Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sky Captain and the Films of Tomorrow

michael posted about 10 years ago | from the talking-heads dept.

Movies 417

professorfalcon writes "Foxnews.com has an interview with the stars of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. They talk about their experience hugging a green screen for the entire film, and how the movie is 'unlike anything most audiences have seen before. It uses no sets, only computer generated imagery.' So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?"

cancel ×

417 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291172)

Let's keep this fp frosty!

Re:Frost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291292)

YOU MELT IT!!!

Whoo Hoo (-1, Troll)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 10 years ago | (#10291176)

It's a REALLY cool movie...saw it last nite!!

FP!!....would have been a first!!

Darn it ...held up by the 2 minute limit!!!

Re:Whoo Hoo (3, Informative)

13Echo (209846) | about 10 years ago | (#10291284)

It's truly a visually spectacular film. It draws a lot of influence from the 1930s/1940s, and the art just blows my mind. Everything about it is beautiful. It's a shame that the characters seemed shallow and the plot was a bit thin. Sure, it's probably intentional to some degree; it's supposed to be a beautiful action film and it succeeds in this area. I really feel that a lot more could have been done with it though. Neat ideas, but might have benefited from some better writing (and maybe a better actress than Paltrow). In the end, the movie seems almost like an anime movie with real actors - drawing influence from WW2 movies, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, comic book scifi, and classic love stories.

Isn't that a "blue" screen? (2, Informative)

bwd234 (806660) | about 10 years ago | (#10291177)

In fact Gwyneth Paltrow was interviewed on TV and the host asked about the green screen and she corrected him.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (1, Informative)

Jay Maynard (54798) | about 10 years ago | (#10291210)

Most chromakey technology these days uses a truly hideous green that's less likely to conflict with clothing or props. I don't know which was used in this movie, though.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 10 years ago | (#10291282)

Most chromakey technology these days uses a truly hideous green that's less likely to conflict with clothing or props.
Funny; when I started to make transparent GIFs, I had to use some extra-program to put the transparency on, and I used #FFFF00 as the colour for the transparency...

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (5, Funny)

XiChimos (652495) | about 10 years ago | (#10291224)

Wouldn't a blue screen make it harder for the actors to show any emotion beyond sheer anger?

They are Windows users, aren't they?

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (3, Informative)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 10 years ago | (#10291257)

Actually, I saw that as well, but it was the other way around. The interviewer said they filmed it on a blue screen and she corrected him saying that they were on a green screen. Although the technology began with blue screens, green screens are far more prevalent today.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (3, Informative)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#10291306)

What show did you watch?

The Daily Show had the host asking if it was a green screen, and the actress corrected with blue.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (1)

Sebadude (680162) | about 10 years ago | (#10291347)

So why did green take over? Is green dye just cheaper or is there a technical reason behind it?

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (3, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 10 years ago | (#10291373)

Well, whatever color the screen is can't be used in the scene and blue is quite common for clothing, whereas green is much less common, especially the very bright green used for green screens.

There are tons of stories about people with conflicting wardrobes and green screens. My favorite is of a weather lady with heavy blue eyeshadow -- when she blinked you could see rought through her eyes.

Chroma Key (5, Informative)

DragonHawk (21256) | about 10 years ago | (#10291402)

"So why did green take over? Is green dye just cheaper or is there a technical reason behind it?"

The technology of blue/green/organge/whatever screens is called "chroma key". The computer knows that anything of the key color is "background" and should be replaced with other imagery. They use those bright, stand-out colors for that reason -- those colors are unlikely to conflict with real actors or props. The computer could replace another color, e.g., black, just as well, but black appears normally all over the place.

They use the same technology for the "magic weather maps" you see the meteorologist stand in front of during modern TV weather reports. The map isn't really there; the meteorologist stands in front of a color screen, and the map is composited in electronically. You can occasionally see a goof where some part of the meteorologist's wardrobe is too close to the screen's color, and the map "bleeds through" and the person appears "hollow".

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | about 10 years ago | (#10291348)

No, it was the other way around. I saw that on the daily show and she was also on some other show the next day and said that it was a blue screen.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (2, Funny)

britneys 9th husband (741556) | about 10 years ago | (#10291375)

Although the technology began with blue screens, green screens are far more prevalent today.

I guess Hollywood is finally ditching their Windows 98 installations and replacing them with old school monochrome monitors.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (5, Informative)

bigbigbison (104532) | about 10 years ago | (#10291389)

Yes, it was blue. An on "set" picture [yahoo.com] shows them in front of the blue screen.

Sky Caps does not look 'real' (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291181)

as far as sci-fi flics go. The backgrounds seem blurry and a bit off-sync with the characters. It's a good start - maybe in 5 years they'll get this blue-screen technology right - and maybe one day they will not need actors either.

Re:Sky Caps does not look 'real' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291429)

Um, that's kinda the point. Green Screen technology is VERY good at this point. The blurriness of the characters was added in later.

SW Prequels - how about... (4, Informative)

JoshNorton (528856) | about 10 years ago | (#10291182)

Tron only used sets for about ... what 30 minutes, maybe, of a 90 minute movie? Heavy use of blue-screened backdrops isn't THAT new...

Re:SW Prequels - how about... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 10 years ago | (#10291217)

Tron only used sets for about ... what 30 minutes, maybe, of a 90 minute movie?

There are styrofoam sets throughout the flick, with neato lighting added in post production.
But even if they had sets for only 1/3 of the movie, that is simply very different from NO sets.

Star Wars AOTC went even further in fact (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291184)

It used no actors, only computer generated whiny melodrama

Re:Star Wars AOTC went even further in fact (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291238)

Sorry, but this chart [ispub.com] says otherwise.

CG actors are fine... (1)

BadMrMojo (767184) | about 10 years ago | (#10291351)

It was actually the computer-generated script and merchandising that really annoyed me.

suggestion (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291185)

If the special effects make you woozy, take some Milk of Magnesia.

mod parent up (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291271)

If the special effects make you woozy, take some Milk of Magnesia.

I spat Milk of Magnesia out of my nose when I read this! It's from the film, FYI.

Are you gay? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291188)

If so, go kill yourself. That means you too Taco.

Hardly a first (3, Informative)

Jay Maynard (54798) | about 10 years ago | (#10291189)

All of the scenes in TRON inside the computer were shot on a bare black set with the computer imagery filled in later. This was done in 1982. The actors talk about how hard that was in the making-of video in the collector's edition box set.

Re:Hardly a first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291279)

Actually, a lot was done with backlighting and neon paint too.

So most audiences didn't see Star Wars? (4, Insightful)

echeslack (618016) | about 10 years ago | (#10291192)

So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

Star wars is very different. Sure, a lot of the stuff is CG or green-screened, but a lot of the stuff is done on sets with more than just a few props.

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars? (2, Insightful)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | about 10 years ago | (#10291205)

Star Wars did a much better job of keying in my opinion. Quite often the edges of the actors in Sky Captain looked pretty fake.

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars? (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 10 years ago | (#10291233)

Sure, a lot of the stuff is CG or green-screened, but a lot of the stuff is done on sets with more than just a few props.

And my understanding is that most of the movie was done before they started shooting with the actors of Skycaptain, so they could show them ahead of filming what it was that they were supposed to pretend was there.

Whereas in Star Wars, Lucas is in love with his new found ability to change stuff at the last minute and not let any of this second-opinion peer-review stuff get in the way of his "vision" getting heaped in a big pile of pixels.

At least, that's the impression I got from the interviews of the stars of both flicks.

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars? (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 10 years ago | (#10291312)

Whereas in Star Wars, Lucas is in love with his new found ability to change stuff at the last minute and not let any of this second-opinion peer-review stuff get in the way of his "vision" getting heaped in a big pile of pixels.
I guess this started with Return of the Jedi [imdb.com] , when, in order to keep the story ending secret to the last minute, he shot the actors doing really ambiguous stuff, to insure they could not figure it out. He then fixed it all in the cutting room...

(If you ask me, I would have made ROTJ [imdb.com] end up with Luke flipping to the dark side seconds before the Death Star II was blown-up, and he would have been considered a martyr by the rebels...)

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars? (1)

arose (644256) | about 10 years ago | (#10291418)

Fixed?

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars? (4, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 10 years ago | (#10291423)

I guess this started with Return of the Jedi, when, in order to keep the story ending secret to the last minute, he shot the actors doing really ambiguous stuff, to insure they could not figure it out.

I've turned very cynical about Lucas, I'm thinking he probably was shooting stuff until he figured it out ;-)

Reminds me of Psycho though, all the actors had to sign strict NDAs so the secret punch wouldn't get out before the movie was released. Of course, society has done a very thourough job of spoiling that for the rest of eternity now, so the wisdom of the NDA about the shower scene was in retrospect quite undenyable.

Off-topicish rant: Planet of the apes, they released a version where the punch is ON THE FREAKING COVER. Jeez...

It is NOT the future. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291193)

Actors hate it because they have no set to act in.

Audiences hate it because they're made so conscious of the forgery they're watching.

This sort of thing is a nice little novelty, but in time it'll be no more than a niche product.

Re:It is NOT the future. (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 years ago | (#10291241)

Considering that we have been accepting of CG for so long, I think that Consumers will be happy to accept it.

Also, Movie making is horribly expensive of which Movie sets account for a good chunk of that. I suspect though that we will see a CG actor in about 3 years, where the public will not know it is CG. And I say Thank God. I am tired of the idiots that run around inisiting on huge checks, yet act like total babies.

Re:It is NOT the future. (2, Insightful)

dbolger (161340) | about 10 years ago | (#10291340)

True, but the problem is, precident has already been set regarding huge prices for films - prices that translate to the box office.

If a film would have cost 10 million with sets and actors, and will only cost 5 million without (assuming kick ass, relatively cheap CG), do you really think the film industry going to pass 5 million to the consumer? The films will be cheaper to make, but this wont have any effect on us, the end consumers.

A film that costs 500 million to make, and a film that was made on the cheap for 50,000 cost the exact same to go see.

Re:It is NOT the future. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 years ago | (#10291363)

The films will be cheaper to make, but this wont have any effect on us, the end consumers.

oh, I agree 100%. Hollywood is about outlandious profits. Witness RIAA (and what ever the the motion film group is). It obvious that these groups are going to try and squeeze every cent out and remain in control (Even though I am convinced that they will fall hard in about 2 years).

Re:It is NOT the future. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 10 years ago | (#10291369)

Movie sets account for a good chunk of that.

Also, in big-budget films, the salaries of the marquee actors takes up a huge chunk.

The studios would much rather have CG actors than have to pay $10-25 million dollars to actors.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in 5 years, meat-bag actors are only in small to mid-sized films.

Re:It is NOT the future. (5, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | about 10 years ago | (#10291366)

actually at a special presentation which I was fortunate enough to attend, Gweneth Paltrow and Jude Law said that the lack of sets "freed" them in their acting. The fact that they had an animatic of the entire film that they used as reference before every take allowed them to "hit their marks" more easily and allowed them to be more creative in their acting. It was like theater acting on a bare set.

As far as the audience reaction, this film was deliberately made in a stylized form. In fact they processed it in black and white and recolorized it to give an old movie feel! (They also didn't use the state of the art capture technology, just plain old Sony HD-CAM 1440x960, 3:1:1, 8bit). It is clear from many other recent motion pictures that they could have made it appear as realistic as they wanted but chose not to.

The main reason why it IS the future is because it is thought that it cost about 1/3 what it would have been if they had shot it on "real" sets! Hate to say it but saving more than $80 million dollars (estimated cost of the film $40M-$70M) would drive any producer to making his film this way, regardless of actor preference or (most) audience reactions.

Re:It is NOT the future. (1)

saltydogdesign (811417) | about 10 years ago | (#10291410)

There are whole swaths of 20th century drama with no sets. Actors don't poo poo a chance to do Thornton Wilder.

Star Wars? (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | about 10 years ago | (#10291198)

You're telling me that Star Wars used only computer-generated sets? That there were no physical sets involved at all?

Offtopic I know, but I'm really starting to wish that article submitters could save the commentary for comments...

Re:Star Wars? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 years ago | (#10291253)

In fact, I am watching a special on G.Lucas and Star Wars this very second (well, actually, my wife is watching it), and there were a great deal of sets.

Re:Star Wars? (0, Troll)

k0ft (812724) | about 10 years ago | (#10291268)

Offtopic I know, but I'm really starting to wish that article submitters could save the commentary for comments...

Agreed! And i hope that slashdot is getting paid for all this advertising theyre constantly pimping. Slashdot should be truely embarassed if theyre not.

Re:Star Wars? (1)

Edie O'Teditor (805662) | about 10 years ago | (#10291295)

You're telling me that Star Wars used only computer-generated sets?
Were computers invented then?

Star Wars had sets (2, Interesting)

Larthallor (623891) | about 10 years ago | (#10291206)

Star Wars had sets with some green screen work.

Sky Captain has green screen work with ... even more green screen work.

This is the future of special effects movies, because of the creative freedom and reduced costs. The hardest part will be for actors to have something to act against. I think this gets solved by creating preliminary computer models as part of the concept art and using it to show the actors, in realtime, what they're interacting with.

Other solution (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 10 years ago | (#10291384)

Get good actors.

Needing silly things like props or other actors to be able to act is the sure mark of a bad actor. The really good ones can do it on bare stage in solo and sweep the audience along.

MORE blue than even the Blue Man Group (1)

superpixel2000 (777844) | about 10 years ago | (#10291207)

The point is that this film uses more blue screen tech than EVER before. Star Wars, Tron, etc. all had numerous practical pieces. This had the least... That's the point. A marriage of live actors with VR sets (so to speak). There's a whole new paradigm here, it's an aesthetic. No, not entirely new, but pioneering nonetheless.

The Weather? (2, Funny)

ottergoose (770022) | about 10 years ago | (#10291211)

The TV weather guy is always standing in front a of green screen. It must be really distracting, because the forecasts rarely verify.

Star Wars (2, Funny)

9Numbernine9 (633974) | about 10 years ago | (#10291212)

So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?
I did - but I can always dream that I didn't!

Re:Star Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291383)

+5 insightful dude

Just another buzzline (3, Funny)

DumbWhiteGuy777 (654327) | about 10 years ago | (#10291214)

"how the movie is 'unlike anything most audiences have seen before"


I heard that same thing about Battlefield Earth [imdb.com] before I saw it.

Re:Just another buzzline (1)

daniil (775990) | about 10 years ago | (#10291265)

I haven't seen the movie, but i've read the book and it was by far the worst sci-fi book i had ever read. So, yes, it was unlike anything i had ever seen before.

Re:Just another buzzline (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 years ago | (#10291326)

well.. you hadn't probably seen crap of the same magnitude before! and this says it's taking the genre to new heights!!!!

Re:Just another buzzline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291390)

Battlefield Earth, bad movie, but great review:
http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/bfearth.html [pointlesswasteoftime.com]

Re:Just another buzzline (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | about 10 years ago | (#10291437)

That was bizzare that film, I managed to sit through the first 30 minutes and the story isn't that bad. However the way its all executed is unfathomable, travolta is playing his role very campy while the human characters are trying to be so earnest they seem almost inhuman.

Haven't read the book but i reckon they could of done something really good with it. Shame really.

Uh... it's like... did anyone see the movie Tron? (4, Funny)

scotay (195240) | about 10 years ago | (#10291216)

Hibbert: No.
Lisa: No.
Marge: No.
Wiggum: No.
Bart: No.
Patty: No.
Wiggum: No.
Ned: No.
Selma: No.
Frink: No.
Lovejoy: No.
Guy hyping Sky Captain: Yes. I mean... um, I mean, no. No, heh.

I want the two hours of my life back. (4, Insightful)

rjelks (635588) | about 10 years ago | (#10291218)

I saw this last night. I was interested in the visuals, after reading about the filming method. After ten minutes, the novelty of the effects wore off. I could get past the 30'-style campiness, but the actors didn't seem to be interacting with each other. As the movie progressed, you could tell that the actors were acting by themselves in many of the scenes. It was a neat idea, but it got really distracting for me after a bit. I think for a short film, it would have been pretty cool, but a full-length feature? I was bored out of my mind by the end of the movie...just my $0.02.

1 Difference between Star Wars and Sky Captain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291219)

The Star Wars Prequels have ALOT of Location Work (Tatooine, Lakeside in naboo, Etc).

Sky Captain had NO location work- It was all shot Blue/Green Screen.

horrible movie (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291221)

this movie had no substance whatsoever.
ya, it looked cool..if you like a movie that looks like it was shot through an unfocused lense.
my 4 year old like it though.

Star Wars? (2, Informative)

antikarma (804155) | about 10 years ago | (#10291225)

Many of the scenes in Star Wars were filmed in Tunisia. None of the films are completely computer generated.

Episode I (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291227)

People saw it, they just wished they hadn't. Way to go Jar Jar!!

I guess it's a taste thing.. (1)

GuyFawkes (729054) | about 10 years ago | (#10291228)

.. but I downloaded the trailers for sky captain and chrome and REALLY disliked both of them, I was strongly reminded of the original buck rogers black and white telly series, and I guess they were trying to recreate that sort of feel, but I for one didn't like it in the least.... at least the original buck rogers producers didn't have a choice ... this stuff strikes me as using a p4 3.2 extreme edition to emulate and old breakout game and say "but hey, it's UXGA now and the bricks are rendered in opengl to maintain that retro feel"... I guess it will appeal to some but I would rather wait for HL2

In the director's cut... (3, Funny)

Snart Barfunz (526615) | about 10 years ago | (#10291230)

... the CGI future-retro backgrounds are completely replaced, re-locating the entire plotline to the fictional town of Springfield.

This decade's "Star Wars" (4, Informative)

chiph (523845) | about 10 years ago | (#10291231)

I saw it last night -- highly recommended. It will probably will come to be regarded as the "Star Wars" of this decade -- something that changed the entire nature of filmmaking.

There may not have been any sets, per-se, but there were a fair amount of props used in close-ups (like where the characters were leaning against a railing), so not absolutely everything was painted green. :-)

Chip H.

Re:This decade's "Star Wars" (1, Insightful)

pyros (61399) | about 10 years ago | (#10291372)

It will probably will come to be regarded as the "Star Wars" of this decade

I doubt that. I saw it too, and also thoroughly enjoyed it. But, in my opinion, it lacks the feel of mythology that was an important part of what made Star Wars so special.

Don't be rediculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291413)

It will probably will come to be regarded as the "Star Wars" of this decade -- something that changed the entire nature of filmmaking.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Star Wars was a box-office smash and that attracted the attention of everyone immediately. Sky Captain is more like Tron, as posters above have already pointed out. A few studio heads and filmmakers will respect it for doing something new on a technical level but Sky Captain certainly is not the Star Wars of this generation. I don't see lines snaking around the corner waiting to get in to the theater for this one.

Coining a phrase (3, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 10 years ago | (#10291232)

Slashvertisement
'slash-v&r-'tIz-m 'slash-'v&r-t&z-m&nt, -t&-sm&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of advertising on Slashdot via news articles
2 : an advertisement with a really big knife

Re:Coining a phrase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291285)

Looks like you fail it [google.com] , Dr. Science.

Re:Coining a phrase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291396)

"Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Apr 01, '02 11:13 AM"

Re:Coining a phrase (0, Offtopic)

iphayd (170761) | about 10 years ago | (#10291298)

3 : an advertisement using a member of Guns N'Roses.

Re:Coining a phrase (1)

Alkivar (25833) | about 10 years ago | (#10291439)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Slashvertisement

already there ;)

Another interesting article... (4, Informative)

Polo (30659) | about 10 years ago | (#10291240)


There's an article about this on Apple's website:
Apple - Pro/Video - Kerry Conran [apple.com]

CGI isn't everything (0, Offtopic)

Prien715 (251944) | about 10 years ago | (#10291254)

I'm going to be modded flamebait since I'm going to bash LotR on Slashdot=)

After seeing the trilogy, I couldn't help but feel the fighting scenes were unsatisfying. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, and then I watched Braveheart. Now THAT had good action sequences. I don't think it had to do with ammount, it had to do with how over-the-top ugly action sequences which merely came off as scripted and campy. If I wanted to see two CGI armies battle it out, I could buy Rome: Total War or Warcraft 3. Live actors bring something to the experience as anyone who's every been to a good Ren Faire can tell you.

CGI is the new thing like OOP or the internet and so people believe it's the be-all and end-all. Maybe some day, much like the internet bubble, the CGI bubble will pop. And I can again enjoy a good epic battle.

Re:CGI isn't everything (1)

Fittysix (191672) | about 10 years ago | (#10291388)

Maybe some day, much like the internet bubble, the CGI bubble will pop. And I can again enjoy a good epic battle.

The appeal of CGI isn't just that it's new, it the cost of it, it's far cheaper to use CGI to create some scenes than to actually go out and do it.

And movies like Spiderman (or LOTR as you mentioned) are making enough money using CGI that i don't think it's ever going away. The full-CGI movies are still a thing of the future, but as CGI substitution gets better the full-CGI movies can't be far off.

Re:CGI isn't everything (1)

sinergy (88242) | about 10 years ago | (#10291403)

Well, CGI or not, I hated the fight scenes of Braveheart. They were that "I'm really there!" shakey camera footage. It makes me ill to watch it. Having a guy in a handheld camera with an offbalance gyroscope to vibrate it around does no good for me.

Re:CGI isn't everything (1)

saltydogdesign (811417) | about 10 years ago | (#10291430)

Point of fact: no film has "live" actors. That's merely a projection of light through celluloid. No similarity to the nerd Faires of which you speak.

Trickery (1, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 10 years ago | (#10291262)

One could use such blue-screen masking to put the actresses into porn scenes and they would have no idea. Imagine Mr. Goatse posing as a director making a remake of "Journey to the Black Hole". Someone could also hack into the studio's computers, steal the blue-screen tracks, and put their own stuff in the background.

Re:Trickery (1)

Edie O'Teditor (805662) | about 10 years ago | (#10291278)

The other use for a blue-screen is shutting down windows.

Re:Trickery (1)

arose (644256) | about 10 years ago | (#10291440)

steal the blue-screen tracks, and put their own stuff in the background
Or just a bunch of white letters in the middle.

And it has new The Incredible trailer (1)

antdude (79039) | about 10 years ago | (#10291263)

See thos story [slashdot.org] .

You know... (4, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 10 years ago | (#10291275)

I would bet that a lot of the digital effects used in this film were rendered and perhaps even designed with Linux. If they were done with Windows they would have used a blue screen.

Re:You know... (4, Informative)

mbourgon (186257) | about 10 years ago | (#10291346)

Actually, done on a Mac [apple.com] .

I wonder if that's why Gwynneth's child is named Apple.

Re:You know... (5, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | about 10 years ago | (#10291442)

Will she get sued by Apple if the baby ever starts singing?

How long until there won't need to be any actors.. (1)

borgheron (172546) | about 10 years ago | (#10291276)

only voice talent, since the CGI characters will be so realistic looking. And how long before that can be totally replaced by generated actors you can't tell from the real thing who have generated voices which inflect and, indeed, sound like the real thing?

It sounds like a great challenge, but ultimately it takes the fun out of filmmaking, don't you agree?

GJC

Re:How long until there won't need to be any actor (1)

sahonen (680948) | about 10 years ago | (#10291345)

Not gonna happen. Flesh-and-blood actors are far cheaper and far less creepy-looking (Google for uncanny valley).

Crimson Skies (1)

Brando_Calrisean (755640) | about 10 years ago | (#10291288)

Is there any link between this movie and the game 'Crimson Skies'? I was blown away at how similar they looked after seeing the trailer on TV..

NATALIE HERSHLAG (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291289)

Sky Captain suxxors!!
It does not have Natalie Hershlag petrified, nake with hot grits!!

How can it take off until it fails (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291293)

Yes, let me state the present rules.

No they won't. They are far more careful with their product but with mission-critical data, not the same way myself, even if you are deep shit and this is under the GPL and infringing on the net) using any language that has sparked interest in our Supreme Court has halted the release (and this is nostalgia talking (I think a lot of us have told friends, we can atleast applaud Microsoft at. It's really quite a rare date (or maybe I didn't get the best way of doing, includes changing the text size, resizing the window, etc.

The real question is irrellevant because the network. X86 is not very good at this sort of peter out? How do I want shuttles flying weekly between the two suits you better.

A9.com fails the radical leap test. In particular I would love it if a commercial Linux is a " oh we're so smart mensa+masturbating club ". Kudos to the windows machines.

Buy a big tub of popcorn and pretend you are 12 (2, Insightful)

wheelbarrow (811145) | about 10 years ago | (#10291331)

Films like this are wonderful for 12 year olds. I'm hoping it will be the same kind of breakout fantasy for twelve year olds today that Star Wars was for me in 1977 when I was twelve.

I remember seeing the 20th anniversary re-release of Star Wars in the theaters in 1997. It was campy and Luke was a whiny twit. However, Star Wars was for boys and I let it slide. Sky Captain is for boys. Cut it some slack and escape back to when you were twelve.

Now, I hope this generation can find a replacement for the other breakout movie from when I was 12, Saturday Night Fever!

The hoopla (1)

moankey (142715) | about 10 years ago | (#10291359)

I think the big deal behind the green/blue screen is that this movie didnt suck.
Yes we all saw Star Wars EP I and II, but movies that suck dont count, we try to erase them from memory.

Much like Matrix it was all that people talked about, then after 2nd and 3rd one. That movie dissapeared from people's minds within months.

So officially this is the first movie that was done entirely on a green screen.

but a few serious problems (2, Interesting)

snStarter (212765) | about 10 years ago | (#10291360)

...like mentioning World War One in 1939. And strobe flash photography.

I enjoyed the look and feel of the film, and Paltrow (a lot), and the luscious close-ups, but the story was just LAME. The film treated pre-WWI Germany as if it were Nazi Germany -- totally different kettles of fish.

On the other hand the last two words of the movie were hilarious.

History lesson? Or fantasy? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 10 years ago | (#10291431)

Man are you confused. World War One was 1914-1918. It was talked about quite a bit in 1939, actually. Why should that surprise you? World War Two was 1939 (1941 for the US) to 1945. Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP = "Nazi") came to power in 1933/34. And you are surprised about people talking about this in 1939 ... why?

History. Without it, you end up with crap like the current Iraq war "strategy" (HA!) promulgated by nitwits like those currently in charge.

All that said, the film is entertainment - actually fantasy. It's not supposed to be excruciatingly perfect in historical detail.

Enjoyed it thoroughly. (4, Insightful)

mbourgon (186257) | about 10 years ago | (#10291365)

Think Indiana Jones, but on an even bigger scale. Globetrotting around the world, giant robots, flying aircraft carriers, underwater planes, etc. Yes, you need to turn off your sense of disbelief, but it was an absolute blast. Ebert said it best, it went from Conrad's mind to film without reality intervening. A glorious film about an alternate reality we should've had.

Tron (1)

Enlarge Your Penis (781779) | about 10 years ago | (#10291367)

I see the technical effects of this film have garnered comparisons with Tron. Could someone please post a link to a picture of a man in a Tron costume to refresh my memory?

Cliffhangers revisited (4, Insightful)

MalachiConstant (553800) | about 10 years ago | (#10291393)

You know, I'm rather surprised that so many people seem to think the retro feel is some kind of handicap to this movie. It's the whole point of the movie.

You might as well say "Yeah, I like 2001 but why'd they have to put it in space?".

I've always liked the 30's vision of the future: dirigibles, flying fortresses, giant steel robots. And the old serials had a certain charm, you know that crawl at the beginning of star wars? Lucas got that idea from serials, which would use it to catch everyone up on the last episodes. Longtime fans of MST3K will remember "The Phantom Creeps" serials and especially "Radar Men From The Moon".

Sky Captain is a direct homage to these serials. I imagine that this movie would be the dream of any kid who watched those.

I guess it's a very different genre of movie from anything that's been produced in the last 70 years. Sky Captain isn't the best movie ever, but it's a lot of fun to watch the "we-make-it-up-as-we-go-along" style of storytelling. He crashes his plane into the ocean? No problem, Dax fitted it with submersible gear. Who cares if that's ridiculous. It's supposed to be, but it's still exciting.

I mean, how can you hate a beautiful movie like this, a british commander on a hovering air field saying things like "Alert the amphibious squadron!".

Just horrible.... (1)

WindowLicker916 (704800) | about 10 years ago | (#10291406)

I for one was very disappointed with this movie. I suggest waiting for a bootleg or rent it :P

Angelina Jolie's roll was minimal and the graphics were nothing special. I've seen better graphics in video game trailers.

Bah (1)

pudge (3605) | about 10 years ago | (#10291417)

The melding of the actors to their backgrounds in this movie looked less realistic than the CBS memo forgeries. It was just bad. Now, I only saw the trailers, so it is possible that I am overreacting. But from other comments I've heard and read, and considering you normally don't put your worst shots in trailers, I doubt it.

Also, I've only seen trailers, but what struck me is the complete lack of different camera angles. Every shot of a person was basically level (from the feet up or waist up), or close ups. No real far shots, no crane shots, nothing different at all ... just plonk a camera on a tripod in front of some people and tell them to start acting. This is something I could not possibly bear for two hours. Again, maybe the movie is not this bad, but from the trailers, it looked very amateurish ... perhaps some comments on camera angles from people who have seen it would be helpful.

compositing vs. computer-generated imagery (1)

patmfitz (517089) | about 10 years ago | (#10291433)

If you look at the special feature documentaries with the recent Star Wars movies, you'll see that they do a lot of video compositing - they combine elements from real-life video of waterfalls, fog, dust, explosions, etc. to create a scene.

In computer-generated imagery the waterfalls, fog, dust, and explosions would be created from scratch by an artist / animator.

So if the Sky Captain visuals were completely computer generated, that is quite different from the way the Star Wars movies are put together.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?