Page 3 of 4
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:05 pm
by GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: Schanilec
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...
How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!
Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!
...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary [:-]
Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.[&o]
[X(] Isn't that correct? HAve I misspelled once again? [:D]
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:35 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: Schanilec
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...
How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!
Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!
...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary [:-]
Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.[&o]
[X(] Isn't that correct? HAve I misspelled once again? [:D]
A Himmelmann is a little guy figurine on the mantel.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:07 pm
by Schanilec
You guys Hummel me.[:D]
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:29 pm
by Wuffer
ORIGINAL: obvert
Interestingly though, to give more motion to planes, to add 500 fighters to the background, to have all of those bombers in shot all moving that wound't be there if they were correctly spaced, would all cost less money to make!!! That's what kills me. The guys doing that would have 1/4 the work if they actually made it look more realistic! It's silly.
So somewhere on the production side studio execs are saying 'more, more , more, don't worry about the time and money.'
Obvert, I agree with you on most aspects, but I think digital stuff is really cheap nowadays.
all you need is adding as much layers as you want.
here was the real work:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/77d644e0a89d ... 1_1280.jpg
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:40 am
by GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: Schanilec
Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.[&o]
[X(] Isn't that correct? HAve I misspelled once again? [:D]
A Himmelmann is a little guy figurine on the mantel.
Mmmmm...i'm pretty sure i did this everyday when playing on IL2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:51 am
by JocMeister
GJ, This is what you wrote... [:D]
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Himmelmann...
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:22 am
by obvert
ORIGINAL: Wuffer
ORIGINAL: obvert
Interestingly though, to give more motion to planes, to add 500 fighters to the background, to have all of those bombers in shot all moving that wound't be there if they were correctly spaced, would all cost less money to make!!! That's what kills me. The guys doing that would have 1/4 the work if they actually made it look more realistic! It's silly.
So somewhere on the production side studio execs are saying 'more, more , more, don't worry about the time and money.'
Obvert, I agree with you on most aspects, but I think digital stuff is really cheap nowadays.
all you need is adding as much layers as you want.
here was the real work:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/77d644e0a89d ... 1_1280.jpg
With some limited searching I can't find anything that gives evidence to well done CGI being cheaper than it was previously. Better, yes, more possible, yes, but not cheaper. It's human hours, and any business person will remind you that cost of employees is always the highest. Adding stuff that doesn't need to be there is always going to take more hours than not doing that, and making things 'move' more, or more things move, is going to take more hours.
I've used some 3-D rendering programs and I can tell you from first hand experience it's not quick work, no matter how you do it, but it's quicker the fewer things you have to deal with. You don't just add a layer to pt a new plane in. You also give it different shading, you make it move differently, you throw stuff at it and get smoke trails made coming out of it. It's not just another layer, it's a new design.
Looking at the film 'Gravity' I found a pretty interesting note from someone working at Framestore that did the CGI, (seemingly the best work to date).
He said that if they'd had one single for processor machine running the rendering for it it would have needed to start working in the 5th century BC to finish by the time the film was released!
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:05 am
by Wuffer
With all respect, Eric, have a look at 2:07 plse - how many clones?
I might propose a 'solomonic' agreement: At least it
looks very cheap and I don't think it's the compression of youtube. And they have definitely paid too much for this job.
Everything is like a cheesy B-movie, they spared on the actors, probably the plot, colour-correction, cut, camera movement...
Btw, I could understand your argument really well; while neither a prof photog nor a filmmaker, pictures and (short) movies being part of my daily work and I hate the idea what could have done with THAT etat.
Regarding the Thin Line (dunno the original title) we could agree - one of the movies you could never forget which is working in your mind. Could not imagine how to illustrate the story better!
Did you know of a good adaption of Catch22?
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:35 am
by Reg
ORIGINAL: obvert
It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.
You may note that these series may have been bankrolled by Hollywood, but they weren't made by Hollywood........
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:34 am
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Reg
ORIGINAL: obvert
It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.
You may note that these series may have been bankrolled by Hollywood, but they weren't made by Hollywood........
I was shocked by obvert's budget numbers on "Red Tails", so I looked it up. About $40 million of the number was for marketing. The rest, about $58 million, included no A-list actors, limited location shoots, and three dollars for a script. Terrible, terrible film-making on a dollar-results basis.
OTOH, this weekend I saw "Cloud Atlas", a film that garnered the spectrum of critics' opinion but which I thought was an utter masterpiece. A knock out. It had Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and a bunch of other A-list and high B-list talent, many expensive locations including a sailing ship at sea, the South Seas, and a futuristic Seoul that was stunning, plus a huge amount of futuristic computer effects and various expensive sets. Independent, non-Hollywood (German in fact) movie. Budget around $100. In 100 years film students will be studying it. "Red Tails" will be long forgotten.
Cloud Cuckoo Land.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:58 am
by Agathosdaimon
CGI is the pits really, it is okay to be used here and there but having it try to up the action over realism just makes it all the more of an empty feeling. I am sure Battle of Britain prob has its hollywood moments, but its not trying to emulate some Sci-fi mega battle when it was portraying WW2 and its special effects never got in the way of the atmosphere - i wish money would be spent of real physical props aircraft/etc or even just good models rather than CGI - its like comparing raw sugar to artificial sweetener, in that the latter initially seems a better alternative but soon tastes distinctly lacking and in the long term is actually worse for ones health than actual sugar.
In fact, 10-15 years ago watching movies at the cinema, especially the big hollywood stuff was something i was doing all the time but now i just cant bear wasting such time, as the writers limitations are just too obvious in regard to taking advantage of deeper narratives, original dialogue - their lack of attending to these things i should say. Actors are not protraying reality just a hollywood hyperreal version of reality one that many come to take for real and are then easily fooled by the scripted crap trying to pass for 'reality tv'
The movies made well before my time, seem now infinitely more stimulating with their lengthier dialogue, and usually enormous numbers of Extras - lole Abel Gance's Austerlitz or the 1970's Waterloo films.
I think Memphis Belle was a great film though, great like Das Boot
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:46 am
by obvert
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Reg
ORIGINAL: obvert
It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.
You may note that these series may have been bankrolled by Hollywood, but they weren't made by Hollywood........
I was shocked by obvert's budget numbers on "Red Tails", so I looked it up. About $40 million of the number was for marketing. The rest, about $58 million, included no A-list actors, limited location shoots, and three dollars for a script. Terrible, terrible film-making on a dollar-results basis.
OTOH, this weekend I saw "Cloud Atlas", a film that garnered the spectrum of critics' opinion but which I thought was an utter masterpiece. A knock out. It had Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and a bunch of other A-list and high B-list talent, many expensive locations including a sailing ship at sea, the South Seas, and a futuristic Seoul that was stunning, plus a huge amount of futuristic computer effects and various expensive sets. Independent, non-Hollywood (German in fact) movie. Budget around $100. In 100 years film students will be studying it. "Red Tails" will be long forgotten.
Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Great film! Even a better book.
I've been asking a colleague with more knowledge of the film industry where to find breakdowns of film budgets. Seems tough to find CGI numbers, but since I'm doing a stop-motion unit with students I thought it would be interesting to bring it to the contemporary and get into what happens now with CGI.
Did you find a good resource for the breakdown of film budgets into categories?
As to the above, and whether Band of Brothers is Hollywood, it certainly seems Hollywood when HBO and Dreamworks are the main players, even though the BBC did pay in $10 million of the $125 million budget, and it was shot in the UK. A lot of films are now multi-national and multi-company productions, but it would be hard to argue it's not a Hollywood production. The Pacific was all Dreamworks, HBO and Playtone, with no BBC contribution.
The real idea I'm trying to put forward is that trying to be historically accurate is a choice, not a sliding scale where the more accurate something is, the less marketable it is. A tension filled ride through German flak filmed well, with more realistic CGI, lots of intense noise and fighters darting down out of clouds to hit the bombers with tail-gunner POV shots would certainly be dramatic and action-filled enough to play well in a trailer. It's kind of a mystery to me why bad films are made at all with as much money on the line as there is these days between success and failure.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:27 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: obvert
Great film! Even a better book.
I've been asking a colleague with more knowledge of the film industry where to find breakdowns of film budgets. Seems tough to find CGI numbers, but since I'm doing a stop-motion unit with students I thought it would be interesting to bring it to the contemporary and get into what happens now with CGI.
Did you find a good resource for the breakdown of film budgets into categories?
As to the above, and whether Band of Brothers is Hollywood, it certainly seems Hollywood when HBO and Dreamworks are the main players, even though the BBC did pay in $10 million of the $125 million budget, and it was shot in the UK. A lot of films are now multi-national and multi-company productions, but it would be hard to argue it's not a Hollywood production. The Pacific was all Dreamworks, HBO and Playtone, with no BBC contribution.
The real idea I'm trying to put forward is that trying to be historically accurate is a choice, not a sliding scale where the more accurate something is, the less marketable it is. A tension filled ride through German flak filmed well, with more realistic CGI, lots of intense noise and fighters darting down out of clouds to hit the bombers with tail-gunner POV shots would certainly be dramatic and action-filled enough to play well in a trailer. It's kind of a mystery to me why bad films are made at all with as much money on the line as there is these days between success and failure.
The film makes me a little scared of the book. [:)] My understanding is the book has the six stories in chron order, then an ending that weaves them. I thought the power of the movie in large part came from the interactive weaving and juxtaposition. And not without humor. SPOILER!!! The Jim Broadbent scene where he escapes from the old folks home and goes trotting down the sidewalk yelling "Soylent Green is people!!!" is already an obscure movie and book reference for most of the audience. But then they put it against the horrifying fabricant scheme . . . Wow.
I don't know of a site that breaks things down, but I'm sure there are some in movie-Web-land. There's a lot of issue with Hollywood "above the line, below the line" accounting schemes that mask true costs. My impression had ben that CGI is much cheaper than it used to be, but maybe it's just faster to render. I think one reason, of several, CGI has taken over so many movies is it allows schedules to be flexible on the back-end. The prime talent can come and go for principal shooting and then the movie can be finished over a period of years and released to fit perceived market conditions. There's a lot less reliance on keeping so many of the on-set people around for months eating groceries. Some of the CGI can even be done before principal shooting. IT works the assets harder from the money peoples' POV.
As before, I think BOB is a different genre of art than a movie. A movie is a short-story, BOB was a novel. What would "Saving Private Ryan" have been a s a mini-series ten hours long? Different for sure. Pacing different. Harder to stay focused on the goal, which was a human story and not to show the first month after D-Day. They're both great, but they're different things.
As for trailers I agree with you that you could show a tail-gunner's POV, but if that's all you showed, and no 3rd person POV from outside with the sky, and smoke, and fighters, and 50 planes, you're going to get push-back from the money people. They have to live in a marketplace where the other guys are doing the 3rd person POV. As I said, over her you get one weekend. This past weekend (it's Monday) "Hunger Games" made $161 million over the weekend. The second-place movie made $16 million. I think it was "Thor." Three weeks ago "Thor" was making centi-millions. I think I saw that the third made $14M. The "Hunger Games" trailer wasn't slow panning shots of the heroine's face for sixty seconds with a voice-over. It was action, big shots of future cities, fire, crowds, evil villains, and archery. In that sense I think it was an honest portrayal of the product. That's the product that makes $161 million in three days. Just the reality of the big theater, big budget business. Fortunately we have the HBOs to stay small and make Swiss watches.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:42 pm
by Apollo11
Hi all,
Just like with the "Red Tails"... the air combat sequence depicted in trailer is another Hollywood style fantasyland... shame... [:(]
But, as others have already posted, this movie was not made for us Grognards... it is for general population...
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:49 pm
by obvert
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: obvert
Great film! Even a better book.
I've been asking a colleague with more knowledge of the film industry where to find breakdowns of film budgets. Seems tough to find CGI numbers, but since I'm doing a stop-motion unit with students I thought it would be interesting to bring it to the contemporary and get into what happens now with CGI.
Did you find a good resource for the breakdown of film budgets into categories?
As to the above, and whether Band of Brothers is Hollywood, it certainly seems Hollywood when HBO and Dreamworks are the main players, even though the BBC did pay in $10 million of the $125 million budget, and it was shot in the UK. A lot of films are now multi-national and multi-company productions, but it would be hard to argue it's not a Hollywood production. The Pacific was all Dreamworks, HBO and Playtone, with no BBC contribution.
The real idea I'm trying to put forward is that trying to be historically accurate is a choice, not a sliding scale where the more accurate something is, the less marketable it is. A tension filled ride through German flak filmed well, with more realistic CGI, lots of intense noise and fighters darting down out of clouds to hit the bombers with tail-gunner POV shots would certainly be dramatic and action-filled enough to play well in a trailer. It's kind of a mystery to me why bad films are made at all with as much money on the line as there is these days between success and failure.
The film makes me a little scared of the book. [:)] My understanding is the book has the six stories in chron order, then an ending that weaves them. I thought the power of the movie in large part came from the interactive weaving and juxtaposition. And not without humor. SPOILER!!! The Jim Broadbent scene where he escapes from the old folks home and goes trotting down the sidewalk yelling "Soylent Green is people!!!" is already an obscure movie and book reference for most of the audience. But then they put it against the horrifying fabricant scheme . . . Wow.
I don't know of a site that breaks things down, but I'm sure there are some in movie-Web-land. There's a lot of issue with Hollywood "above the line, below the line" accounting schemes that mask true costs. My impression had ben that CGI is much cheaper than it used to be, but maybe it's just faster to render. I think one reason, of several, CGI has taken over so many movies is it allows schedules to be flexible on the back-end. The prime talent can come and go for principal shooting and then the movie can be finished over a period of years and released to fit perceived market conditions. There's a lot less reliance on keeping so many of the on-set people around for months eating groceries. Some of the CGI can even be done before principal shooting. IT works the assets harder from the money peoples' POV.
As before, I think BOB is a different genre of art than a movie. A movie is a short-story, BOB was a novel. What would "Saving Private Ryan" have been a s a mini-series ten hours long? Different for sure. Pacing different. Harder to stay focused on the goal, which was a human story and not to show the first month after D-Day. They're both great, but they're different things.
As for trailers I agree with you that you could show a tail-gunner's POV, but if that's all you showed, and no 3rd person POV from outside with the sky, and smoke, and fighters, and 50 planes, you're going to get push-back from the money people. They have to live in a marketplace where the other guys are doing the 3rd person POV. As I said, over her you get one weekend. This past weekend (it's Monday) "Hunger Games" made $161 million over the weekend. The second-place movie made $16 million. I think it was "Thor." Three weeks ago "Thor" was making centi-millions. I think I saw that the third made $14M. The "Hunger Games" trailer wasn't slow panning shots of the heroine's face for sixty seconds with a voice-over. It was action, big shots of future cities, fire, crowds, evil villains, and archery. In that sense I think it was an honest portrayal of the product. That's the product that makes $161 million in three days. Just the reality of the big theater, big budget business. Fortunately we have the HBOs to stay small and make Swiss watches.
Seeing the Hunger Games this Thursday. The lady is very excited!
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:01 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: obvert
Seeing the Hunger Games this Thursday. The lady is very excited!
We still haven't seen the first one. Keep waiting for it to show on premium cable, but may never. The DVD is about $10; might be under the tree.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:33 pm
by jamesjohns
This could be so good but Hollywood always wants to make it more dramatic and have bigger special effects. Like the real stories of flying a B-17 in WII are not dramatic enough??!!
Hollywoods U571 vs Das Boot always stays in my mind of how Hollywood can take a real historical event and really mess it up.
I still have hope, Tora, Tora, Tora was well done, esp. vs that more recent unmentionable movie about the same historical event.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:58 pm
by Numdydar
Well Tora used actual historical documents to create the film so there was not much of backstory script that was needed like in a lot of other films. Plus they wanted it to as accurate as possible so as to honor the people that died at Pearl. Many of these points are lacking in more modern films about the war.
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:52 pm
by pharmy
Memphis Belle was also partly based on a true story/plane. Originally it was a composite story based on a real well made and pretty realistic propaganda documentary film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZP5R109yo
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:59 pm
by Ron Saueracker
Oh my that was so sad. Why does BSwood constantly dismiss history? Plenty of sources available, just not there.[8|]
