Honestly, I don’t think the suit was the problem in the 2011 Green Lantern movie, but I know it’s a popular talking point. If you were making the next GL movie, would you opt for a practical, physical suit, or do it CGI to fit in with the mold of it being made of the willpower of the wielder?
1 Like
I have a pretty strong preference for practical effects, however, I think when it comes to suits in particular, my favorite way is doing a practical suit with CGI done over top of the suit to make it a little more “comic bookish” in the flow of movement. So I’d likely opt for that lol
5 Likes
The MCU used the same idea as the GL movie and just had updated tech to do it. I think they’ve proven CGI could work well, though I agree with @Halloween0fLyra, I like practical suits to be the foundation.
2 Likes
Practical. Never understood the need to make it CGI in the first place.
4 Likes
I’m a big fan of the movie Tron: Legacy, and there they had real suits that were put on with effects.
1 Like
Gotta be practical for earth lanterns. Fine with CGI of course for aliens
1 Like
Practical effects for sure
2 Likes
Not sure why there’s a need for a CGI suit?
If you want to add some CGI effects or lighting to it at times . Ok. But CGI all the
Time just seems like they’re looking for ways to spend money
1 Like
Practical all the way
1 Like
Practical is preferred but CGI can work with the right direction. The Avengers: Endgame time suits were completely CGI and they looked great, but the worst thing about the GL suit was the direction they went in. They tried to make it really look like it was made out of energy, and completely skin-tight, resulting in the monstrosity we got. They should have just stuck with a more uniform look.
1 Like
I think WB has (probably) learned from their mistake and will go practical in the future. A CGI aura coming from the Lanterns would look cool though!
Practical. The only CGI element a human based Lantern suit might need is a Lantern emblem that eminates from the suit the way Hal’s has on occassion from 2005 forward. Otherwise, practical all the way.
I’d say practical with a bit of CGI. I want to know if they plan on going full CGI in the new HBO max series
Honestly, I don’t mind a CG suit. Like people have already said, it’s been proven by the MCU that CG suits aren’t an issue with characters like Spider-Man and Black Panther. I think the real issue with the Green Lantern movie was the lack of creative ways to use the GL’s powers. It felt like no one really had a grasp on how to handle the character, which led to failures on a lot of fronts (including the suit). To be fair though, I don’t want to blame it on the Director or CG artists because I have no clue what was going on behind the scenes.
1 Like
Practical suit, spend the cgi budget on better constructs. That the big visual area the movie failed. Cool constructs are the backbone of GL. Look at the animated series and GL Animated movies. The constructs really “sell” a GL.
2 Likes
Practical, CGi always seems kinda cheap
Correction* Bad CGI seems cheap. I can guarantee you would rather have a CG Thanos than a “practical” one. Here’s a great video that explains what makes CG “bad” and why we should be more sympathetic: https://youtu.be/inbjhcMu46g
3 Likes
Should we though? Look at the original planet of the apes. I prefer the practical effects makeup to the CGI remake. Good practical makeup made the original movie. Yes, they weren’t as photorealistic as the remake, but they were more connected performances. The relationships between the characters had a dynamic quality that you only get when actor is going up against actor and it’s all there. It creates its own reality and so becomes “photorealistic” given the realism that’s created in the moment.
That I think is the problem, the vfx team is often to disassociated from the performance. As such they don’t capture the essence of the character. Thanos was CGI, but it tried to hard to be photorealistic. His monologues were really good but scenes with other actors were lacking that spark. That certain something that suspends disbelief. So sometimes even with good CGI, it visually looks ok from an objective perspective, but it is disassociative from an emotional perspective.
Is that the “fault” of the vfx team? The director? The actors? I think the answer is “yes”.
The suit wasn’t the reason that film bombed. For me it was the pacing of the film then the final fight just didn’t have the pay off you were expecting. Movie version Paralex was just awful. As for the suit a good mix of practical and CGI would be cool.
1 Like
I disagree 100%. You can definitely get a connected performance from a CG character. Blade Runner 2099, War for the Planet of the Apes, Avengers Endgame; all of these are great films with genuine emotional performances from CG characters. 2/3 have been nominated for an Oscar for VFX. All of these performances utilized CG characters with motion capture from humans on set. But it’s not like you can just take the motion capture data and place it onto a 3D model. It takes layers of muscles, bones, fur, etc; plus tweaks to the motion.
I also disagree that Thanos was dissociated from the scenes. Characters like him and Rocket interacted with others, eye lines were maintained, and the fact that Thanos has become one of the most well known villains of cinema history proves the performance worked. If it didn’t, we’d be making fun of it like the Scorpion King. I highly encourage you to watch this video (I linked it earlier in the thread), it’ll give you a lot more appreciation for the work and incredible performances that come out of CG and VFX: https://youtu.be/inbjhcMu46g
2 Likes