- This topic has 17 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Shake for “rendering”? Whatever. I’m reminded of William Gibson’s interpretation of that word in Pattern Recognition. He seemed to think a render farm was a room full of people working…
In todays world you hardly do any work with just one app.
Imagine if Adobe took credit for every movie that Photoshop was used in it…
BTW
I just found this article on aple’s website
arctor wrote:saw Kong on Sat….
while I thought it was /very/ entertaining and Kong himself was really really fantastic (by far the best actor in the film) I have to say that (like LOTR) the effects overall were very inconsistent…from Kong being soooo convincing and emotionally engaging on screen to really bad simple comps – most shots of Kong carrying whatsername were terrible…
I feel bad saying it (I have friends who worked on it)…but the blame, IMO, rests squarely on Peter Jackson…wanting to put as much into a film as possible is great, and as a film lover I’m grateful for the passion and desire to entertain…but there were a couple of sequences in Kong that could have been dropped (because they added /nothing/ to the film in any way – spider pit being chief among them) which would have allowed an appropriate amount of time for all the other shots…The CG in general is awesome, but I agree that there are some comps that are a little weak. Every time that the monkey is shaking the girl in his hands it looks funny with tons of motion blur. The dinosaur stampede is weird, the actors have a light that doesn’t match, too bright and clean to be running below a bunch of gigantic animals. In the overall I feel the compositing work was much better in LOTR.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.