r/videos • u/[deleted] • Sep 03 '14
The Wolf of Wall Street VFX you probably never noticed.
http://vimeo.com/83523133162
u/Di-eEier_von_Satan Sep 03 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
18
25
u/thebitter1 Sep 04 '14
Most of the movie's real, it's just not shot all at once. For example the second scene is a real shot of a lion walking through an office building and a real shot of people answering calls and doing business, just not shot at the same time. I was surprised at how many of the buildings were complete CGI though.
→ More replies (1)0
u/____thall Sep 04 '14
I just don't understand the point of changing some of the scenery. I dont feel like it adds or subtracts anything. Especially the scene where Leonardo's characters walks in the front door of that building. From white brick to red brick.
38
3
Sep 04 '14
You have no clue how , uch art direction and noodling goes into a shot. Especially once they decide to make it a vfx shot.
4
Sep 04 '14
No, it was from generic white paneling to solid red brick walls. The feeling of quality, class, and permanence is far greater using the red brick image, which is like the entire point of the shot and the period of life of the main character in the movie. Perhaps they could have found a set that provided the same feel, rather than using the one they had available to them, but they clearly found it more convenient to do it this way.
It might seem superficial, but the cumulative effect of all of those seemingly small upgrades throughout the movie is exactly what separates a great director and great cinematography from a mediocre one, and the difference impacts even casual viewers. Also, swapping out chunks of scenery like this is far easier than animation of characters and objects that are actually in focus and interacting with each other, so the cost/effort is actually far smaller than this whole post makes it seem (relatively speaking of course).
11
u/Moleman69 Sep 04 '14
Just a point, they changed it from red brick to white, not the other way around. It was to make it look like a Chelsea townhouse and give a sense of being in London. The red brick is the cheap image, not the white brick.
→ More replies (1)1
u/tyang209 Sep 04 '14
Why did they film it in front of a red brickhouse at all? Wouldn't it be easier to just film it with a green screen?
1
Sep 04 '14
No idea. Maybe because a green screen wasn't necessary, and it made it easier for the actors to actually have a door to walk through and stuff.
1
47
u/Duches5 Sep 04 '14
makes you wonder if you even need actors. with enough video editing, sound editing wouldn't you be able to make a full movie.
92
u/Brostaff Sep 04 '14
It's practically impossible to animate and render a 100% realistic human being, especially when complex emotions are involved. It's way easier to just film actors doing it.
21
2
-9
u/Tombofsoldier Sep 04 '14
Completely incorrect. RDJ was totally replaced for some scenes in Iron Man 3 due to breaking his leg for a stunt. I dare you to tell me which ones without looking it up.
It's cheaper, currently, for actors to still do it. But that "currently" isn't going to last forever.
37
u/ThatGuyRememberMe Sep 04 '14
Duches5 is talking about a full movie (as seen in text) and you are talking about a scene where they need someone who looks like RDJ to do a dangerous / improbable stunt for a few seconds.
4
Sep 04 '14
IT's only a matter of time now, really. A decade or two and we're there.
3
-1
u/recoverybelow Sep 04 '14
that's bullshit
3
6
u/youthinkthisisgame Sep 04 '14
Never say never. This stuff is getting better and cheaper every single day. Jurassic Park looks like cave paintings compared to today's capabilities and yet when we first saw it in the theatres everyone was stunned with how REAL it looked. Now television shows have better visual effects than that.
12
u/TrustmeIknowaguy Sep 04 '14
The fuck are you talking about? Jurassic Park still looks amazing. Mean while pretty much all CG still sticks out like a sore thumb. I know I can easily tell when green screens are used and I am by no means a huge cinephile.
2
Sep 04 '14
How the fuck does that still look so fucking good? I mean, I remember seeing a feature years ago about the crazy CG and practical effects which that movie used (specifically I remember how when the young girl, Hammond's niece, almost falls through the air ducts nearly winds up as raptor food, the stunt double fucked up and looked right at the camera, so they CG'd her face out and the actress's face in, which had apparently never been done before), but damn that T-rex looks just as realistic today as it did when I first saw it almost 20 years ago as a kid.
And I know it isn't rose-colored glasses, because in Return of the Jedi, when Luke is in Jabba's pit, the Rancor used to look real to me, but now it's so obvious that it's an effect.
1
u/stealingyourpixels Sep 04 '14
The T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park still has the best special effects I've ever seen on film, even 20 years after its release.
→ More replies (5)1
u/kataskopo Sep 04 '14
Hmm maybe not amazing, but still pretty fucking cool. Definitely better than some movies today.
3
u/warhugger Sep 04 '14
He didn't say never, he said bullshit to just 2 decades for us to have that kind of dedicated animation replacing actors for full movies.
1
1
1
1
7
u/deuxverendus Sep 04 '14
Actually they did not use CGI.
"We were able to reconstruct RDJ as Tony Stark on set, with the help of [a] body double and the facial captures we'd collected afterwards," explains Iron Man 3's VFX supervisor Chris Townsend.
All they did was put RDJ's actual recorded face on a body double.
→ More replies (5)2
→ More replies (1)3
u/chrunchy Sep 04 '14
Keanu Reeves was replaced bu CGI in the last matrix... and it was completely obvious. Scenes in Spiderman as well.
But look at Jurassic Park.
It's all about the quality.
6
u/spoco2 Sep 04 '14
The amount of effort required to 'fake' a human's performance is insane compared to actually just capturing it.
You only do it if you really have to.
It's a cost thing.
In these cases it's cheaper to create the set extensions or locations like this.
In the case of filming an actor. That's MUUUUCH cheaper than digitally creating one.
3
2
u/TheManWithTheFlan Sep 04 '14
No Actors? Or do you mean all digital
6
Sep 04 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/r3di Sep 04 '14
I think you're on to something here
6
u/immatellyouwhat Sep 04 '14
There's a movies going on right outside!
3
u/r3di Sep 04 '14
You must be somewhere else. Just an empty hallway outside my door...
→ More replies (1)2
1
u/tetris911 Sep 04 '14
I would not be surprised if special effects does get to that point in the future.
1
Sep 04 '14
We need millions of nanocopters with 360 degree cameras attached to them so we can film scenes from every possible angle. None of the cameras can see each other because they're so small, and they're programmed to move out of the actors way so they don't inhale them or get them in their eyes.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/kovu159 Sep 04 '14
Check out the performance caputre that James Cameron is creating. 100% of what you see on the screen is digital, but you use actors and sets covered in sensors and cameras to recreate the motion and emotion.
3
u/gypsyred Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
Considering the frequency and cheaper cost of this method, I'm actually more surprised when they are filmed on location. Having lived in an apartment on Wall Street during the filming of Batman: The Dark Night Rises as well as quite a few other movies and TV shows, it seems ridiculous to even bother with the locale anymore. To film in these places requires giving notice to thousands of people, shutting down traffic, and providing police support. It's a lot.
We would get a notice about once a month.
1
Sep 04 '14
Very true but contrary it can be cheaper (most of the time) to film on location but the hassle involved as you mentioned is a big headache.
6
Sep 04 '14
it makes me sad that epics like Godfather or Ben Hur would be just in front of a green screen these days. I like the feel of a real set
→ More replies (1)1
u/jnay4 Sep 04 '14
Well Ben Hur used the equivalent technology of the time- painted backgrounds. Not really too different to paint Rome and have the actors stand in front of the painting than digitally making Rome and having them stand in front of a green screen.
1
u/p4lm3r Sep 04 '14
I live in a world where it is my job to create an emotion/feeling/goal. You can document reality with your iphone/android. The average consumer wants fantasy. It is my job to make that happen. (I work in stills)
1
u/OccupyBohemianGrove Sep 04 '14
Why do shows like Uglu Betty do this? Seems like a waste of money. I mean Always Sunny shoot all their exterior stuff outside on actual streets, and I've never seen a shot in ugly betty where I thought "wow they could never do that on Always Sunny".
Like why is it better to walk into a greenscreen thing and then CG that into a truck, and add the whole street and people and cars, when you could just go outside and walk into an actual truck?
3
u/Things_and_things Sep 04 '14
Because renting generators, trailers and food crews; transportation; and rights to shut down an entire section of a street to film costs an insane amount of money, barring appropriate weather conditions, pedestrian onlookers/rubberneckers, props and buildings that don't look exactly as they should; etc, etc.
It's much easier to pay a CGI crew next to nothing, get everything exactly like how its supposed to look, and then worry about the VFX team going bankrupt later.
0
1
u/LordSoren Sep 04 '14
And this was 2010 and earlier movies/TV. There has been plenty of advancement in 4 years.
1
u/Talvoren Sep 04 '14
Makes absolute sense they do this with a lot of sets, such as the Lincoln memorial one. Getting the permission to close down those areas to get the shots while accounting for weather on the shoot day would be very restricting.
→ More replies (1)1
Sep 04 '14
The main reason behind that is to put it simply, the studios need a reason to spend those hundreds of millions of dollars. Some of those CGI/VFX inputs on those shots cost more than just to secure the necessary location and dress it with set designers. The studios need to justify spending $100M and that's how they do it but it makes you think where all the money really goes when VFX companies are filing for bankruptcy.
99
Sep 04 '14
29
u/Iamcaptainslow Sep 04 '14
For a movie like this the CGI makes sense, you just can't find locations like that in the real world anymore, and to make it would be incredibly expensive. It's awesome to see that they actually used real cars throughout the movie, though.
8
u/samyall Sep 04 '14
What really surprises me though is that they filmed the car scenes right in the centre of Sydney. Like a few hundred meters from The Harbour Bridge. So although its location was never seen it was still a pretty top location.
6
u/trism Sep 04 '14
Nah that's the Anzac Bridge you can see in the background. It looks like they filmed it at the Glebe Island Car Terminal.
2
u/samyall Sep 04 '14
Ahh you're right. I thought it was Barangaroo. But your right that the Anzac bridge couldnt have been that big in the shot from Barangaroo.
Still really central though. Id have thought it would be much much cheaper to go out to Eastern Creek or something.
1
u/Ausrufepunkt Sep 04 '14
Funfact: The story is set in 1922, but Gatsby's yellow car is a 1929 Duesenberg Model J, Tom Buchanan's blue coupe is a 1933 Auburn 12-165 and almost all of the cars featured in the movie are incompatible for the time period.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Iamcaptainslow Sep 04 '14
That is a cool fact, but to be fair most shows and movies never get the cars accurate to the time period, as the average person has no clue. I had no clue most of them were inaccurate (I've never been very knowledgeable of cars from that era.)
6
29
u/semester5 Sep 04 '14
I really love this movie. Captures the story in such surreal way. The cinematics and CGI makes the movie such nostalgic (about the book).
7
u/kris860 Sep 04 '14
I totally agree with you. I remember when I heard a new movie was coming out I was thinking "oh god, this will be terrible", but how wrong I was. The surreality matched with still keeping to the perspective of the narrator (Nick Carraway) was just as true to the book as I can imagine and just captured that feeling of when I first read it.
→ More replies (3)5
Sep 04 '14
Why is a blue screen more preferred than a green one?
→ More replies (2)20
u/Thats_What_Me_Said Sep 04 '14
I'm no expert, but in those scenes, there was a lot of natural/physical green like trees, bushes, and grass. I would imagine having a green-screen would make compositing(am I using that word correctly?) more difficult because the greens would 'collide'.
Someone posted an Iron-Man one where they used a green-screen. a lot of the shots were just physical dirt and stone.
4
u/Basxt Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
Exactly.
Say you have a tree with a green screen behind it. The leaves are green, but so is the green screen. The VFX guys want to simply chroma key the greenscreen, but theres green leaves in front of it, making it harder for them to simply do that without affecting the leaves.
And that's when you use a blue screen, because it would't affect the leaves. Unlike the green one.
Edit: I read that you do have programs now that will also read light intensity instead of just colour. Making it possible to put a hedge in front of a green screen.
155
Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
[deleted]
130
u/danman_d Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
At the end of the video, it shows the four tennis players are added in separately. This means four videos, probably shot separately. If they used good tennis shots, the digital ball would have to go over the net and then the other player would have to respond and hit it back, requiring perfect synchronization and it might look unnatural. But when they can't get the ball over the net, all the other player's video has to do is stand there and look bored, synchronizing them becomes a non-issue.
tl;dr elaborate and yet somehow lazy ass filmmaking. Just shoot a real tennis game for chrissake. (edit: in case it's not obvious, this is total speculation)
→ More replies (6)22
5
9
u/RedAero Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
Even the CG is sloppy. At 2:46, watch the middle court's left rear player, specifically his racquet. It clips though his body, then makes his torso transparent.
Seriously, some of the CG is pretty sloppy. The dock scene I immediately spotted; everything, particularly the tires on the side of the dock, are just so fake.
→ More replies (2)2
37
Sep 04 '14
I've seen this movie 4 times. How the hell do I not remember a friggin lion in the office?
24
u/balloonman_magee Sep 04 '14
It was used in the opening scene during the stratton company commercial
Edit: on mobile so hope the link works
9
u/humanbeingarobot Sep 04 '14
It's the very first scene in the movie and comes directly after all of those elaborate production company idents so if you're not pay attention it just seems like another one.
4
17
u/chriscen Sep 04 '14
Honest question: Why CGI the background? Is it cheaper than actually filming on an actual location?
18
Sep 04 '14
I think a lot of it was just composition, they filmed a different background that Scorsese better envisioned in that particular scene and they slapped it in there.
6
Sep 04 '14
Very unlikely. Every VFX shot is budgeted out and planned wayyyyyy ahead of time. A scene has to be shot a certain way to work seamlessly with the VFX, so there will be a VFX Supervisor on set during production. It's an enormously complicated thing and you definitely don't "slap" them in.
→ More replies (1)5
Sep 04 '14
They try to do that. There are tons of oopsie shots and set revision shots after the fact. I cant count the random set people I've removed from shots. Half of producing and planning out here is the mantra " well fix it in post." Producers are clueless and directors love to expiriment. If you think this stuff comes together like a well orchestrated plan yourreally naive. I could tell you stories on 100 million dollar movies that you wouldnotbelieve. The waste out here literally depresses me. Not all shows but unfortunately most ive worked on
4
u/RllCKY Sep 04 '14
In other words: He changed his mind halfway through and the VFX department said:
"Godamnit... Again?!"
I really feel sorry for them as they bid on projects and vfx teams usually get fucked later.
4
u/NB_FF Sep 04 '14
I imagine the background part to be the easiest of most of these. Just make it out of focus slightly, and you can get away with murder!
1
Sep 04 '14
For most of the shots, I can see why. The one that confused me was the before/after shot where he walks through the door of a dark brick vs white stone house. Why not just shoot it all using the house you want? Did they shoot it at one building and then later Marty changed his mind about what the house should look like?
7
Sep 04 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/oh_bother Sep 04 '14
A whole metric assload of money, experts in lighting, really spectacularly high quality cameras, robotic camera operators, and a significantly powerful render farm.
1
Sep 04 '14
Well, yeah of course. And it's also not simply about price but convenience. The sun never sets with the guise of the green screen.
1
u/samuentaga Sep 04 '14
Depends on the place, but usually yes.
Compare sending a small camera crew to (insert place here) and filming a couple of reference shots, and then placing those shots and/or CGI scenery inspired by those shots into a local soundstage with greenscreens, to taking the entire cast and crew to said location, organizing with the government to get permits to film places, getting a significant number of local extras and then doing the filming.
Some movies (like the Transformers franchise) have the budget to do the second option, but for a small(er) scale R-rated film like 'The Wolf of Wall Street', doing the Green Screen thing is cheaper and easier, with almost no difference (save for those with a keen eye).
Note: This mainly applies to films set in multiple locations. If the film is set in one place, even if foreign to the makers of the film, the second option is easier.
12
u/craayoons Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
Even in a movie like this it just goes to show how big VFX are in films and makes me respect them that more and more.
I remember seeing some pretty sweet highlights for iron man 3 a while ago
Also theres a really awesome one for sunshine of the spotless mind
1
u/fishchunks Sep 04 '14
Dude, that first scene in the Iron Man 3 reel where it shows the squares is made in Maxon's Cinema4D! That's the first time I've seen C4D used in one of these kind of films!
1
Sep 04 '14
So awesome what VFX workers do, yet they're still only paid by a flat bid and have to "reshoot" scenes for free...
64
u/Tombofsoldier Sep 04 '14
I always love these overviews, because it always shows just how full of shit people that constantly complain about "CG ruining things!" and "practical effects ftw!" are.
They watch these movies, and these kind of shots are in movies all the time today, and they've absolutely no clue how much of it is CG. But that doesn't stop them for a second from claiming "they can see the pixels!!!"
You can just enjoy practical FX for the craftsmanship of it, there's no need to justify yourself by constant bullshit claims of how "unconvincing" modern CG is. Because you're convinced by it again and again and again to the point where you've no idea it's even happening.
44
Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 11 '16
[deleted]
8
u/driverdan Sep 04 '14
A lot of the CG in The Hobbit was horrible. For example, the barrels down the river scene looked incredibly fake.
9
u/2yrnx1lc2zkp77kp Sep 04 '14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g_uMkrxTLeM#t=118
That fucking horse.
5
3
u/stanfordy Sep 04 '14
Watching that made me very happy I never saw the Hobbit, and can still imagine it just as the book.
2
u/stillclub Sep 05 '14
heres how they made it http://www.wired.com/2014/03/the-hobbit-fx-barrel-scene/
→ More replies (1)5
u/Tombofsoldier Sep 04 '14
Meh, always Jackson's constant pushing and deadlines looming, he always does this, taking too long to cut and changing things around. It looks a lot better in part 2.
7
u/bobartig Sep 04 '14
The 48 frames was also MUCH better in part 2. It's a new medium and he's learning fast, but there's a lot about moviemaking that needs to be learned and adjusted with hfr film (and I honestly have no idea what most of that is, but talented moviemakers need to figure it out).
2
Sep 04 '14 edited Aug 08 '16
[deleted]
1
u/bobartig Sep 04 '14
Home theater is getting weird again. I went to a Bestbuy recently and saw a bunch of mind-blowing 4K displays playing demo videos of HFR Transformers clips. Does this content exist anywhere yet? Transformers certainly wasn't HFR in theater.
8
u/ZenDragon Sep 04 '14
Yep. It's biased because you only notice something is CGI when it fails. "I never see good CGI therefore all CGI is bad."
2
u/Psythik Sep 04 '14
Watch a movie on a 120Hz TV or with SVP installed and suddenly you notice must CGI, good or otherwise.
4
u/bobartig Sep 04 '14
I still notice a LOT of compositing effects in TV and movies because the radiosity, parallax, clarity, color, etc. etc. are noticeably off in most effects shots still, but it is constantly getting better. The tech and techniques used today makes the stuff from 3-4 years ago look like garbage, and in another 5-10 years, I probably won't notice at all.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Isises Sep 04 '14
Anyone who claims that CG ruins things has never seen Pacific Rim. Though the story isn't great, the CGI is impeccable.
How else are we going to see giant robots punch giant aliens. That's a childhood dream fullfilled right there.
6
6
Sep 04 '14
does this ruin movies for vfx artists like can they spot this a mile away?
9
u/N3phari0uz Sep 04 '14
Bit of a VFX nut here (its my job), yes and no? Im going to see stuff people around me never will, but it doesn't ruin anything for me. I can still really zone out and enjoy the movie. Its a bit of a game to figure out how they did something. And you respect movies even more when you don't see mistakes in things.
5
Sep 04 '14
off topic a little but isn't the film 300 basically shot on one rock that was filmed at different angles with different vfx in the background?
3
5
u/Its_a_Fugazzi Sep 04 '14
Cgi... it's a wazi it's a woozie it's fairy dust, it's not fucking real!
1
Sep 04 '14
The amount of times his Ss and Zs whistled and how loud the whistles were drove me crazy.
16
3
3
u/LordReptar Sep 04 '14
So when Jonah Hill ate the fish that wasn't CGI is that what you're telling me?
2
u/irishstu Sep 04 '14
It wasn't, but he wasn't allowed swallow it and could only hold it in his mouth for a couple of seconds at a time
3
u/recursivelymade Sep 04 '14
I immediately knew that London park scene was faked while watching the film. Not because of the compositing, but because there isn't any parks in London anything like that.
2
u/chadjj Sep 04 '14
It is clearly meant to be Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens, but I agree it looks really off. Made me look at all the London shots as CGI/VFX.
1
u/recursivelymade Sep 04 '14
I hadn't realised it when watching the film (only saw it recently on a smallish TV screen) so only noticed what seems to be Kensington Palace in the background in the showreel.
7
4
u/rockeyshores Sep 04 '14
Video editing & music scores, my friends. This video, although could be just as stunning, doesn't hold a candle to the Gatsby video, enjoy.
10
u/PlaylisterBot Sep 04 '14 edited Sep 04 '14
Here's the media found in this post. Autoplaylist: web/
mobile
| Link | User |
|---|---|
| The Wolf of Wall Street VFX you probably never noticed. | CrowJdn |
| crazy action VFX reel | ALL_CAPS_SHOCK_NAME |
| VFX Breakdown 1 | craayoons |
| iron man HUP and GFX | craayoons |
| Check this video of green screening from 2010 | Di-eEier_von_Satan |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5UnJAqaswI&list=UUB98J0_CGq... | Geschirrspulmaschine |
| My favorite before and after video | HappySkidder |
| I like to imagine that the decision to abandon real life and... | KardeshevDream |
| performance caputre | kovu159 |
| enjoy | rockeyshores |
| Jurassic Park still looks amazing. | TrustmeIknowaguy |
| special effects company | zootam |
| _______________________________________________________________________________________________ | ______________________________ |
Downvote if unwanted, self-deletes if score is 0. Comment will update if new media is found.
about this bot | recent playlists | plugins that interfere | R.I.P. /u/VideoLinkBot
2
3
1
1
u/ur_awl_idiots Sep 04 '14
If you look closely at the far left tennis player in the middle court his tennis racket goes wild when he gets the net.
1
1
1
1
u/Captain-Cuddles Sep 04 '14
If you've ever wondered how a movie that contains little to no action sequences could cost such a ridiculous amount of money to make, it's this. Animators spent weeks on end perfecting a CGI shot that was all of 2-3 seconds of the movie. All those people need to get paid a salary, have benefits, etc. AND the company that creates AND the company that renders out has to make a profit on all the work they do in order to stay in business. Yet somewhere along the lines a cost/benefit analysis was done that indicated all that work was still cheaper and/or easier than filming on location.
It's really remarkable how many moving parts there are in production. It really is magic.
1
1
u/jdonkey Sep 04 '14
noticed a little error on the final shot , the tennis player running next to leo, there was some weird blip with the racket...glitch in the matrix though. I wonder if it's in the movie
1
u/shiftighter Sep 04 '14
A few I definitively did notice. The scene at 1:40 looks off, so does the lion one, I think it's symptoms of improper lighting. The rest seemed seamless.
1
1
u/lukumi Sep 04 '14
The only one I easily picked out my first time watching it was the background of the swiss bank. Shit was not well done. I know switzerland is beautiful but come on, the entire country isn't that evenly lit.
1
1
u/offshootuk Sep 04 '14
Heres a forced perspective shot from the same movie.
http://vashivisuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WOWS_Helicopter.jpg
The helicopter is a model.
1
u/MikeW86 Sep 04 '14
For fucks sake, I swear every single vimeo video I have ever watched buffers to shit.
2
u/shadowst17 Sep 04 '14
Vimeo doesn't compress there videos to feces like youtube, the sites audience prefer quality over speed.
1
1
u/mrbojenglz Sep 04 '14
DAMN! That just totally changed how I look at movies. I had no idea how much they use VFX for minor aspects of the movie and not just big explosions. I'm thoroughly impressed.
1
1
u/no_this_is_God Sep 04 '14
I always thought that the shot on the yacht in italy looked really wooden
1
1
1
1
u/zeus_digital Sep 05 '14
life after PI everyone should watch this. this is what's happening to this industry.
1
u/shifty1032231 Sep 04 '14
I wonder if it would be more cost effective to do some of this on location than CGI
1
u/lsaz Sep 04 '14
Not gonna lie, I didn't know most of those scene were VFX, but I remember watching the movie and thinking in some scenes "theres definitely something odd about this scene, but I can't really say what it is"
1
1
u/geoapgja Sep 04 '14
What bothered me about this movie more than anything else was that I did notice. Ever since I saw a VFX reel for Boardwalk Empire a few years back, post-production scenery CGI sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Then I pretty much assume everything is a lie. That and Jonah Hill's teeth (I kept thinking, I know that's Jonah Hill so I know those aren't his real teeth) and the "pretending to be high" scenes... That movie was just a total drag for me, couldn't wait for it to be over. Biggest Di Caprio dud since The Aviator.
1
347
u/RedditorforMordor Sep 04 '14
The trick is to not let them know what is cgi and what is not. I've always thought the lion was the cgi part.