Mission: Impossible - Fallout | July 27 2018 | Paramount | Reactions coming in | "Best action movie since Fury Road"

[aabattery]

3 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

They could have gone the Taika route and saved costs 

 

@aabattery

 

[RobinHood26]

LOVE IT. Big stunt. REAL LOCATIONS. No half ass Superhero greenscreen 

 

The Mission impossible movies do crazy shit with very minimal CGI same with Bond. 

[The Futurist]

49 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

LOVE IT. Big stunt. REAL LOCATIONS. No half ass Superhero greenscreen 

 

The Mission impossible movies do crazy shit with very minimal CGI same with Bond. 

 

You migh have to re assess the last word of your sentence I am afraid.

 

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

You migh have to re assess the last word of your sentence I am afraid.

 

Again not sure if I understand you at all but:

 

Craig era Bonds have been locations heavy and practical heavy also no ?

 

 

 

Look at Spectre filming location list:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/locations

 

Mexico, Morocco, Austria, Italy, UK, etc... 157 filming locations I do not remember any movie getting numbers like those.

[The Futurist]

Bond is getting a bit like Fast & Furious as the action set pieces get more & more outrageous.

 

Spectre had tons, tons of VFX/CGI work.

[MrGlass2]

9 hours ago, HesAPooka said:

Cruise missile is back

 

 

Will he ever learn? He is not a young man anymore.

[Barnack]

40 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Bond is getting a bit like Fast & Furious as the action set pieces get more & more outrageous.

 

Spectre had tons, tons of VFX/CGI work.

It is a modern movie it had tons of VFX/CGI, like all big Nolan movies, Awaken had more CGI shot than the prequels almost every scene of MadMax had them, almost every scene of mother! had them, CGI existence/nonexistence was not the point made I would imagine, but how much they start with the slate and what percentage of the screen is CGI vs just augmentation/composition, how much is the movie crew going on an actual nice location/set/building

 

 

 

 

 

From previous entry:

 

 

 

A lot of those after rendering past do not look much different than the in camera slate.

 

Compared to the :

 

Type of background on a flat simple ground with a couple of rocks:

 

A typical Mission impossible fight scene location:

[The Futurist]

We are all ignorant fools when it comes to VFX, that's s all what I am saying.

The CGI bashing, Anti CGI stance is proclaimed by ignorant people.

 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

We are all ignorant fools when it comes to VFX, that's s all what I am saying.

The CGI bashing, Anti CGI stance is proclaimed by ignorant people.

 

IT is no really CGI bashing, like you said he is praising a franchise that is full of them with Bond, it is much pro interesting locations, set piece than CGI bashing, people do not mind the CGI pick-ups in Arrival they love the slate Deakins/Villeneuve build from.

 

And some do a lot in camera/pratical, like Micheal Bay without ending up with a good movie necessarily, while Avatar 2 will probably be spectacular, it is certainly not a rule, fun to look at is the name of the game, in general those nice locations shot are much better than what a big amount of superheroes set piece are shot in nowaday, specially the big boss at the end fight in the destructed / abandoned dark generic locations tendency, hard to imagine a worst possible location/production design and more boring possible set piece.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Barnack

[Arlborn]

5 hours ago, Barnack said:

IT is no really CGI bashing, like you said he is praising a franchise that is full of them with Bond, it is much pro interesting locations, set piece than CGI bashing, people do not mind the CGI pick-ups in Arrival they love the slate Deakins/Villeneuve build from.

 

And some do a lot in camera/pratical, like Micheal Bay without ending up with a good movie necessarily, while Avatar 2 will probably be spectacular, it is certainly not a rule, fun to look at is the name of the game, in general those nice locations shot are much better than what a big amount of superheroes set piece are shot in nowaday, specially the big boss at the end fight in the destructed / abandoned dark generic locations tendency, hard to imagine a worst possible location/production design and more boring possible set piece.

I love superhero movies but I completely agree with this! Most of them really could make it better by having such fights in locations a bit more... Real? Tangible? Yeah, it would improve some of them quite a bit.

 

I liked the location of the last fight in Logan, for example. I thought the woods were well chosen(or was it all CGI and I was fooled?). Meanwhile, to give an example from this year, Spider-Man Homecoming, a movie I really enjoyed, could have benefited from a better boss fight location.

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Arlborn

[Brainbug]

 

Whenever there is talk about CGI in movies i think about this video.

[Jake Gittes]

7 hours ago, Barnack said:

IT is no really CGI bashing, like you said he is praising a franchise that is full of them with Bond, it is much pro interesting locations, set piece than CGI bashing, people do not mind the CGI pick-ups in Arrival they love the slate Deakins/Villeneuve build from.

 

And some do a lot in camera/pratical, like Micheal Bay without ending up with a good movie necessarily, while Avatar 2 will probably be spectacular, it is certainly not a rule, fun to look at is the name of the game, in general those nice locations shot are much better than what a big amount of superheroes set piece are shot in nowaday, specially the big boss at the end fight in the destructed / abandoned dark generic locations tendency, hard to imagine a worst possible location/production design and more boring possible set piece.

Your first mistake was trying to reason with Futurist.

[The Futurist]

36 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Your first mistake was trying to reason with Futurist.

And yours was thinking you know anything on modern visual effects :

 

how they work,

how they are made,

why they are used.

[John Rambo]

Really wish this movie is on lines of MI4. Action looks top notch from the stills till now.

Cruise is the true superhero..infact hes a superhuman  

 

[Captain Craig]

Has the release date been officially pushed back? I'd almost think it might have to be. There is only so much Unit 2 shooting and scenes w/o Cruise that can be done.

[RobinHood26]

On 11/7/2017 at 7:36 AM, The Futurist said:

And yours was thinking you know anything on modern visual effects :

 

how they work,

how they are made,

why they are used.

--

 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Jay Hollywood

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

You know perfectly well that A) we are right and B)That we fucking understand how movies are made and that all 200m dollar movies have TONS of CGI. Are we stupid to you?  Who do you think Barrack and Me are?  Were like the last two people on here you need to be explaining this too. 

 

I made a 11,000 dollar fucking Indie Rom Com movie (premieres in January keep a look out hahah) and I have 14 shots which feature CGI touch ups/replacements and NO ONE EVEN NOTICES or has ANY idea. You wouldn't be able to tell. So actually I do understand. Im also a post supervisor for TV promos haha we do tons of effects and graphics work too. 

 

 

 

I give up, but you are both wrong.

[WrathOfHan]

3 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

I give up, but you are both wrong.

"Oh shit you're actually right but I need to act like I'm correct and deflect so here's this post"

[dudalb]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:09 PM, eXtacy said:

Just watched the stunt. Definitely did not seem too dangerous but more unfortunate that he broke his ankle.

Any stuntman will tell you that most injuries happen on the routine stunts because they are routine;the big more dangerous stunts are much more carefully rehearsed and everybody is aware of the danger; a routine stunt like the one Cruise was injured in people get careless.

Guaranteed, it the stunt had been really dangerous Cruise would not have been allowed to do it. Anytime you hear that an actor "did all his own stunts" it's publicty BS. The risks are simply too high.

 

[RichWS]