All you film guys... isn't this similar to a MILO?

The best part is that if his actors/stuntmen get out of line, he can whack them with the giant robot arm.

Mugato: Tsar_Bomba1: All you film guys... isn't this similar to a MILO?

They're both motion control rigs. i don't know enough about this thing, I think they're saying it has more range of motion.

It's been a looooong time since I saw the MILO demo - but I don't remember it using a dolly track. Had one in our studio for a while for training purposes.

I realize its popular on Fark, and in movie snob circles to hate on Keanu, but credit where credit is due...this is a pretty cool bit of tech. I, for one, will be looking forward to seeing its potential fulfilled.

Anyone else seen Kwoon movie(s)? The website is gone, but the kung fu was awesome.

/bad acting, good kung fu

RandomAxe:
This new camera is more similar to the motion-control camera.



Because it IS a motion control camera, as Reeves said near the beginning of the video.

The company that makes the camera is called Bot & Dolly (the article is wrong about the camera being called Bot and Dolly). They make different sizes of cameras. Here's their camera called Iris and it was used in a movie called Gravity (it looks similar to the one Reeves is using):

Bot and Dolly

Not sure why people are hating on this. It actually looks pretty damned nifty.

wraith95: And in some instances it doesn't look good at all. I think the brain is much less forgiving of CGI when used for common things. The CGI snake in True Grit totally destroyed my immersion in the film. Monsters, aliens, and starships? Ok. Real animals, normal landscapes, household items? Not so much.

If someone other than Henson made Labyrinth today can you imagine all the CGI? CGI Ludo, CGI Hoggle, CGI Swamp of Eternal Stench, CGI maze worm (oh I love him), CGI oubliette hands... It would be awful. The real physical presence of those characters is part of what's so endearing about them. You can tell you can actually hug Ludo.

Animatronics and puppetry have their limits, of course, but I wish more film makers would go back to the 'basics', especially as many of them simply don't have the budget to make something that's full CGI look really good. At least Weta Workshops is putting in a good showing.

/Would like someone to do a little CGI touching up of Labyrinth, though
//Not full on Lucas, but just here and there fix some bad effects
///Like the Dance Magic Dance scene

if_i_really_have_to: ///Like the Dance Magic Dance scene

Whoops, meant Chilly Down. With the bad blue screen Fireys.

The Matrix is the greatest movie ever

man metaphysical: The Matrix is the greatest movie ever

Yeah. It's a real pity they never made sequels.

Keanu, we make fun of you a lot, but in all seriousness: respect.

HMS_Blinkin: GreenAdder: I can dig it. I wonder if anti-CGI will be the new anti-Autotune.

I'm starting to think that will be the case. Lord knows Lucas showed everyone (in GRAND style) how bad the results can be when you vastly over-use CGI. It also seems like more and more movies are going back to miniatures for their realism, and only using CGI as a supplement.

If you want proof of which technique is better, go re-watch the LOTR series and then watch the Star Wars prequels. They were both produced & released at about the same times, but SW used CGI almost exclusively, while LOTR used a wider variety of special effects methods. LOTR still looks good today, despite being almost 10 years old, while the SW prequels look fake, despite using the best CGI available for their day.

My point is, CGI only looks good until CGI tech advances and improves. Miniatures and camera tricks can maintain their feeling of authenticity for a lot longer.

There was tons of CGI in LotR. It was just better executed than the cartoony shiat in SWEET.

Not SWEET, SW, stupid auto-correct.

Motion control cameras like this are nothing new. Actually they make make my work as a VFX artist a lot easier. We have virtual camera rigs in our 3d programs that are built exactly like the real ones. The motion of every component and joint on the rig and the camera is recorded. That data is loaded onto the virtual camera rig and you have a perfectly matched camera ready to help you add CG effects to the shot.

The fact is that there's a lot more CGI f/x in movies and TV than you realize because a lot of it is somewhat mundane or added to improve production value without having to blow up the budget on the shoot. Sometimes it's right up in your face and you would never know unless you're familiar enough with what's possible to shoot and what has to be manipulated. Occasionally even I am fooled after having been doing this kind of thing for 20 years. Which is great because I've become so jaded it's a thrill to be fooled once in a while.

Check out work by "The Mill" they're work is awesome.

HMS_Blinkin: GreenAdder: I can dig it. I wonder if anti-CGI will be the new anti-Autotune.

I'm starting to think that will be the case. Lord knows Lucas showed everyone (in GRAND style) how bad the results can be when you vastly over-use CGI. It also seems like more and more movies are going back to miniatures for their realism, and only using CGI as a supplement.

You couldn't be more wrong. More and more films use CG enhancements and objects than ever before. Even rom-coms.

If you want proof of which technique is better, go re-watch the LOTR series and then watch the Star Wars prequels. They were both produced & released at about the same times, but SW used CGI almost exclusively, while LOTR used a wider variety of special effects methods. LOTR still looks good today, despite being almost 10 years old, while the SW prequels look fake, despite using the best CGI available for their day.

Again, wrong. The prequels used more models than the original trilogy did, as well as matte paintings and everything the LOTR did. LOTR hasn't aged well at all, a lot of CG stuff there looks CG. You think the SW prequels look fake because there's no real-world reference. What does a tropical planet with neon blue leaves look like in reality?

My point is, CGI only looks good until CGI tech advances and improves. Miniatures and camera tricks can maintain their feeling of authenticity for a lot longer.

If you had a clue as to how much CG is out there you'd never make this statement.

wraith95: And in some instances it doesn't look good at all. I think the brain is much less forgiving of CGI when used for common things. The CGI snake in True Grit totally destroyed my immersion in the film. Monsters, aliens, and starships? Ok. Real animals, normal landscapes, household items? Not so much.

There are real-world items, landscapes, etc. in TV and film that are completely CG, you just don't know it.

It's also hilarious when people complain about "fake" CG and it's actually a puppet or miniature. The placebo effect goes a long way for a lot of people eager to blame the tools.

Throw a couple of those bad boys on some trucks and film a car chase.

Also, I'm sure Keanu learned a few things when he was filming The Matrix and its sequels.

Mugato: mattador: Also, I'm sure Keanu learned a few things when he was filming The Matrix and its sequels.

Actually the highway chase/fight scene in Reloaded is really impressive. Consider it an excellent 15 minute VFX reel if you want to ignore the rest of the sequels.

Oh, I agree. Those albino rastafarians are awesome. But it's Fark, where the sequels don't exist. And I mostly meant he worked with the chinese karate guy that choreographed all the fights. He should know how to make a decent martial arts movie.

Mugato: mattador: Also, I'm sure Keanu learned a few things when he was filming The Matrix and its sequels.

Actually the highway chase/fight scene in Reloaded is really impressive. Consider it an excellent 15 minute VFX reel if you want to ignore the rest of the sequels.

Not to mention a lot of the cars are CG. Do people actually think they could swing the camera through traffic (and through the vehicles themselves)???

Mr. Reeves, welcome back. We... missed you.

Putting a camera on a robot arm is a "revolutionary" idea?

That explains a lot actually.

HMS_Blinkin: GreenAdder: I can dig it. I wonder if anti-CGI will be the new anti-Autotune.

I'm starting to think that will be the case. Lord knows Lucas showed everyone (in GRAND style) how bad the results can be when you vastly over-use CGI. It also seems like more and more movies are going back to miniatures for their realism, and only using CGI as a supplement.

If you want proof of which technique is better, go re-watch the LOTR series and then watch the Star Wars prequels. They were both produced & released at about the same times, but SW used CGI almost exclusively, while LOTR used a wider variety of special effects methods. LOTR still looks good today, despite being almost 10 years old, while the SW prequels look fake, despite using the best CGI available for their day.

My point is, CGI only looks good until CGI tech advances and improves. Miniatures and camera tricks can maintain their feeling of authenticity for a lot longer.

You're comparing star wars to LOTR? the CGI of the time was in its very early proof-of-concept stages with computing systems which were not quite up to the task.. whereas effects used in LOTR were developed and improved over decades of film production..

Apos: JasonOfOrillia: That short clip of him speaking made him seem less wooden than most of his movie roles.

Quite true. I've mentioned this in previous KR threads,but The Gift is the ONLY flick where he actually acted-and did so very well....As if his life depended on it(which just might have been the case,for all I know).


As you can tell,the shock STILL hasn't worn off.

Dude, I know what you mean. He stunned me in that role too. Maybe he should play more scumbags.

Personally, though, I never had a problem with the man's acting. Yeah, he's 'wooden', but I know plenty of people who are wooden *in real life*. Not everyone in the world over-emotes through giant facial contortions, vocal warbling, and arm-waving. Like John Wayne or Dolph Lundgren, the key is putting him in the right roles. Will Smith was originally approached to star as Neo in The Matrix. By all accounts, Will Smith is the greater actor, but I assert that The Matrix is roughly 10 times better with Keanu in the role than just about anyone else I can think of.

Speaking of which, it's also a reason why he's the perfect guy for a project like this one - he and the other Matrix actors underwent some pretty intensive martial arts training for months preceding those films, and 90% of the stunts and fight scenes were performed by him personally. That doesn't sound that impressive at first - can't anybody be trained to throw punches in a sequence? - but as with most martial arts movies, the proof is in the legwork. Anyone can throw a punch, but proper legwork - much less, impressive legwork - takes balance and athleticism. Most people can't perform a front kick above their waistline without nearly falling over, but Keanu pulled off some pretty serious shiat that anybody with martial arts experience will recognize as impressive, especially for a guy pushing 40 (at the time) with no prior experience.

He's undergone the tedious process of staging Hong Kong flick style fight scenes AND been through the incorporation of an experimental new type of filming (bullet time). He's also a very thoughtful dude, if you've listened to the stuff he says in interviews and take an eye to his lifestyle. The fact that he has experience as actor, director, and stuntman in exactly this type of film make him better cut out for it than almost anyone else in hollywood, I'd say.

Why is keanu trying to imitate dave grohl?

I'm glad they're doing this, for science