, so off i get!


cmetom

btw, my project which i just completed has not been released yet, but i've been busy with uni, work, and thinking up my next project!
i should be able to release in about a month, but i promise nothing.
Posted: Thu, 17th Apr 2003, 2:32am

Post 110 of 170

cmetom

Force: 310 | Joined: 14th Jul 2002 | Posts: 47

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

damn it! i always forget to log in!

and while i'm here - a bunch of u mentioned that compression may cause some of the seemingly 'poor' quality trailer thingys. i can tell you, and i hope ppl agree:

the animatrix trailer? where we see bits of "final flight of the osiris"? i thought they looked cool, but i was kind-of disappointed with the quality.
when i then saw the whole thing on the silver screen (before 'dreamcatcher') i couldn't believe how good it looked. i knew it was all cg, but all i could think of was how complex it was to make cg look that good! it also impressed me over how much better it looked compared to "final fantasy: the spirits within". those square peoples certainly learned a lot from that, and their efforts are appreciated.

peace, peoples.
Posted: Thu, 17th Apr 2003, 4:03am

Post 111 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Hey Tarn, I think you meant to say "Wonderful Days". razz

www.wonderfuldays.co.kr
Posted: Thu, 17th Apr 2003, 8:42am

Post 112 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Ah, Beautiful, Wonderful, some kind of arty name. smile

Looks like a great film though.
Posted: Sat, 19th Apr 2003, 6:46pm

Post 113 of 170

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Saw the new Matrix trailer in the cinema yeasterday, was actually a slightly extended version of the downloadable one. It did still have a couple of odd bits but I admit it worked MUCH better on the big screen. I was much more impressed by it, hope I feel the same way about the film - looks like some good action in there, lets hope its not all CG.
Posted: Sat, 19th Apr 2003, 7:55pm

Post 114 of 170

Fight

Force: 379 | Joined: 24th Oct 2002 | Posts: 181

Windows User

Gold Member

Guys please. I don't mean to be rude but,

Who honestly gives a flying F-u-c-k.

Solthar. I have respect for you. I think you know I have respect for you. But honestly. the contrast thing? I couldn't care less. I didn't notice that at all in the trailer.

And schwar. no reflections in the lorry. Not caring. I doubt most of the cinema going public will either. its all very well going frame by frame through movies or trailers and pointing out all their downfalls but what's the point? so you can act all high and mighty in front of people and tell them that "You see that really realistic guy over there. He's cg. Not a real actor. You can tell by the way his hair line is receeding."

What's the point. I will be going to see the matrix reloaded when it is released and I will not be crying about how the contrast doesn't match or about how I couldn't see trinity's motorbike reflection in a near by lorry. I will be sitting down with a big ol tub of popcorn (scratch that, Haribo. kids and grown ups love it so wink ) and I'll be watching one hell of an action flick.

Not a personal attack guys. I'm just trying to bring back normality to this anally retentive forum razz

Cheers,
Fight.

P.s someone said earlier about how there are no 'revolutionary' new special effects techniques in reloaded. They are supposedly in revolutions. Where the camera becomes free form through out the scene with the use of little or no cgi.
Posted: Sat, 19th Apr 2003, 8:34pm

Post 115 of 170

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

yeah! What Fight said razz !

99% of all the people that are going to see this movie don't know a flying f*ck about filmmaking and or CG and to them its just gonna be freakin awesome. Why? Because they're there to have fun and watch a good flick. I guess learning to make movies is kind of a give-and-take thing. We learn the tricks of the trade, but at the same time, the things we once though looked incredible now seem flawed and fakey. It's hard not to sit and constantly analyze a film after we know what went into making it. Its the Curse of the Filmaker biggrin !
Posted: Sat, 19th Apr 2003, 8:40pm

Post 116 of 170

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'll third that! Also, if you're saying some of the CG isn't that great, who cares. CG isn't meant to MAKE a movie, it's meant to IMPROVE it. Except in the case of CG films like the pixar ones, or final fantasy. It's a suspension of reality thing. Plus I think the effects in the trailer look fantastic!
Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2003, 12:18am

Post 117 of 170

ops101ex

Force: 250 | Joined: 16th Nov 2002 | Posts: 209

Gold Member

Did you notice? When Neo is flying around the pole kicking all the agents, if you play it frame by frame, he and the other agents look like poser models, exept for their faces. They mighta cut and pasted their faces onto CGI bodys. Also, when Neo flys out of the castle, his face looks really weird, like it might be a stunt double. But considering that shot was all CGI, why would they need a stunt double? But that doesn't matter, as long as my parents actually Take me to it, I'll be happy. They dont much like me watching R films. confused
Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2003, 1:08am

Post 118 of 170

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Er, Aculag, orion0340 and Fight...I think you're missing the point somewhat.

When I watch the film, I won't be thinking of all this stuff. I'll just be (hopefully) enjoying the film for what it is.

However, this is a special effects forum. It is natural to want to discuss the effects. However, discussing the technical merits of a film is entirely separate from the experience of watching the film itself.

When I watch the film, hopefully I won't care about the effects. Hopefully the film will be good enough to just enjoy it.

But many of us here have a vested interest in special effects. Many of the people here even have a desire to eventually work in the special effects industry. Consequently, it is only natural to want to discuss the finer points of the effects. This doesn't make them anal, or ridiculous. It simply means they have an interest in a fine craft.

If you're not interested in discussing those aspects, then fair enough. But don't lambast others for showing an interest.
Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2003, 1:35am

Post 119 of 170

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I was just simply saying how I watch movies differently now that I know what goes into them. smile No disrepect coming from this corner biggrin
Posted: Sun, 20th Apr 2003, 4:27am

Post 120 of 170

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I actually got the point spot on. By saying who cares if the cg doesn't look real or not and that it's there to enhance the film, not make it, that was saying that it doesn't matter what it looks like, because if it's a good film, you won't even notice them. I hardly see how I missed the point.
Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2003, 3:45pm

Post 121 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

I saw "Reloaded" trailer on friday before "Bulletproof Monk". I knew straight away it'd be the subject of a big debate over here. I think it looks really impressive. The first film was quite entertaining although i can't for the life of me understand why it's called "The action Movie of the Millennium" or "The most influential action film" it's more influenced that influential.

I thought the shootout falling from a big building was really impressive actually, as was the rest of it.
Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2003, 7:02pm

Post 122 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

do you mean the bit with trinity and agent smith diving out of that skyscraper.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 3:12pm

Post 123 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

Yup. Although I was a little irritated as something similar appears in my film and now they've gone and done it first. evil
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 3:32pm

Post 124 of 170

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

What's your film?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 3:37pm

Post 125 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

What has become somewhat of an "epic" in scale. My heroic Bloodshed film "Sunset in a Beretta's Eye" 2 assassins fall from a bridge, shooting at each other. It's not as impressive as a building but there's no sophisticated special effects shots just alot of injuries.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 4:04pm

Post 126 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I like that, Two_gunned Saint. . . you're an 'old-school' film maker!
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 4:19pm

Post 127 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

was it you that suggested to the guy asking about the bully punching someone into lockers that they should simply get a rope and pull him, so he smashes into the lockers biggrin

the only injuries i've ever encountered is when a friend had to flip of a tree house into a compost heap... he kind of fliped too far and snapped his neck when he landed.. ouch biggrin
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 4:26pm

Post 128 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

you know, two_gunned's idea about that stunt with the lockers was actually a pretty good one

that's how hollywood does it, they use stunt doubles, and slam people into stuff

well, their conditions are a little more controlled than that, but that's the basic gist
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 4:32pm

Post 129 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

Rating: +1

yeah but Two_Gunned's idea of say... somebody getting hit on the head by a brick is actually getting an actor to actually hit the other actor with a brick, on the head...

Not to mention there is no such thing as sugar glass... if someone dives through a window, they do it through real glass biggrin
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 5:12pm

Post 130 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

Yep that's my way just do it for real and pay for the hospital bill.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 5:16pm

Post 131 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

lol

NURSE: "So how did he break his leg and both of his arms"
Two_Gunned: "He jumped of a bridge.. i even filmed it biggrin "
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 5:18pm

Post 132 of 170

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sounds good to me. People doing real stunts is always better than doing special effects stunts. We made a short sequel to Action Movie! that didn't work out because it was really bad, but we had McMurphy dive through a window (open) and at first we had his landing well padded, but you could always see the padding on the ground, so we decided it was ok if he got a little hurt by actually hitting the ground, and it looked much better. Too bad the rest of the movie was shite.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 5:22pm

Post 133 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

lol.. i'm sure McMurphy was pleased when you said you were removing the padding... smile

you could of made a comedy film with just that scene called
"McMurphy gets hurt"
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 9:58pm

Post 134 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

I've just been out filming an action scene tonight. In this scene characters have to go running real fast and then do diving rolls, in one sequence the hero leaps off of a roof flyin' over me while shooting, I do a flip onto the floor, while shooting back. Then there's my big stunts that are too crazy to mention and I'll keep them as a surprise.

We took safety into consideration and brought safety equipment comprising of....1 cushion. You know what we used it for? The camera operator knelt on it, 'cos the gravel was a bit pointy and that's it.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 10:12pm

Post 135 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

dude, when's this movie gonna be out?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 10:20pm

Post 136 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

Well, we're a little behind schedule and there's alot of scenes that have been added and the people involved are hardly reliable, we figure we can have the bulk of it shot and edited by June, just leaving us to finish off the biggest action sequences, if we move at a good rate, it'll all be done by August. 9 months over schedule and if we had a budget I'm sure I'd have gone over that too. (I've spent 20 quid on sunglasses alone.)
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 10:33pm

Post 137 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

sounds like it'll be truly amazing movie, two_gunned


what's the conversion rate from quid to US dollars? trying to get a good estimate of how much you spent on sunglasses. . . . .

if a quid is even remotely similar in value to a dollar, then 20 bucks for sunglasses is nothing. . . . .
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 10:35pm

Post 138 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

I know 250 dollars is 160 quid. I know it's not that much but I wasn't supposed to spend anything, they just kept busting.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2003, 11:05pm

Post 139 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

so around 30 bucks for sunglasses. . . . .



not supposed to spend anything?! what kind of filmmaking are you used to? I just about always have to spend money when I make movies. . . .
Posted: Wed, 23rd Apr 2003, 11:29am

Post 140 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

I mean I was not supposed to spend anything on the shades.

I'll have spent a couple of hundred before it's over though. To say it's cheap filmmaking it's a bit expensive.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Apr 2003, 11:33am

Post 141 of 170

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I spent ages organising filming Crawling Space. It had a budget of £25.00.

Yeah baby! biggrin I dont include the tape cost or anything that ordinary, thats standard.

ANything can be done with imagination. I am seriously looking forward to ya film TGS!
Posted: Wed, 23rd Apr 2003, 11:37am

Post 142 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, it's a shame.


I spent 4'000 $ on Face to Face and it's not even considered as a budget... tard crazy
Posted: Wed, 23rd Apr 2003, 11:37am

Post 143 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

"I am seriously looking forward to ya film TGS!" thanks, hearing people say that pushes me harder to get it good and finished.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Apr 2003, 5:22pm

Post 144 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

when you say "my film had a budget of say £200"
are you supposed to include camera, editing computer, tapes e.t.c

because in that case my films cost a few quid - all we buy is fake blood, bangers and flour to put in the bbguns to create a nice effect. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 3:30pm

Post 145 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

I think of a budget as money given to me by a distribution company or something. I don't know the exact definition.

The money that you spend on tapes and such comes from your own pocket so it isn't considered a budgie.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 3:34pm

Post 146 of 170

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Two_Gunned saint wrote:

I think of a budget as money given to me by a distribution company or something. I don't know the exact definition.

The money that you spend on tapes and such comes from your own pocket so it isn't considered a budgie.
Lol!. I think You'll find this is considered a budgie:

Last edited Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 3:40pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 3:38pm

Post 147 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

Hmmm. I'll have to check up on that one.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 5:01pm

Post 148 of 170

LtMcMurphy

Force: 1105 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 583

Windows User

Member

I can't imagine spending 400 birds on one movie. Thats high up even for Hollywood directors!
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 5:03pm

Post 149 of 170

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

LtMcMurphy wrote:

I can't imagine spending 400 birds on one movie. Thats high up even for Hollywood directors!
I only have 132'birds' in my phonebook.

Damn. Wimbledon High 6th form needs more birds.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 6:06pm

Post 150 of 170

LtMcMurphy

Force: 1105 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 583

Windows User

Member

Aculag wrote:

Sounds good to me. People doing real stunts is always better than doing special effects stunts. We made a short sequel to Action Movie! that didn't work out because it was really bad, but we had McMurphy dive through a window (open) and at first we had his landing well padded, but you could always see the padding on the ground, so we decided it was ok if he got a little hurt by actually hitting the ground, and it looked much better. Too bad the rest of the movie was shite.
A bit too late, but most of my injuries came from when my feet would hit the top of the window when I jumped. I'm so surprised the window didn't break one of those times. The other ones were just obvious ones I'd get from landing on the hard ground after jumping out a window.

That would be fun to make a movie where all I do is get hurt, because that happens a bunch. We could reenact the time I broke my collarbone at school!
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 6:31pm

Post 151 of 170

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

we decided it was ok if he got a little hurt by actually hitting the ground
I really like the Sound of that... WE decided it´s okay if he got a little hurt... I love that... smile
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 6:39pm

Post 152 of 170

LtMcMurphy

Force: 1105 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 583

Windows User

Member

Yeah, I like the sound of that too.

Oh and one more thing. I did that same move at least 50 times. I hate it.

If you watch Action Movie again (please do), there's a part where I throw the gun up into the air, fall down and catch the gun on the ground. The first time I did that move I jumped down and hit my head pretty hard on a door frame that was behind me. I was quite phased. The final shot turned out pretty well I think.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 7:37pm

Post 153 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

"The first time I did that move I jumped down and hit my head pretty hard on a door frame that was behind me. "

Oh yeah I've done that in "Sunset in a Beretta's eye". I go running up these stairs and this bloke appears through the doorway on my left with a pistol so I leap to the floor.

We got about 4 angles, 3-4 takes of each. 2 out of 5 times my head would hit this door and a huge splintering, crack sound could be heard. When we checked the door it was undamaged which left slightly scary thoughts as to where the splintering, cracking sound could have originated from.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 8:08pm

Post 154 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

I'm suprised you don't sign up for jackass smile
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 8:40pm

Post 155 of 170

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

He doesn't have a deathwish?
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 10:10pm

Post 156 of 170

LtMcMurphy

Force: 1105 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 583

Windows User

Member

Injuries while making films I think are better than just in real life. Robert Zemeckis told Michael J. Fox that "Pain is temporary, but film is forever." Thats so true, that why I don't mind getting hurt.

Aculag and I were rehearsing this lightsaber fight for a movie once, and theres this move he does that he has to jump over my lightsaber, but he never in time, so I hit him in the ankle about 5 times. It looked pretty bad when we were done. The shot was never used.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 10:35pm

Post 157 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

"I'm suprised you don't sign up for jackass "

Funnily enough every now and again we'll take some camcorders up to college and film the english version of it. As it's english we call it "right old burk". We just go across the city filming stupid stuff.

Speaking of injuries.
I once filmed this fight sequence. I did 'nuff stunts again and again from different angles, there's one take where I slam into the floor, my shoulder slams right up into my ear and there's a huge, sickening cruch sound coming from my neck. I was also kneed right on the bottom of the nose. It was also boiling hot as I had on a big coat, a hood, gloves and a balaclava I became so dehydrated, after filming had finished I spent an hour throwing up. When I watched back the footage it was too grainy to be used.

I also have a big scar on my ankle from when I tripped during an action sequence and a stick was plunged through my leg.

I once landed right on my neck as well once.

Thinking about it, I'd better stop doing stunts 'cos I've got so many knocks and injuries it can't be healthy.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 11:06pm

Post 158 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

naw!

knocks and injuries are part of what make stunts and filmmaking so much fun! and just think, if you didn't do stunts, you wouldn't have these amusing tales to tell us!
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 11:09pm

Post 159 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

You're right Ice man. I'm inspired. You've taught me to live again, now I'm off to jump off a cliff.
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 11:13pm

Post 160 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

Yes. My work here is done biggrin




just make sure you get multiple angles of that jump
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 11:13pm

Post 161 of 170

MechaForce

Force: 4654 | Joined: 3rd Aug 2001 | Posts: 1934

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

LtMcMurphy wrote:

Robert Zemeckis told Michael J. Fox that "Pain is temporary, but film is forever."
Being dead is forever too.

Who says stunts have to be painful? Jumping off roofs and second stories onto cardboard boxes isn't bad, same with throwing people into walls (seriously, try throwing someone into a wall - it doesn't hurt a bit!).

Jackass? Take a look here!
Posted: Thu, 24th Apr 2003, 11:19pm

Post 162 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

Whoever wrote that, seriously has too much time on their hands.

If they don't like it that much then why bother to make a website about it. It's like those negative reviews on imdb.com. If I don't like a film, I don't take the time out to look it up on the internet and write about how I don't like it. I just leave it.

Man, whoever wrote that really needs to get himself a girlfriend or down to the nearest topless bar right away.
Posted: Fri, 25th Apr 2003, 12:01am

Post 163 of 170

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, that's only why his website has had 13,367,505 total hits...

He has a whole page for dealing with responses by yours!

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi


Don't take it too seriously, it's all for fun.
Posted: Fri, 25th Apr 2003, 12:54am

Post 164 of 170

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

yeah maddox is hilarious and he just says that crap because people get so damn defensive about sensitive topics.... I love this site so there for it truly must be the best website in the universe...cuz my opinion is the only one in the world that matter

P.S.: that was sarcasm you sensitive punks...

Canta mad
Posted: Fri, 25th Apr 2003, 1:15am

Post 165 of 170

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Maddox is hilarious...and he doesn't like Xbox much, which is always a plus wink
Posted: Fri, 25th Apr 2003, 3:31am

Post 166 of 170

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

I have no real opinion about maddox . . . I don't find most of his commentary to be particularly funny, but I have no love lost for the man
I only know that I have better things to do with my time than rant and rave nonstop about things I don't like.



if he has the time and inclination to waste his life doing so, more power to him. neutral
Posted: Fri, 25th Apr 2003, 10:35am

Post 167 of 170

Two Gunned Saint

Force: 918 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 1269

Member

Rating: +1

"Yeah, that's only why his website has had 13,367,505 total hits... "

Oh yeah how stupid of me, he must have a life then. smile
Posted: Mon, 28th Apr 2003, 7:06pm

Post 168 of 170

Phrosted

Force: 10 | Joined: 20th Mar 2003 | Posts: 19

Member

Hey, Ice_Man, I thought you were getting out of this thread! biggrin
Posted: Mon, 28th Apr 2003, 8:10pm

Post 169 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

lol - at first I thought he was a complete dumbass but it turns out he's way more clever than he looks.. this made me laugh.

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:03:44 -0400
From: Whone <######@######.ca>
To: maddox@xmission.com
Subject: YOU SUCK ASS!


ya shitface
you spelled insane wrong on your page, yet you thing your the grammar
king.. make fun of 9 yr olds.


but regardless your page was fuckin funny.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:46:22 -0700
From: Seth Major <######@################.com>
To: maddox@xmission.com
Subject: Nice Spelling

You spelled insane wrong there smart guy




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm only posting this because of the sheer number of emails I get from you dipshits telling me that I had a typo on my "I am better than your kids" page. The word is "inane," not "insane." Inane is a word, look it up:

inane (i-'nAn), adjective:
1 : empty, insubstantial
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point: silly

Seriously, I thought people were kidding when they kept emailing me one after another telling me I had a typo. That's another thing, you cocks can stop emailing me with every little typo and grammar mistake you find on my site. I know they're there. There's a typo on my Metallica page, there's another on my Jenny Jones page and I'm sure there are a few others I've missed--on purpose--to lull you into a false sense of security by making you think that I'm not perfect and that you stand a chance of busting my chops; little do you know that my chops are un-bustable. Regardless, I'm not going to fix them because I just don't give a shit. So then why do I bitch about spelling, grammar, etc in some of my hate mail?

and the car one.. on the HATEMAIL page.
Posted: Wed, 30th Apr 2003, 6:28pm

Post 170 of 170

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

who's a better president.. Bush or a packet of tic tacs? smile