Rohan's a troll. Ignore him because you won't have a discussion, it'll just be mindless responses going back and forth constantly.
However, that being said, the animals actually don't look that great. If they need a lot of time to work on it, don't do a bunch of close up reveals in the trailer. *shrugs*
So you agree that the animals don't look good, but you're claiming I'm a troll. You're kind of special, Bacon.
As for giving them time, they certainly have it. The question is, do you or anyone here think that they are going to enhance the CGI and make those animals look as good as the Tiger in Life of Pi?
My answer is, absolutely not.
Holy crab dude. You can't be that blind? They aren't going with the realistic look of all the animals. You can tell right away they are going with a stylize version of it. Obviously look at Shere Khan who doesn't look anything like a real tiger. They obviously want to differentiate themselves from the Disney version.
Looks like this version will have a superior voice acting than the POS Disney version. That's what voice acting suppose to be. Not being lazy and just using your own non unique voice. Looking especially at you Scarlett Johansson.
I can't be that blind? That's interesting.
The fact is that with the technology we have today and the amount of money usually studios spend, having realistic looking animals will always enhance the motion picture. Yes, even if the animals are talking. Might as well make this an animated feature length something like the Lion King if you can't get the CGI straight. It is either that Serkis can't handle as the director the CGI aspect of this film or the studio is taking a back seat to not spend enough money on the animals, but marketing.
As for Disney's version, I see lot of folks were excited about that in this forum and online in general, but yes, even the CGI in that looked quite cheap.
Or he literally finished the movie two days ago and you have no idea how CGI works. Hundreds of people are polishing every single hair on those animals as we speak and you’re just here on some random movie forum taking a shit on their hard work. Sorry but I’ll always stay behind Serkis and Co., unlike you they have actual integrity and knowledge when it comes to mo-cap.
So you agree that the animals don't look good, but you're claiming I'm a troll. You're kind of special, Bacon.
As for giving them time, they certainly have it. The question is, do you or anyone here think that they are going to enhance the CGI and make those animals look as good as the Tiger in Life of Pi?
My answer is, absolutely not.
Holy crab dude. You can't be that blind? They aren't going with the realistic look of all the animals. You can tell right away they are going with a stylize version of it. Obviously look at Shere Khan who doesn't look anything like a real tiger. They obviously want to differentiate themselves from the Disney version.
Looks like this version will have a superior voice acting than the POS Disney version. That's what voice acting suppose to be. Not being lazy and just using your own non unique voice. Looking especially at you Scarlett Johansson.
I can't be that blind? That's interesting.
The fact is that with the technology we have today and the amount of money usually studios spend, having realistic looking animals will always enhance the motion picture. Yes, even if the animals are talking. Might as well make this an animated feature length something like the Lion King if you can't get the CGI straight. It is either that Serkis can't handle as the director the CGI aspect of this film or the studio is taking a back seat to not spend enough money on the animals, but marketing.
As for Disney's version, I see lot of folks were excited about that in this forum and online in general, but yes, even the CGI in that looked quite cheap.
LOL. You don't work in the industry so you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know how long and expensive to render realistic animals with fur? This is not Life of Pi where they have to worry about just one tiger. The render time is the biggest problem if they really want it realistic. It's not like they can't do Richard Parker type of realistic. It's more of to do with if they have the time/budget and resources to be doing it to every single creatures.
Or maybe they did try the realistic approach but that didn't look right to them. Because in real life most real animals all look the same. Maybe stylizing them give each main creatures a unique look. Real tiger might look too damn cute and people will probably poke fun and associate the tiger as a talking Richard Parker from Life Is Pi.
Last edited by LEXX on May 22nd, 2018, 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
lol, the fact WB’s just gave this to Netflix... turd confirmed.
I heard test screenings went well with the issue being - it's just too dark. It's closer to an Annihilation issue where the problem is marketing, especially the constant 'oh another Jungle Book film' thing.
In the Deadline interview Serkis says Netflix are still planning to release theatrically in 3D - if anything this is proof they are gonna be taking theatrical more seriously