Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
Why use CGI, if they can't even get it right eh?

Because that's all they have. There are no serviceable Japanese Kates, Vals, Zeroes, Sallies or Nells that are flight worthy at this point in time. Same with SBD, Devastator, B-17E and so forth on the American side of the equation. If'n you want to make a movie about a massive carrier battle with 1942 planes, you've got to create them out of whole cloth. CGI is, alas, the only game in town 80 years after the fact.

What about miniature models? Aren't those an option for anything anymore except maybe for Star Wars?

My point was if they are going to be drawing it instead of using the actual gear (which I agree, doesn't actually exist anymore for the most part), could they at least draw it accurately and with some degree of artistic beauty. I have seen altogether too many movies with CGI, and the drawings were often both incorrect, and poorly drawn as well. Lousy CGI is basically the same as using lousy actors and lousy scripts.

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Because that's all they have. There are no serviceable Japanese Kates, Vals, Zeroes, Sallies or Nells that are flight worthy at this point in time. Same with SBD, Devastator, B-17E and so forth on the American side of the equation. If'n you want to make a movie about a massive carrier battle with 1942 planes, you've got to create them out of whole cloth. CGI is, alas, the only game in town 80 years after the fact.

What about miniature models? Aren't those an option for anything anymore except maybe for Star Wars?

My point was if they are going to be drawing it instead of using the actual gear (which I agree, doesn't actually exist anymore for the most part), could they at least draw it accurately and with some degree of artistic beauty. I have seen altogether too many movies with CGI, and the drawings were often both incorrect, and poorly drawn as well. Lousy CGI is basically the same as using lousy actors and lousy scripts.

It seems that the real challenges for CGI artists are getting the lighting and reflection correct (so it looks like what you see when gazing out the window, rather than what you see on a screen), followed by understanding flight dynamics. If they can meet those two challenges, I am less apt to notice whether they portrayed an SBD-3 or an SBD-5.

The possibilities for CGI airplanes appeared 15 years ago: in King Kong, Peter Jackson came closer to reality than any film since then (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoD85qZhkWY ); his team even went so far as to recreate the markings of the Navy Reserve squadron based in Brooklyn (IIRC) that Willis O'Brien used in the 1932 King Kong. Then again, Jackson is a WWI - 1930s aviation nut who has one of the larger warbird collections in the world and started his own plastic model company, Wingnut Wings, producing exclusively 1/32 scale WWI aviation subjects.

We really need someone with Jackson's knowledge and dedication to the subject to make a movie with realistic airplane CGI.

Saw it yesterday. Liked the fil although in a way parts of the old Charleton Heston film (not historical role) were better

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

So I guess I was correct. Seemed 'ok' to watch, but clearly lacking in technical merits. With the usual offense of "can't they at least get the drawn parts correct?" Why use CGI, if they can't even get it right eh?

Exceedingly little history done by Hollywood is correct. It's never about accuracy. It's all about money. I find it amazing they actually portrayed monoplanes instead of biplanes.

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen


What about miniature models? Aren't those an option for anything anymore except maybe for Star Wars?

My point was if they are going to be drawing it instead of using the actual gear (which I agree, doesn't actually exist anymore for the most part), could they at least draw it accurately and with some degree of artistic beauty. I have seen altogether too many movies with CGI, and the drawings were often both incorrect, and poorly drawn as well. Lousy CGI is basically the same as using lousy actors and lousy scripts.

It seems that the real challenges for CGI artists are getting the lighting and reflection correct (so it looks like what you see when gazing out the window, rather than what you see on a screen), followed by understanding flight dynamics. If they can meet those two challenges, I am less apt to notice whether they portrayed an SBD-3 or an SBD-5.

The possibilities for CGI airplanes appeared 15 years ago: in King Kong, Peter Jackson came closer to reality than any film since then (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoD85qZhkWY ); his team even went so far as to recreate the markings of the Navy Reserve squadron based in Brooklyn (IIRC) that Willis O'Brien used in the 1932 King Kong. Then again, Jackson is a WWI - 1930s aviation nut who has one of the larger warbird collections in the world and started his own plastic model company, Wingnut Wings, producing exclusively 1/32 scale WWI aviation subjects.

We really need someone with Jackson's knowledge and dedication to the subject to make a movie with realistic airplane CGI.

What it really comes down to is money, or the relative limits of it.

I checked out a list of the most expensive films made - those costing between $200 million and $379 million. There are currently seventy four of them. These are the blockbusters that extend the limits of filming technique. They also raise our expectations of what we can expect from CGI. Most, I believe, spent more money on CGI and special effects than the $59.5 million that is reported as being the entire production budget for Midway. There is no way that Midway's CGI could match their levels. You want someone on the payroll who can increase the quality of whichever aspect of CGI is important to you? No doubt that could have been done, but at the cost of losing an expert on some other aspect of CGI. I suspect that the average audience member wouldn't notice what was "realistic" but would be upset if the overall effects weren't sufficiently spectacular.

Midway's CGI emphasized quantity and spectacle. Adding realism and subtlety would have required a much bigger budget.

Well I was going to see it but decided after reading all here. I'll wait until its on tv or maybe pay for view.

Saw it last night. It was ok-ish.

Seemed like the director wanted to include as many battles and explosions as possible, hence wedged in lots of prior battles.

Got annoyed by the "glory chasing" zero pilots, and referring to Midway as the most significant naval battle in American history.

Not sure if I had taken other people that they would have been able to follow what was happening during the Midwy battle itself.