Aslan looks AWFUL!

inkspot said:
Dang... I had no idea there were sophisticated websites whose important opinions were somehow worth more than mine... I feel kinda ... dumb ... now ... for liking that lion ...
Click to expand...

Thats ok, we can feel dumb together cus I liked the lion too. :)

Judy; while I would love nothing more then a completely faithful adaptation of the books I love, I think if the biggest problem in the movie concerns what kind of animal drives the White Whitch's slay then we should all count ourselves lucky.
 
Euphrates said:
Aww, schucks. It's so hard to get the correct tone-of-voice into these silly words and sentences we read! I was just messing around. Clearly it was supposed to be point 5. Just ignore me.

By the way, mad props to waterhogboy for spelling "you're" properly! It bugs me when peeple spelz rong. :D
Click to expand...

Hey - well it is OUR language so we should know how to speak it!!!! :D :D
 
GC,tgraveline and a lot of you are right its a trailer its an interpretation and its hollywood so lets just watch and find out!
ps even if its not that true to the books it can still be a gr8 movie!
 
*raises hand*
I like the lion too. Yeah, I can tell he's kinda fake, but show me a movie with CG that looks completely real and then maybe I'll join the complaining. The only time CG has ever fooled me is the type that replicates non-living organisms like buildings or jets. There's something about a living creature that gives itself away. The only shot that I found slightly subpar was the one where we first see Aslan in the trailer. The image was a bit flat but even then...he still looked very cool. With 7 months to work on him I'm sure he'll be absolutely AMAZING. Just look at his pounce towards the camera. I'm geeky enough to have looked at the frame by frame for that. I'd say it was about 95% photo realistic. Incredible. If the rest of the movie reaches that quality in its special effects I'd say we're in for a real treat. So what if it's not 100% convincing? If it's a good story with compelling characters, I dare say we'll hardly notice.

I've read the responses and reactions over at AICN.com and hardly one of the remarks resembles anything remotely intelligent. And you'll find EVERY movie at that site is plagued by "the CG is the worst @!$%^L eva!!!!!" comments or something to that effect. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The only movie that looked absolutley real when it came out and stood the test of time is Jurassic Park, the original, The Lost World didnt even look as good. That CG is flawless, and has never been matched, Matrix Reloaded came close, in the shot where Trinity jumps out of the window and is shooting up at the agent, most people dont even know that most of that shot was CG including Trinity, but other shots in that movie are fairly blatant CG so its not on par with the original JP.
 
You're right, JP does have really good CG. It's wierd that the movie that revolutioned CG in live action movies has yet to be matched. And that movie was made 12 years ago! :eek: But to be fair, JP does still heavily rely on animatronics and models so that's part of the reason some of the creatures look so "real". Matrix also has good CG but if we're going to be nitpicky it still looks "fake".

I'm not trying to be overly defensive of the effects of a movie I haven't seen yet--some of the effects are noticeable thus far--but I just think the "this is the worst ever" or that it's "horrible" comments are over the top. I'd say this is on par with most movies, if not a bit better.
 
JP was actually mostly animatronics. The t-rex was just his legs and stuff were cg when he moved, but they modeled everything off of the animatronics head. Thats how that one worked so well. Because people don't spend the time and money to do animatronics anymore that work well. It's a shame i think.

tg
 
Wrong, the animatronics were used in close ups such as the t-rex nose pushing around the jeep, you can really tell when its an animatronic, it doesnt move as fluidly, they only had the upper body. Every full body shot was all CG, everytime the raptors were running around CG, it would be way to difficult and expensive to track and time out the step by lugging around a few tons of upper body just to put CG legs on. The reason it looks so good was because of the Stop Motion Rig they built to communicate with the computer. They used stop motion animation in the computer, where every other film has relied on solely tradition keyframe animation in 3d. Yes there was a lot of animatronic work, but JP may be one of the only films were the CG actually looks better than the animatronics. That is honestly why Im really looking forward to the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe with such anxiety in terms of effects. Lately the trend has been to do only CG and some Costumes, but not Animatronics, not a single one in LOTR, where as this movie will use Animatronics, CG, Costumes, all of it. Its really exciting.

Side Note: And in the Matrix movies, I was only talking about that one particular shot of Trinity, it was an enormous leap in the VFX community. Aside from that shot there were some great effects, and some mediocore ones.
 
Last edited:
In a way i think Aslan looks to cute, to be the fierce lion he can be. But i love the aslan they came up with anyways. What do you guys think of my new siggie? With the new pic?I love it
 
interesting, i'll have to watch JP again to remember all of the shots and see it again for myself, i have always thought they did one of the best jobs out there still to date. Now which shot of trinity are you talking about?

tg
 
disney has done wat they do 2 all movies

they disneylized it

is it just me, or are they getting lazy and only brining out movies based on books, or movies with Pixar?

back on topic, the graphics look really kool, but i think they are going to show too much of the world and not enough of narnia by the looks of things. And the only one that looks exactly as i imagined is Edmond. The others look....ahhhhhhhh

o well, what can u do

and the trailer made a mistake. it said the chronicles begin, but technically, they begin with MN (chronologically speaking) but this could mean they will make more Narnia movies yay :D
 
Judy, I think you are overreacting. It's not even Summer yet and the film is still in post-production. Take a look at these screen differences between trailers and film.

4888.jpg


4921.jpg
 
Interesting find, Rhindon. I didn't notice too much of a difference between them other than subtle details such as the scars on Gollum's back or how his spine curved in a more natural way in the second shot. There seems to be more muscle and skin tone too. The only thing I'd really nitpick about the CG Aslan is how the light bounces off his fur. It make him seem a bit plastic, but the LOTR side by side is a great example of how the technology and effects can be cleaned up even in the time between trailers (I'm sure we'll be getting another Narnia trailer).

But I don't see much difference in the second set of photos other than the digital grading/overall colour scheme. Oh! And the missing ladders in the forefront. Being too close makes it obvious it's a fake so just the background stuff remains.

And holyboy666, this movie isn't Disneyfied. Disney did NOT make these movies. I can't believe people keep ignoring this fact. Walden has the rights to the books and Walden is making them. If the movie sucks, BLAME WALDEN
 
Herbal Remedy said:
And holyboy666, this movie isn't Disneyfied. Disney did NOT make these movies. I can't believe people keep ignoring this fact. Walden has the rights to the books and Walden is making them. If the movie sucks, BLAME WALDEN
Click to expand...

Disney has their name on the movie, so they must be having an impact in some way. People don't just put other company's names on the movie. That can be considered copyright. that means disney is having an impact and they must be looking at the product. They have to make sure they don't stick their name on something that is going 2 b a flop. So they are still partially resposible
 
Herbal Remedy said:
But I don't see much difference in the second set of photos other than the digital grading/overall colour scheme. Oh! And the missing ladders in the forefront. Being too close makes it obvious it's a fake so just the background stuff remains.
Click to expand...

Actually, the top picture is the final one for the film.
 
Do you actually know the details of the relationship between walden and disney? Besides the say they will have will mostly be in the areas of casting, and money support based on what they see. They can make suggestions, but what they are really doing is putting their name on a movie they think will rock our socks off and produce it therefore getting some of the revenue.

tg
 
holyboy666 said:
Disney has their name on the movie, so they must be having an impact in some way. People don't just put other company's names on the movie. That can be considered copyright. that means disney is having an impact and they must be looking at the product.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they are doing something. They're providing financing for it, advertising it, and distributing it, and other stuff too I believe, but that doesn't mean that they dictate all of the content of the movie. That job seems to be handled by Douglas Gresham, C.S. Lewis' stepson.
 
Dragon said:
Yeah, they are doing something. They're providing financing for it, advertising it, and distributing it, and other stuff too I believe, but that doesn't mean that they dictate all of the content of the movie. That job seems to be handled by Douglas Gresham, C.S. Lewis' stepson.
Click to expand...

As we have seen so far, when the people look at the logos, they aren't going to achnowledge Waldan that much. Everyone will look at Disney and think Disney made the movie. This may b unfortunate, but its a fact. Many times people scan over the other logos because they don't reconize them. People will blame disney if the movie flops, not Walden, and disney knows this. they are going to influence this movie everyway they can, so they will, in retrospect, be partially responsible
 
holyboy666 said:
As we have seen so far, when the people look at the logos, they aren't going to achnowledge Waldan that much. Everyone will look at Disney and think Disney made the movie. This may b unfortunate, but its a fact. Many times people scan over the other logos because they don't reconize them. People will blame disney if the movie flops, not Walden, and disney knows this. they are going to influence this movie everyway they can, so they will, in retrospect, be partially responsible
Click to expand...


Personally, I don't get all the griping about "Disneyfying" Narnia. Walt "Disneyfied" "Mary Poppins" and it was fabulous. "Cinderella", "Snow White", "Pinocchio", "Beauty and the Beast" - all Disney versions of beloved stories that simply rocked everyone's world. In fact if what I've seen in the Narnia trailers was MORE Disneyfied, I'd probably be happier. Nobody, with the possible exception of Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer and its version of "The Wizard of Oz", does fantasy worlds as well as Disney! I wish it had more input into the film! That's what has so disappointed me. What I've seen does not look like Disney quality. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, and that you're right, that the CGI will look better when the film premieres this winter. I can only hope...
 
Back
Top