Elric...the CG movie

[Athenys]

As I mentioned before, live action is not the only way to go...3D is getting up there as far as photo-realism is concerned. If this is what a relatively small game company came up with for a simple video game trailer:

http://www.gametrailers.com/gt_vault...arcraft_gi.mov

You can imagine what a large state-of-the-art animation/FX house could produce. I favor the idea of using CG almost exclusively in an Elric Film because then conceptual artists (and MM himself) would be able to dictate EXACTLY what EVERYTHING looks like, from Elric, to other characters ('normal', monstrous/daemonic), to fantastic locales like Melnibone, Magic Spells (check out the sorceror) , etc....WITHOUT having to worry about the SFX contrasting too sharply with live action footage. It would literally be 'filmed' in an entirely imaginary place, after all 'Sky Captain' was the first movie shot entirely in front of blue screens...one need only take that one step further.

[Bob]

That movie was certainly very impressive. I can see your line of thinking, but as good 3D graphics are becoming, there is always the risk of something looking dated in a relatively short space of time. Also, despite not being a great fan, The Lord Of the Rings movies offered literally no distinction between the 'real' and CG parts. CG has got a point now where it can compliment onscreen events without dominating the scene or being overly obvious that it's not real.

Yes, I'm rambling... I need to go and play Halo 2 some more.

[Yisselda]

CGI would be ace. It would work for all MM stuff! There are some beautiful cgi cartoons, and im not talking about cinema only. Zentrix and Xcalibur, and the sections in flat cartoons are lovely.Just so long as it wasnt a cartoon style, like the incredables. I dont like cartoons that dont take their subject seriously. Finding Nemo was ace, respectfull and realistic and pretty. Shark Tale , nasty, bad cartoon. A flat cartoon wouldnt be bad either. Yu GI Oh and beybllade and other jaapanesse styles are nice.Any cartoon can be good if they try hard enough. The Mummys good too. Its when they dont make the style fit and it becomes a caricature or mockery, thats wrong.

[Athenys]

The Lord Of the Rings movies offered literally no distinction between the 'real' and CG parts.

I have a harder time, as I work with CG myself I can too easily spot the difference between integrated live-action/CG, and it bothers me. Pure Animation, by it's very nature (EVERYTHING looks the 'same') does not look as 'dated' (or cheesy) as say a live-action film *snore* with 'ol' school' SFX a year or two after initial release. I suppose my main concern is that too great a portion the of budget will be (wasted) on actors who don't even look the part...and can't even ACT. As I said there is no other way to find a perfect real-life match for MMs characters, and in that aspect 3D is the ONLY way to go :) . Melniboneans will not look like humans etc...instead of enduring a well known celebrity in laughingly UNrealistic makeup+ prosthetics *shudder*. You still need good (NOT famous) voice actors for synthespians anyway. Imagine Woody Allen voicing Arioch... 8O


And Yolanda I have also thought about the possibility of seeing an awesome Elric movie done as an anime, specifically a blend of these two styles:

http://www.vampirehunterdbloodlust.com/

http://www.gofishpictures.com/GITS2/main.html

Tell me this character from Vampire Hunter D doesn't remind you of Elric:



and with that gauntlet...Corum for that matter .

[Poetgrrl]

Wendy Pini (of wendy and richard pini Elfquest) began a graphic novel of Elric, with hopes of getting it into film, i believe? check it out sometime.

[Whiskers]

Also, despite not being a great fan, The Lord Of the Rings movies offered literally no distinction between the 'real' and CG parts.

I have to disagree with you Bob. Gollum was a best-effort-to-date, and not a bad one. But the actors were still not getting a real face to face going. In fact, better than the CG was the actor doing his voice, which as I recall is the same person used as a model for Gollum. LOTR will look as dated as Jar Jar Binks inside of three years. They had to play cinematic tricks with the real actors to blur the perspective problem. If you can't tell that Frodo was on wires when he was getting bounce around by wires then you're truly blessed with deep concentration.

I have to point out that Gimli was a great job, but still, disjointed.

When I consider that CG's greatest accomplishment to date is the opacity of teeth, I'm afraid it will be a long time before I'll be satisfied with human actors acting in perspective with CG animations (not digital actors (puh-lease)).

My opinion is that Gollum was a marginal improvement over Jar Jar Binks I feel compelled to mention that I haven't watched any of the "Making Of" reels, except a bit about Gollum, which is a marvelous accomplishment.

But to put this all into perspective, since movies were invented, the viewer has had to accept a less-than-real reality when viewing fantastical content. How long was E.T. the box office champ?

Stuck in the 80's, I find myself using Blade Runner as a measure for how Special Effects should be used to enhance storytelling: use it sparingly and use numerous talented human actors.

[Dead-Air]

I'm with Berry. CG has it's place, but real actors still bring in a sense of reality to the fantasy which is what a good movie should be about - suspension of disbelief. CG works much better for me with settings and background shots that with actual characters.

Lucas overuses the stuff to no end and the newer Star Wars films just look like videogames to me. What worked with it in the Lord of the Rings was the directing and acting which made it part of cohesive scenes. Blade Runner did that too in it's day, I agree. For that matter, pre-digitized Star Wars did it in it's day and doesn't seem very dated to me the way the digital ones already do. Jackson did a great job of using CG as a special effect to tell the story without having it try to replace the real acting or direction. Lets hope the Elric movie does the same, in it's own way of course.

[Danisty]

I'd go with anime over CG. In fact, I have always referenced VHD: Bloodlust as a great example. Of course the original character designs for Vampire Hunter D were done by Yoshitaka Amano and Amano has definitely painted my favorite Elric pics. I guess the connection has always been logical for me.

[DiGiMac]

I have to point out that Gimli was a great job, but still, disjointed.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ThomasL]

I have to go with Berry on this one. Good acting and minimal special effects.(Blade Runner fan,here, too) Including CGI as needed.
Unless the movie were to be 100% CGI, it shouldn't be overdone.
Personally, I want to see real people! :D

[Bob]

I should have made myself clearer. All I meant is that CG is getting really rather incredible now, but give me acting any day. I'm a massive Alien/Aliens fan, and those two movies have dated particularly well.

CG is at its best when it merely compliments scenes; not dominates them. I often find that far too much dependence is placed on it these days

[ThomasL]

I agree Bob.

[TheEighthSon]

Well as long as they decide what they're doing while I'm still alive... :?

[Whiskers]

I'm a massive Alien/Aliens fan, and those two movies have dated particularly well.

I couldn't agree more. Even in AR they were using mechanical makeup and it was better than CG could ever hope to be.

[Whiskers]

I have to say that at the time, T2 was earth shattering, and though the morphing is dated now, the picture is still enjoyable, because the acting was top shelf. But T1 is still the better flick specifically because they were mechanical. There were no perspective issues.

That's not to say the stop action model walking around the exploded the tanker wasn't noticible. :lol: