[Movie] Warcraft (June 2016)

[Deleted]

I'm only talking about Davy Jones, whom I, and a majority of movie-goers, deem to be the most photorealistic full-CGI character thus far.

You shouldn't include other people in your own opinions. Unless you have some survey at hand, you've no idea what the majority of movie-goers think. Claiming to do so will just lessen the value of your argument.

[Soulwind]

All things we will all forget about when we'll see the movie because of the incredibly compelling story (Duncan Jones could do that, he's great)
Just kidding anyway. CGI is important in this film

Yeah, but answer me this. Have you seen any Marvel movie recently? Did you enjoy them? Did the CGI took you out of the movie?

Because Ultron and Hulk look like plastic, but you don't notice that the first time you see the movie, you are engaged in the story, you are immersed. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done.

Anyone who praises Avatar but turns around and says Warcraft doesn't have good CGI is intentionally looking for reasons to dislike it. That person is not interested in the movie.

CGI IS unrealistic, it's impossible to create something that is not there. All it needs, however, is to be good enough for you not be distracted from the movie.

[tangocash]

I have no doubt that this movie will be amazing in terms of story, acting and suspense. I'm just saying, those who complain about the CGI - I understand them. Some shots look amazing, others look average.

- - - Updated - - -



Unlike you, I can admit that the Hammerhead guy looks like trash. That's the difference between you and me. I'm only talking about Davy Jones, whom I, and a majority of movie-goers, deem to be the most photorealistic full-CGI character thus far. More so than Durotan and Orgrim (consistently speaking). In all of the trailers combined, the orcs have been completely photorealistic on the level of Davy Jones in only four shots.

- The tent scene
- Durotan profile with wolf-fur on his head
- Sad Orgrim
- Draka

The rest are kind of iffy and don't look completely real.


Davy Jones is ten years old. Go figure.

No, I think some shots look off, but so do shots in other heavily CGI films. Also they do have different budgets, whether you want to admit it or not. It just seems like you're talking trash just to talk trash.

Fun fact, this is the highest grossing film of all time and also took a bunch of criticism with early trailers:

Does that look photorealistic to you? Your complaints are absolutely autistic.

[Deleted]

It's indeed the only thing that looks off in this wonderfully photorealistic shot.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, I think the same, although I like that Orgrim shot more than you do, I think lol
The worst IMO actually is Durotan in the "To save our people" scene. The CGI is great, but the lighting is awful, in my honest opinion.

That shot of Orgrim looks amazing in motion - not in the stills you have linked, in my opinion. There are better shots of him, for example when he's talking to Durotan atop that cliff overlooking the fel camp.


"To save our people" has been upgraded and looks better now, but it still looks rather off. Have you seen his eyes in the "To save our people"-scene in the latest, international trailer? They look really weird.

Anyway, I'm sure it'll be an amazing movie. I hope so, at least.

[tss]

Holy fuck paradokz, go take your Risperidone and play with your train set.

Does that look photorealistic to you? Your complaints are absolutely autistic.

autismmind

[Deleted]

No, I think some shots look off, but so do shots in other heavily CGI films. Also they do have different budgets, whether you want to admit it or not. It just seems like you're talking trash just to talk trash.

Fun fact, this is the highest grossing film of all time and also took a bunch of criticism with early trailers:

Does that look photorealistic to you? Your complaints are absolutely autistic.

Keep insulting me. You make zero sense with what you're saying.


Avatar is 7-years-old and Warcraft's CGI is only marginally better. There's nothing wrong with that. Why are you all raving about how amazing the CGI is on every fucking forum? You don't have to convince the rest of us. We can see it with our own eyes.

I don't give a shit about the budget differences. When you make a claim such as "Warcraft's CGI is 10 times better than Davy Jones and/or Avatar" - that's all I have to hear. Budget has nothing to do with it. You're making a definitive, yet stupid, statement.


So, to conclude my ultimate point...


Warcraft has amazing CGI. Some of the best we've ever seen. But it doesn't look 100% realistic all the time. It does in a few shots, but in most of the shots it looks kind of iffy because of lightning.

Also, if you fanboys would pause any of the trailers and look how stupidly ridiculous the green orcs look in the background, you wouldn't complain about Davy Jones' hammerhead-buddy.

[Deleted]

Yeah, but answer me this. Have you seen any Marvel movie recently? Did you enjoy them? Did the CGI took you out of the movie?

Because Ultron and Hulk look like plastic, but you don't notice that the first time you see the movie, you are engaged in the story, you are immersed. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done.

Anyone who praises Avatar but turns around and says Warcraft doesn't have good CGI is intentionally looking for reasons to dislike it. That person is not interested in the movie.

CGI IS unrealistic, it's impossible to create something that is not there. All it needs, however, is to be good enough for you not be distracted from the movie.

I saw Marvel movies but not a big fan of them. I find the stories not much compelling, but no, I didn't care much about the CGI there. I mean, it was decent enough not to be distractingly bad.

Jurassic World though was a different thing: I liked it a lot, but a few CGI shots were so damn out of place that distracted me for a minute from the story. And the CGI actually was great, but the lighting was awful on that CGI.

I hope Warcraft movie won't have distractingly bad CGI shots. So far the CGI looks enough good anyway, except for just a few shots (baby Thrall, but now it's improved, and the Stormwind shot. Also "To save our people" has very bad ligthing)

[Soulwind]

When you make a claim such as "Warcraft's CGI is 10 times better than Davy Jones and/or Avatar" - that's all I have to hear. Budget has nothing to do with it. You're making a definitive, yet stupid, statement.

That's not what he said, though.

He said it's 10 years better. Which, considering it's the same team, with 10 years of experience more, it's objectively true. Whether or not they applied all their knowledge and technology to make the difference, is not up to you or me to judge, because we know jack about the industry behind CGI.

[Harbour]

Time to open your eyes guys and stop even answering to that dude cause he obviously want to turn this thread into this.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ht=cheap+corny
Do you want it? I think not. So stop arguing about obviously awesome pics of Durotan and Orgrim.

Lets talk about this instead.
https://twitter.com/QuassRPG/status/716327744267751424
The guy spent night to make better promo poster for Durotan than Universal/Legendary marketing departments did. He spent just one night. Lel.

[Deleted]

That's not what he said, though.

He said it's 10 years better. Which, considering it's the same team, with 10 years of experience more, it's objectively true. Whether or not they applied all their knowledge and technology to make the difference, is not up to you or me to judge, because we know jack about the industry behind CGI.

There's two sides to this - people saying the CGI is much better than Avatar, and people saying the CGI is trash.


Those saying the CGI is much better than Avatar are equally as delusional as those saying it's trash. It's marginally better than Avatar, not much, in other words. The CGI is not trash, but those who claim it's trash say so because the orcs don't look photorealistic. That's literally all I'm trying to say. The orcs don't blend well with the humans.

[SirRice]

I don't give a shit about the budget differences. When you make a claim such as "Warcraft's CGI is 10 times better than Davy Jones and/or Avatar" - that's all I have to hear. Budget has nothing to do with it. You're making a definitive, yet stupid, statement.

Go tell that to anyone at ILM, and you will see them laughing in your face.

[Deleted]

Time to open your eyes guys and stop even answering to that dude cause he obviously want to turn this thread into this.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ht=cheap+corny
Do you want it? I think not. So stop arguing about obviously awesome pics of Durotan and Orgrim.

Lets talk about this instead.
https://twitter.com/QuassRPG/status/716327744267751424
The guy spent night to make better promo poster for Durotan than Universal/Legendary marketing departments did. He spent just one night. Lel.

Hahaha, "awesome" pics of Durotan. Yeah, awesome = photorealistic.

- - - Updated - - -

Go tell that to anyone at ILM, and you will see them laughing in your face.

Oh, yeah? Do you know the people at ILM?

The CGI is amazing, but not photorealistic all the time. That's all I have to say. Look at some of the green orcs in the background in the trailers, they look pretty bad.

[Deleted]

No, I think some shots look off, but so do shots in other heavily CGI films. Also they do have different budgets, whether you want to admit it or not. It just seems like you're talking trash just to talk trash.

Fun fact, this is the highest grossing film of all time and also took a bunch of criticism with early trailers:

Does that look photorealistic to you? Your complaints are absolutely autistic.

Well... I find the flying beast quite photorealistic. More than Jake Sully. The fact is that while the CGI here is not at Durotan in the tend's level, it really has great use of lighting.

1993's Jurassic Park CGI dinosaurs still look good today after 23 YEARS, and that's because of:
- Spielberg was smart and covered many of the shots with darkness or rain
- in the sunny scenes, the lighting was so PERFECT

[Teaon]

funny that the same argument about davy jones and orgrim is happening in imdb board !

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803096/.../255515206?p=2

haha, are you guys fighting on both sites?

[Deleted]

Well... I find the flying beast quite photorealistic. More than Jake Sully. The fact is that while the CGI here is not at Durotan in the tend's level, it really has great use of lighting.

1993's Jurassic Park CGI dinosaurs still look good today after 15 YEARS, and that's because of:
- Spielberg was smart and covered many of the shots with darkness or rain
- in the sunny scenes, the lighting was so PERFECT

Thank you. You are the only one besides me who's referred to the importance of lightning, and frankly, the lightning in Warcraft is what makes many of the shots look iffy and cartoony.

[Deleted]

Avatar is 7-years-old and Warcraft's CGI is only marginally better.

Oh please. That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, the orcs looks far better than the Na'vi, despite being far less human-like than the Na'vi.

All I see you doing in this thread is shitting on the movie and spreading rumors. Sure, there's nothing wrong with legitimate criticism but that's not what you're coming with.

And like others have pointed out, the CGI looks far better than what we've gotten in Avengers and BvS and most movies.

[Shampro]

Wait, he opened the same thread of discussion on Imdb? What the fuck?

[SirRice]

Hahaha, "awesome" pics of Durotan. Yeah, awesome = photorealistic.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh, yeah? Do you know the people at ILM?

The CGI is amazing, but not photorealistic all the time. That's all I have to say. Look at some of the green orcs in the background in the trailers, they look pretty bad.

CGI quality != photorealism
Photorealism is an artstyle (mainly used to talk about paintings) that refers to an artist trying to imitate as close as possible a photo of reality, or reality itself. Practical effects can and often do not look photoreal. Heavy color grading can make things look non-photoreal. The humans in the movie do not look photorealistic, Fury Road, in all its practical effect glory, does not look photoreal. Warcraft doesn't need to look photo-real. It needs visual consistency, for which it requires a very very big level of detail, but not photorealism.

[Deleted]

Oh please. That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, the orcs looks far better than the Na'vi, despite being far less human-like than the Na'vi.

All I see you doing in this thread is shitting on the movie and spreading rumors. Sure, there's nothing wrong with legitimate criticism but that's not what you're coming with.

And like others have pointed out, the CGI looks far better than what we've gotten in Avengers and BvS and most movies.

It is not a ridiculous statement. You people still don't understand the fucking difference between photorealism and detailed/spectacular-looking CGI. The WoD cinematic for Warcraft has some of the best CGI I've ever seen, but it's not photorealistic. There's a massive difference.


The light work done on Avatar and Davy Jones is amazing, and makes almost all of the creatures look photorealistic most of the time. So yes, Warcraft's CGI is only marginally better. The trailers have quite a few iffy shots with bad lightning.

[Soulwind]

CGI quality != photorealism
Photorealism is an artstyle (mainly used to talk about paintings) that refers to an artist trying to imitate as close as possible a photo of reality, or reality itself. Practical effects can and often do not look photoreal. Heavy color grading can make things look non-photoreal. The humans in the movie do not look photorealistic, Fury Road, in all its practical effect glory, does not look photoreal. Warcraft doesn't need to look photo-real. It requires visual consistency, for which it requires a very very big level of detail, but not photorealism.

I think this hits the nail in the head. Warcraft looks less photorealistic than Pirates of the Caribbean because it's designed that way.