Instead of saying what you want, what is the worst that could happen in TRON: Legacy (2010)?

The worst they could put in this movie to ruin all that's going good for it. As far as we've seen that could happen with the Comic-Con events and the High Quality trailer released.

Jar Jar Binks

ShadowDragon1 Wrote:I'm 99.0% certain the two characters in the test footage where in live actors in real body suits.

digitized - not the same thing

The CGI looked like real bikes and the enviroments look fully real and didn't look like CGI at all in my view.

not talking about the environment or the bikes. what was so cool about the original was that the people were real people. as good as cgi is these days even in the promo the characters cant move like live actors. and a cgi face still cant convincingly replace a real face.

I think it looked magnificant and outstanding for concept/test footage.

indeed it did - and the test footage of that dude doing the flips gives me hope.

If you want to see dodgy and kind of "off" CGI see the "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" or even worse any of the Spy Kids movies.

no thanks. ill might go see it when i find out the exact time of the snake eyes/strom shadow fight scene so i can walk in and walk out of the theater just for that scene and not have the experience ruined by the rest of it.
order abortion pill http://unclejohnsprojects.com/template/default.aspx?morning-after-pill-price where to buy abortion pill

I'm very doubtful that the actors in the concept footage are entirely "digitized" maybe in some scenes the characters where CG, and maybe in some parts "digitized". but in many parts they didn't appear to really be "digitized" or CG.

I've watch "Beowulf" a few times, and well I also study 3-D modelling, and animation as part of my videogame art and design course I'm taking in College.

I've seen digited faces and some advaced mo-cap footage and how it's put together. So I can tell pretty darn well if a character is CG or real.

Well in the test footage the blue program running then jumps up, that looks like live action footage, that's then been blended semlessly with the CG of the Light cycle.

Some scenes with the bike are CG, some looks like a live, physical prop bike. The face of green-yellow program looks like the live actor's face and not "digitized" CG at all.

I've watched the test footage, live, in 3-D digital in Hall H at this years SD Comic Con I was right in front one of the screens (like only 10 feet from it or so) hanging from the ceiling.

Also, I 've watched the trailer online at the highest resolution about 2-3 times every day going over things nearly frame for frame.

The parts that are live action and the parts that are CG are imo 99.9% indistinguishable from what I am sure is live footage that's been composited into a CG enviroment.

The line between live actors and what is CG is practically indistiguishable in my view. According to Konsinski and Olivia Wilde alot of physical sets were built and alot of live footage was filmed.

I'm speculating (based on bits and pieces of info from several sources) some scenes is going to be live footage composited into the CGI, some of it will be mo-caped or "digitized", some scenes will be CG animation.

I'm confident, that once finished the film effects, live action, and cg animation will look amazing, fluid and like Kosinski says "photo-real and photo-surreal."

I'm sure this will *not* look sort of "off" or kind of "stiff" like "Beowulf", and I think things will not look generic and fake-ish like alot of G.I.Joe's shots with it's flying vehicles and the gawd awful looking "Acceletor Suit" CG.

The early footage is I'm sure kind of out-of-context.

Sam Flynn may just find nothing more than a computer that's running, and notes and/or printed files that are clues that Sam puts "two and two together" that basically points the way and kind of hint "you should go to the laser lab at Encom."

It's way to early to assume the worse about the story when very little was shown, just concept art, some out-of-context teaser clip, and a concept VFX trailer.

So I think it's a bit too early to bring out the torches and pitch forks.

xalener Wrote:I actually like the fact that the programs in the proof of concept trailer where at the bit bottom of uncanny valley. That way a user could look unwieldy compared to them. I WOULD like to see the modern day interretation of the digitizing scene. From what I hear, Sam just walks through a door? I mean, it's alright if there's another shot after that of the lazer behind the cabin, or if someone gave him directions to get there, and what do do when he got there. I don't think he just walked in there for the hell of it.

There definitely seems to be some confusion among the community about that scene, mainly due to bad wording on G4TV's part. I think what we can safely assume happened was that Sean put a quarter in the TRON machine, the machine reveals a hidden room, Sean goes into the room and discovers digitizing tech, and from there he enters the computer world.

That's not official, but likely a safe assumption.

What happened in the trailer was that Sean goes into the room and then it ended. That's it. G4 said "and presumably into the world of TRON" as a guess, likely suggesting that they figured that he enters the computer world from that room, likely with a digitizing laser. That's not official, just G4's assumption converted into a better worded phrase.

Rest assured, I've heard that entry leads to a lab at Flynn's. (Not quite 'Zappo I'm in the Tron world' all the sudden.)

ShadowDragon1 wrote: I've watch "Beowulf" a few times, and well I also study 3-D modelling, and animation as part of my videogame art and design course I'm taking in College. I've seen digited faces and some advaced mo-cap footage and how it's put together. So I can tell pretty darn well if a character is CG or real. The parts that are live action and the parts that are CG are imo 99.9% indistinguishable from what I am sure is live footage that's been composited into a CG enviroment.

In the concept footage reel, those faces are totally cartoony and CG-ified or digitized somehow. I'm not sure what you're talking about? It may be real faces and mo-cap underneath, but they're not like we're watching the raw non-computer manipulated faces.

They've definitely been cartoon-ified through some sort of CG digitization or digitized face-mapping thing. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I hope the final TRON Legacy product does not incorporate the same technology. Just give me live unedited actors for at least the faces and maybe even for the whole body and suits (like the original)... not cartoon faces.

The cartoony faces is the main semi-weakness I see in the test reel and hope it doesn't carry over to the final release.

I have a feeling, though, that since this reel was made at least a year or two ago, that the technology has improved drastically for this and Disney would use more state of the art capabilities somehow. If they need to make Jeff Bridges look young, the CG-ification will be unavoidable.... I just hope better tech gets used. They already mapped his face in Vancouver, so it's inevitable they'll be doing something here, hopefully just for the 'when he's younger' sequences.

It looked fake in Benjamin Button when they made Brad Pitt young; and weird stuff happens with the eyes. Unless technology is better now, I fear young Flynn will look fake, too. And I'm with Achilles, I would hate it if all the programs have the same sort of thing going on just to match Clu's look.

The face of green-yellow program looks like the live actor's face and not "digitized" CG at all.

No way. I don't agree at all.

You can really tell the faces are CG by their eyes. And I guess that's part of the reason why no one's dona anything about it. No one in the biz seems to notice it. :/

But like I said, I LIKE the fact that the programs are cg. Why? Because they ARE CG. It just seems to be the first time where someone has the chance to make something look face (or at least unnatural) on purpose. There's also a certain charm that comes with "bad" CG like Spy kids. I don't know what it is, I just like it.

I guess it's when people put more work into making things look "cool" than making things look "right", that people start critisizing the simple act of stylization. This is why Speed Racer cought so much crap. Anyway, we don't even have to worry about that.

We already know with solid evidence that there will be many extras in the movie, all in costume.order abortion pill http://unclejohnsprojects.com/template/default.aspx?morning-after-pill-price where to buy abortion pill

That can't be a real actor's face. lol.

Jeff Bridges isn't that young.

I can spot many errors in it actually, but I excuse it. He looks fake (to me) becaue he IS fake.

I hope you're preparing for your CG world to be shattered, ShadowDragon1 No amount of times watching the trailer is going to help if you don't already see the CG faces. I sensed they might be CG in the bootleg video, and confirmed it for myself the first time I saw the HD version. (By CG, I mean some sort of computer digitization. The faces are clearly not real to me.) The only face that I think looks real is the old Flynn in 2:01-2:11

Why would they only CG the blue guy's face right before hitting the jet wall? There's nothing special about that part requiring CG, so why not just continue to use his "real" self?

How would Flynn's program look like that? Did they just shave his face and he magically looks younger or how he's portrayed?

You saw the Curious Case of Benjamin Button, right? And the tech video on youtube showing what the did? Same sort of thing going on here, imo.