Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

ILM Showcases "Dead Man's Chest" Effects Work

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the playing-with-the-fishies dept.

83

bonniegrrl writes "The work of ILM folks (including VFX supervisor John Knoll) is being showcased in a site just launched to explore the mind-blowing visual effects of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (heavy Flash). Interactive clips at the site allow you to peel back layers of animation to see what ILM had to start with before transforming actors wearing tracking markers into astonishingly real characters. Test your effects awareness by making the call: what's real and what's ILM, rotate turntable models of the animated characters, and download some goodies." The submitter also claims that there are a few Easter Eggs of footage in there somewhere.

cancel ×

83 comments

bad title (1)

Greventls (624360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17270868)

Pirates and Pirates of the Caribbean are two entirely different movies.

Re:bad title (1)

kdawson (3715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17270912)

Agreed, I changed it.

Re:bad title (3, Funny)

serialdogma (883470) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271068)

How I miss the old days when no editor dare fellow the request of us mere users.

Re:bad title (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271056)

Aye; Pirates is a porno flick!

Re:bad title (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271194)

A pretty decent porno flick.

I work part time in a sex toy store. We can barely keep the Pirates movie in stock. It is a three-disc set with an HDDVD disc and then the DVD movie disc and I assume a behind the scenes DVD disc. We have been selling it for over six months.

Supposedly the movie was good enough (better than most b-movies) that they removed the explicit stuff and made an unrated version that can be viewed by those under 18 depending on where you live. We, do not allow those under 18 to enter our store, but the local Family Video has the X rated version in the back room, while in the main area with all the other movies you can get the unrated version. It probably sits on the shelf right next to Pirates of the Caribbean.

It is always funny to have someone tell me the movie sucks and they ask why we would sell a non porn film in our store. It is then that I inform them that they only watched the non-X version and that they should watch it again with all of the action.

I still say the greatest scene is about midway through the movie (which is 2 hours long) where they are showing a lesbian scene. The two girls are doing their thing on the floor while about 6-9 pirates stand around occasionally yelling in unison "Arggh" or "God save the wenches". One of the funniest moments I have seen in porn in years.

Now all of you can go back to discussing the tech aspects of the site in the blurb. Although the site is interesting I think it is a little short on details, but I guess that is what a 'behind the scenes' disc is for when you purchase or rent the movie.

Re:bad title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17280714)

Your living a sad life. Guys like lesbians because their latent female identity is aroused by the expression of male identity in women. A guy into lesbians is pretty close to be a homosexual.Oink.

Re:bad title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17272876)

The actors have to wear markers because the CGI idiots haven't yet bothered to implement correct (read REALISTIC) gravity and inertia models into their code... Look at Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies - ruins the movie, because he doesn't MOVE realistically... I had demos on my PC when it was a 386 that had realistic inertia and gravity. I HATE movies like Toy Story, etc. that seem to go out of their way to make every object move unrealistically. Why didn't anybody tell these idiots to fix this simple problem? I'm so fed up of seeing moving CGI characters that move unrealistically - it's EVERYWHERE.

Re:bad title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274594)

Such a shame for the validity of your post that Gollum was mo-capped from Andy Sirkis, with virtually no motion hand animated.
Carry on with your delusion though, it's moderately entertaining.

Re:bad title (1)

Korvar (937226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17276210)

I look forward to your realistically animated CGI masterpiece. The answer of course, is that giving 3d virtual objects realistic weight, inertia and gravity is hard. Especially when you're dealing with a complex object like a human being, which can actually change where its centre of gravity is. I'm willing to bet that your 386 demos were using simple objects, not human beings. CGI is a relatively new medium, unlike traditional 2d animation, which has 50, 60 years of extra development.

Well I for one (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17270878)

Welcome our Pirate Overlords.

First, first post!

Re:Well I for one (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274546)

you sir have failed.

good day.

Mind-Blowing (3, Funny)

RipTides9x (804495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17270886)

showcased in a site just launched to explore the mind-blowing visual effects of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

I don't know about mind-blowing, but I do distinctly remember quite a bit of "Snot"-blowing special FX at the end of PotC:DMC.

I didn't notice a lot of special effects... (4, Insightful)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17270892)

I suppose the mark of really good effects is when you don't notice them being used.

Re:I didn't notice a lot of special effects... (1)

turbofisk (602472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271008)

I thought the same. However, tweaking light and color correction isn't really the special effects department :)

Re:I didn't notice a lot of special effects... (1)

Spaham (634471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271208)

there are two kinds of effects, visible effects and invisible effects.
visible effects are like when you see king kong in new york, or the whole planet explode, everyone knows that this is NOT happening.
invisible effects are the ones you're refering to, like 'god how does he run around the walls of the room without falling' that kind of thing.
If you start to notice 'invisible effects', then I guess they're lousy

Re:I didn't notice a lot of special effects... (2, Informative)

NFNNMIDATA (449069) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272498)

What I didn't realize and I guess a lot of people don't is that all of Davy Jones' crew was CG except Turner's father. I would have sworn Davy Jones was an amazing mask with some CG touchups, but they actually CG'd over Bill Nighy entirely, even the eyes. Movie was pretty so-so but it's worth it to see again just for the mutant crew.

Re:I didn't notice a lot of special effects... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17272918)

what you fail to realize is that Davy Jones' crew was entirely CG with the exception of Bootstrap Bill ;)
it was a really amazing showcase of CG in that movie :|

Re:I didn't notice a lot of special effects... (2, Funny)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17276094)

I didn't notice much of a coherent plot either. Maybe that was computer generated?

Links don't work FF/Linux (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17270908)

Firefox 1.5, with flash plugins, also noscript (temporarily enabled ILM), on Debian GNU/Linux. Pity.

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17270958)

Yeah, I think without a decent flash pugin available for linux it makes this whole story worthless for like 95% of all slashdot readers. Damn you, Adobe!

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (2, Informative)

pshuke (845050) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271126)

While I can agree that flash-only sites are evil, you could always try the flash beta [adobe.com] if you're desperate for the content. Works for me.

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271520)

thanks, but it crashes my firefox 2.0 in about 3 seconds after the flash starts.

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17272974)

learn how to install linux then

clueb

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (2, Informative)

aweinert (969529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271060)

Works fine on Ubuntu w/ FF.

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274046)

Using the direct link works: http://www.ilm.com/theshow/pirates.swf [ilm.com]

Re:Links don't work FF/Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17277562)

ARRRRRRRR matey!

Way to destroy the movie magic.... (2, Interesting)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#17270936)

This reminds me of nothing so much as a section from Charlie Brooker's fictional TV Guide 'TV Go Home'..

10:15 Moviewreck

'...fun free footage of some whiny voiced special effects blubberbag in a Perfect Storm baseball cap taking us through a wireframe build of the spectacular finale again and again and again and again until the entire sequence is inorexably rendered so mundane and familiar the experience of finally seeing it... .. feels more like a lunchtime repeat of Knot's Landing than the white knuckle climax it would have been before the slickarsed marketing fucks responsble for tossing together this say-nothing advertorial assault on your dignity spoiled it all as part of their ongoing quest to bully the world into galloping down to the nerest multiplex to gawp at tits and explosions like the oblivious victims of a dystopian stupidity virus.'

Re:Way to destroy the movie magic.... (1)

StarWarsRelatedPun (1027862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271012)

Wow, that's some tortured writing.

You ain't read nothing yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271220)

Charlie Brooker is a rock of sanity in a sea of shit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/brooker/ [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Way to destroy the movie magic.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271384)

Fine but you don't have to look at this.

Re:Way to destroy the movie magic.... (2, Funny)

worst_name_ever (633374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271882)

Woah... there's a movie out that has tits and explosions, and nobody told me?!?

Re:Way to destroy the movie magic.... (1)

Yakman (22964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271966)

Woah... there's a movie out that has tits and explosions, and nobody told me?!?

Swordfish!

Re:Way to destroy the movie magic.... (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17288172)

What, you've never seen Desperado?

I could tell it was all CG effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271048)

as all of it looked like shit.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (5, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271100)

This has all the earmarks of an AC troll, but I'd like to chime in and say .... agreed.

The first PotC movie was great fun, but the second one fell way short of the mark. And one of the main reasons was because they spent so much time showcasing effects and so little on story. I mean, the end... WTF?? Does that make any kind of sense to anybody? Are you really waiting on the edge of your seat to find out how that was possible or did you just roll your eyes?

All the scenes on Davy Jones' ship looked fake. Completely fake. It was as if the characters walked off the real world and into this alternate world where every single person or object is made out of CG. It felt claustrophobic. Maybe that was part of the point ... you were supposed to want the characters to escape Davy Jones' ship. But all I really wanted to do was escape that scene, which was way to long a section of way too long a movie.

Similarly, the scenes with the voodoo witch lady. Wow, way to come up with a cheap way to move the plot forward in between action scenes. All the characters miraculously appear in some green-tinged CG swamp where the voodoo lady is always up and waiting for guests. Almost as if she was, say... an Oracle?? Then we leave again and it's back to the rest of the movie.

It's the same thing people are always saying about videogames these days. Too much money spent on the look, not enough on "game play" -- or, in this case, giving you an entertaining movie to watch.

And what is the deal with making every movie three hours long these days? I'm sorry, but there was not enough movie in King Kong to last three hours. There wasn't enough in PotC: Dead Man's Chest, there wasn't enough in Casino Royale ... enough already!! Give me 90 minutes of decent movie and save all that money you spent on these "gorgeous" effects (which Disney apparently feels so compelled to justify that it set up a Web site to promote them).

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (2, Interesting)

bockelboy (824282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271244)

I'd have to agree with you, buddy.

The first PotC was such an awesome movie because Disney thought it would suck. They half-made it, and tossed it aside. Because they thought it would fail, they let the director and Johnny Depp do their thing - no market droids wanted to touch it.

Then, when it was all wrapped up and finished, they watched it and said "Damn, this is pretty good." But, before they could market the hell out of it and reinsert more special effects, the thing came out.

You could tell Disney's initial plan was to dump it because it was a "builder" - the thing made increasing amounts of money over the summer.

Goes to show how good movies can be if the market droids leave it alone.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (4, Insightful)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271444)

The first PotC was such an awesome movie because Disney thought it would suck. They half-made it, and tossed it aside. Because they thought it would fail, they let the director and Johnny Depp do their thing - no market droids wanted to touch it.
... And ask anyone what they remember from the first, and it'll be Johnny Depp's character and the humour, not the special effects.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

Mercedes308 (832423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271822)

That's exactly right.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273712)

And ask anyone what they remember from the first, and it'll be Johnny Depp's character and the humour, not the special effects.

That's funny since I also remember the effects AND Johny Depp's performance AND the humor.

You guys are oversimplifying everything. "It's not about the effects!", breaking news: it's ALSO about the effects, it's about everything in a careful balance, that, if done properly is called "a good movie".

It's not as if they had effects, they had to have crappy script, it just happens so that when movies get involved, they try to stick everything to simple "secure" models just like you're doing here in your reviews.

Now this site in particular, is on ILM's site. ILM don't make movie scripts, they make effects. Don't bash them for showcasing their (amazing, in my opinion) work and willing to market themselves and their incredible skills in this area.

Look at the site as an achievement of arts and technology and forget the script.

I for one, really respect ILM for their hard work on this movie and just consider how fast CGI technologies are evolving: I mean they did THIS all with the raw footage from the film (mocap, camera tracking: all done on the spot, no additional footage).

Also managing all those little details in the character models looks like a hyper impossible tasks to me: but they pulled it off and pulled it off for an incredible amount of shots in the movie with consistent success. I applaud them for their participation in this project.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271282)

Similarly, the scenes with the voodoo witch lady. Wow, way to come up with a cheap way to move the plot forward in between action scenes. All the characters miraculously appear in some green-tinged CG swamp where the voodoo lady is always up and waiting for guests. Almost as if she was, say... an Oracle?? Then we leave again and it's back to the rest of the movie.

Did anyone else think of the voodoo lady in Monkey Island II when they watched these Dead Man's Chest scenes?

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (3, Informative)

mojodamm (1021501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271464)

Actually, no. Having "grown up" in Southern California, whenever I saw the oracle, I thought of the Gypsy fortune-teller from the original Pirates of the Caribbean, which I believe was the intent.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17277244)

Actually, no. Having "grown up" in Southern California, whenever I saw the oracle, I thought of the Gypsy fortune-teller from the original Pirates of the Caribbean, which I believe was the intent.

No, she was a clear ripoff off the Voodoo Lady [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

mojodamm (1021501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17281656)

Ron Gilbert has said himself that the inspiration for The Secret of Monkey Island|Monkey Island came from the Pirates ride. He then refuted the claims once he saw Disney making a boatload of money off the movies, and started claiming that they must've gotten the idea for the movie from him. One obvious example is the prison scene in MI2, complete with key-carrying dog named 'Walt'.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

odourpreventer (898853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272154)

Did anyone else think of the voodoo lady in Monkey Island II

Yes! I thought it was hilarious how the setting could have been a rip-off. I kept watching out for a Guybrush cameo or a three-headed monkey!

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (2, Informative)

szap (201293) | more than 7 years ago | (#17276460)

Ron Gilbert, designer of Monkey Island, commenting on the similarities between Monkey Island and Pirates of the Caribbean on his blog: http://grumpygamer.com/8123463 [grumpygamer.com]

missing the point, conflating, and No You Couldn't (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271580)

In reply to your post, I disagree that the problems with this movie (similarly with the other movies you mentioned) that the problem was "lack of story" or some other such hand-waving. Some of them do indeed suffer from being "too long" or stretched too thin, but others suffer from pacing problems, problems with character empathy, anticlimactic directing, lack of subtlety, and as you alude for Dead Man's Chest, plot motivation. The swamp woman was indeed a cheap plot device that insults the intelligence of the audience. Be careful not to conflate all bad storytelling with "bad story". Many other factors affect the quality of storytelling in movies, games, books, an anything else.

In staying a bit more on-topic, I must say this: When I learned that Bill Nighy would play the roll of Davy Jones in the new movie, I was thrilled. It was an excellent roll for an actor with his ability to play genuinely dark, scary characters. And, he was hamstrung with effects. His face was covered up with digital prosthetics to the extent that his character was more crawly than creepy.

And I didn't get the sense that The Flying Dutchman was artificial; it was certainly no worse than its soul-less inhabitants. As you allude in at least three places in your post, pacing is the true problem with that scene and with long movies in general. (2: swamp woman breaks action; 3: King Kong / Casino Royale / PotC DMC too long) I call BS on "I could tell it was all CGI." There were very few visual mistakes, but many logical cues it was fake. The effects were well-done, but yeah, pal, everybody else could tell it was all CGI too. In that sentence, "tell" means "discern logically" and not "visually perceive". Of course it's not real. Go watch Office Space if you want a pedestrian setting with pedestrian props.

The important thing to see here is that technology is supplanting and not aiding the storytelling process. You might argue that in this case, the filmmakers' goal was to reduce the humanity of the characters in question. Whatever their motive, the result was that they nerfed the characters; they replaced character with nothing. I didn't think any of the bad guys had a soul except Will's dad. The rest, including Davy Jones (and despite great opportunity to show the nature of his tortured soul) were just CGI anti-mcguffins. Bad why? Bad how? Uhh, they just are, so fear them as the characters do.

I'm a different AC, fyi.

Remember the FIRST Commandment of movies. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272088)

The FIRST Commandment of movies is:
SHOW me, don't TELL me.

There were very few visual mistakes, but many logical cues it was fake.

The problem is that the "logical cues" make you look for the "visual" cues ... but the visual cues aren't there because the logical cues aren't "logical" so their absence is a "mistake".

Movie MUST follow its own "logic". Even when that logic is not the same as the Real World's logic.

And the way you communicate that logic to the viewer is with pictures and sounds. And they failed to communicate that logic. They tossed crap in whenever they felt like it without tying it into the logic of that universe.

Bad why? Bad how? Uhh, they just are, so fear them as the characters do.

And that is what results when the logic is not established and nothing is tied into it. The characters have to keep TELLING you that they're afraid.

Re:missing the point, conflating, and No You Could (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17272702)

Am I the only one that liked the movie. I was looking for entertainment, and didn't play the "try to spot the CG". Sometimes I don't want substance, but just something to entertain me. And while this movie wasn't LOTR, it was good enough for me.

Re:missing the point, conflating, and No You Could (1)

adagioforstrings (192285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17282852)

Argh, you've hit it on the head: "Good enough." I have to admit I was entertained by the movie, but it definitely is not at the same level as the original. I feel like Disney makes this mistake all the time; they'll occasionally hit on a great movie, but then they reduce it to a formula and produce sequels or imitations with the formula. I can just imagine the Disney producers sitting down with a bunch of kids and asked them what they thought of the movie. They said, "oh the CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow things was funny" or "I really liked the whole 'rum is gone' thing" or whatever, and they just wrote all these little jokes or gags into the DMC and expect people to eat it up. I could stand a few of them, but the recycled stuff made up a majority of the movie. Unfortunately Disney is just trying to make money, and I don't think the people making the decisions truly understand what makes a good movie. PoTC:DMC was entertaining, but it could have been SO much better. Is that franchise not successful enough to take a little risk?

88 Min Toy Story 2.5 Hr DMC (1)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271648)

I just flew back from Japan. Due to a screw-up by Air Canada the same movies played on the way back as on the way: Dead Man's Chest and Toy Story.

The former I watched bits and pieces of but failed to get into. Swordplay on top of accidentally released water wheels? Please.

The latter I watched all the way through. Again. The dialog, the story, the characters, everything works.

"YOU - ARE - A - TOYYYY!!!!"

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (4, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271718)

Really, you could tell it was CG? Sheesh, you must have some keen eyes and a brilliant intellect, because I thought they had created a real mutant squid-man and taught him to act.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271816)

As funny as your comment was, there was once a time when people created "rubber" suits and dressed actors in them. One of the many reasons why the original Star Wars trilogy is far better than the new episodes was the use of creature effects such as these. If you're looking to learn more look up Stan Winston to see a master of this craft.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (0, Flamebait)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272194)

Oh, was that the problem with the new ones? I thought it was that they had hired a different alien to play Yoda-- you know, like Darrin in Bewitched? But you're saying that the first Yoda was a tiny man in a "rubber" suit? Wow, those suits are really terrific, because I could never tell.

Well.... live and learn, I guess. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't really a robot from the future. What kind of material are these "rubber" suits made out of, anyway?

P.S.- I'm sure Lucas will be very please to hear that the problem with the new Star Wars movies wasn't his piss poor writing, bad direction, or retarded casting choices. The big problem was that you could tell that not all the aliens were made of rubber.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17278782)

"One of the many reasons why the original Star Wars trilogy is far better than the new episodes was..."

What part of "one of the many..." did oyu have trouble understanding. Let me explain this in plain english. Lucas relied far too much on CG effects instead of models and costume effects like in his original trilogy. The many part refers to the fact that this is one of, well, many problems with the films. This could certainly include the writing, which was by the way horrible at best.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (2, Informative)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271742)

>All the characters miraculously appear in some green-tinged CG swamp where the voodoo lady is
>always up and waiting for guests. Almost as if she was, say... an Oracle??
It worked in The Secret of Monkey Island.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

dr00g911 (531736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271814)

(which Disney apparently feels so compelled to justify that it set up a Web site to promote them).
Actually, the site appears to have been set up by ILM & Lucas digital to help bolster their rep and visibility leading into awards time.

Say what you want about some of the effects, but the Davey Jones stuff, water effects and some of the matchmoving (the beached Pearl) were among the most impressive effects shots ever put on screen, and ILM deserves the right to brag a little. Their thunder has been stolen the past 10 years or so while having their A-teams working on the Star Wars prequels. Weta and Imageworks one-upped the masters at just about every turn.

The story may have sucked, but I don't think anyone can dispute that ILM's back on their game.

Disclaimer: I do this stuff for a living, so take comments as viewed from the inside.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272328)

As it happens I just went to see this at the local last gasp movie theater yesterday. I came away wishing I had checked the reviews first so I could have avoided that stinker, but when I later checked IMDB the overall rating was pretty good.

I was glad to read your comment since I was beginning to wonder if I was just in a bad mood or something.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17272484)

I will agree with the comments on 'length' - and I think the movie would have improved about 50% if they simply cut out about 90% of the "cannibals!" subplot, which would also coincidentally cut out about half of the braindead "things-are-rolling-around" business.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (2, Informative)

Darthmalt (775250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272834)

Actually the swamp wasn't CG. If you watch the making of you see them really in the set. In fact several things that I assumed were CG turned out to be real.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

The 13th Duke (753107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272866)

Wow, Comic Book Guy has an account on /.

Re:I could tell it was all CG effects (1)

chromozone (847904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17280788)

Amen to all that. I swear the more time and effort they out into all the effects the phonier the movie looks. I also think after all the money gets spent on those effects directors are reluctant to cut them out. I remember watching "Titanic" and realising that 15 or 20 minutes of the film showing lower deck activities on the sinking ship not only didn't add much to the film it was a void. I see a lot of extra minutes in films that don't add anything. I can't even go to effects heavy films anymore. They are like sparkly lights for dull people. I think "Donnie Darko" took around 3 or 4 million to make. Imagine if they had spent 150 million on it. The soul would have ben sucked right out of the movie with excess garbage.

Flash (0, Offtopic)

BlenderFX (954511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271080)

You need to download the latest version of the Flash Player from Adobe. Go here [adobe.com] .
Adobe should produce an amd64 version first! "Here" there's no such thing! Thanks anyway!

Holy Ad, Batman! (0, Flamebait)

Johnso (520335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271122)

How the hells is this news for nerds or stuff that matters?

It's the weekend, calm down. (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271182)

There is no news to be had on weekends.

John Knoll is coauthor of the original photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271146)

Now he wants you to download flash to toy with this marketing gimmick? It wont work John, I don't know how much Adobe are paying you but it wont work.

All that Glimmers (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271236)

Keith Richards' [wikipedia.org] personal special effects include "life after death" for over 30 years.

If you download Keef, realize that the music biz learned a long time ago that he's impossible to delete.

It's "Captain" Jack Sparrow to you! (3, Insightful)

n0w0rries (832057) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271288)

They lost me at one of the first scenes... when they go "You're being arrested for assisting a pirate Jack Sparrow to escape" and they both correct him "Captain... Jack Sparrow". LAME LAME LAME. I really liked the first movie, but the second movie had a terrible script. I can only imagine the 3rd will be worse.

Re:It's "Captain" Jack Sparrow to you! (1)

Stinking Pig (45860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272290)

Oddly, that's the line where I unplugged my headphones from the airplane's armrest and restored them to their rightful place in my rockboxed iRiver iHP-120. The movie was crap. I kept an eye on the screen when my work got too dull, but the only thing I thought was cool was the lowest-cost special effect in it... the eyes painted on Johnny Depp's eyelids were pretty damned cool.

Shark-jumping (4, Funny)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271328)

I liked the one where the whole pirate ship jumped over a giant shark.

The whole movie was just way over the top.

fake (3, Funny)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273006)

The shark still looks fake.

Re:Shark-jumping (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#17276070)

I couldn't agree more! What a TERRIBLY over-rated movie!

I checked it on IMDB too to be safe but it was around 8.5 at the time! (8.5!)
I learnt a harsh lesson that day and that was to trust the critics scores and NOT the fanboys.
I've never looked at imdb the same since, ever since then I've used rotten tomatoes critics scores rather than imdb or rotten tomatoes user scores.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pirates_of_the_car ibbean_dead_mans_chest/ [rottentomatoes.com]

53% for dead mans chest (an absoloutely spot on rating as far as I'm concerned, not total garbage but no where near anything special)
Yet the users at IMDB and RT have rated it 7.3 and 7.8 - ugh!

Ghastly movie overall, a real shame compared to the original.

no luck here with flash on Linux (1)

marvinglenn (195135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271330)

Don't bother looking if you're on Linux. The ILM page sent me to Adobe to get Flash, but even the newest version of Flash offered for Linux does not satisfy the requirements of the ILM page.

Re:no luck here with flash on Linux (1)

giorgosts (920092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271538)

Disable NoScript and get flash9 for linux

Re:no luck here with flash on Linux (2, Informative)

triso (67491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271656)

Don't bother looking if you're on Linux. The ILM page sent me to Adobe to get Flash, but even the newest version of Flash offered for Linux does not satisfy the requirements of the ILM page.
The Linux beta of version 9 is available from: http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/ [adobe.com]

m`od dup (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17271542)

bonniegrrl writes... (1)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17271546)

I had to hover over that link, just to make sure it wasn't a myspace profile.

bonniegrrl's profile (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17272734)

Here's BonnieGrrls's profile [myspace.com] .

After seeing the 2nd movie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17272126)

Why doesn't everyone send them a dollar _now_ so they just go away.

Amazing work, but... (1)

Aokubidaikon (942336) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273574)

It's truly amazing what ILM managed to do for Pirates 2. Too bad though that the producers chose not to invest in a similar amount of time and attention when they hired the screenwriters...

sites should stick with Flash 7 content (1)

ChrisCampbell47 (181542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17273858)

Until Adobe finally gets their Linux support done for Flash 9 (they skipped flash 8), websites should not be requiring anything later than Flash 7. That is the latest player available for Linux. Yes, they're working on it [adobe.com] , and maybe it's even close to release, but ... horse, cart, etc. Sites should not be developing in anything later than Flash 7 until it's supported on the big three platforms.

Re:sites should stick with Flash 7 content (1)

wertarbyte (811674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275578)

Until Adobe finally gets their Linux support done for Flash 9 (they skipped flash 8), websites should not be requiring anything later than Flash 7. That is the latest player available for Linux.
No, you are wrong. I even got a debian package with flash 9:

stefan@nano:~$ apt-cache show flashplugin-nonfree
Package: flashplugin-nonfree
Priority: optional
Section: contrib/web
Installed-Size: 136
Maintainer: Bart Martens <bartm@knars.be>
Architecture: i386
Version: 9.0.21.78.4
[...]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...