Just seen the new Rambo film

rayer · 21 Feb 2008 at 23:31

For gods sake dont have anything to eat before this film, but I really enjoyed it

Back to the god old action, blood and guts with no CGI special effects.

Azza · 22 Feb 2008 at 12:23

Im eating hob nobs while im watching it.

tntcoder · 22 Feb 2008 at 12:52

Going to see it tomorrow, cant wait

Fett · 22 Feb 2008 at 12:55

rayer said:
Back to the god old action, blood and guts with no CGI special effects.

Did we watch the same film? No CGI? :confused:

There's tons of it, some good, some a bit shoddy.

The_morrell · 22 Feb 2008 at 13:22

this is my film for the weekend can't wait

rayer · 22 Feb 2008 at 14:46

Where was the CGI ?? It was old fashioned exploding melons filled with red paint on peoples shoulders

Really good film though, but some scenes, especially the village attack was quite disturbing. They do all these things to the women and children, but were careful with the american girl ???

As for the guy who made eye contact and the pigs :eek:

rayer · 22 Feb 2008 at 14:47

There were talks of another film, as the ending left this option open. It would be a full circle then.

BloomerzUK · 22 Feb 2008 at 14:53

rayer said:
Where was the CGI ??..

So there was no CGI in the Claymore/WWII Bomb explosion?

rayer · 22 Feb 2008 at 14:55

Sorry yes you are right for that scene.

Tombo · 22 Feb 2008 at 14:59

rayer said:
There were talks of another film, as the ending left this option open. It would be a full circle then.

Stallone said no.

yaboy · 22 Feb 2008 at 15:00

Azza said:
Im eating hob nobs while im watching it.

u take hob nobs to the cinema? :S

WotDa · 22 Feb 2008 at 15:00

BloomerzUK said:
So there was no CGI in the Claymore/WWII Bomb explosion?

"We couldn't afford CGI, the snake was a snake and the bomb was a bomb."

yaboy · 22 Feb 2008 at 15:13

lol a big movie couldnt afford cgi?
could it really cost much for a little scene?

WotDa · 22 Feb 2008 at 15:20

Depends what you really want to class 'big' as, but I can't find any solid budget figures, just an estimated $50m.

Either way, I suspect a bomb could actually be cheaper than a 'little' scene.

The bomb a the end of the lobby scene in The Matrix was a downsized set and a real explosion.

Cob · 22 Feb 2008 at 15:41

Tombo said:
Stallone said no.

He said he would like to make another on Jonathon Ross last w-end.

rayer · 22 Feb 2008 at 15:47

He will prob meet his father and it will be Arnie

nutcase · 22 Feb 2008 at 16:25

yaboy said:
lol a big movie couldnt afford cgi?
could it really cost much for a little scene?

You say that as though you think cgi is a GOOD thing? :confused:

yaboy · 22 Feb 2008 at 16:27

Well in a way :| Because it would look 10x better in some cases than what you wouldnt do without CGI

Fett · 22 Feb 2008 at 16:29

rayer said:
Where was the CGI ?? It was old fashioned exploding melons filled with red paint on peoples shoulders

**************SPOILERS AHEAD***********************

Apart from the fact Stallone has said in interviews they had to use CGI to show what a .50 round does, here's a bit more from a thread in another forum, not sure I can link to it but it's not hard to find.

I was the visual effects producer for Rambo. I have been working on this movie since February of last year.

Some stats: The "there was no cgi in this movie" crowd is dreaming. There are 604 vfx shots in the movie. Approximately 2 thirds of them are blood or explosion enhancement. The shots were completed in 12 weeks of intensive work from September through December.

The vfx company is Worldwide FX, my company. We are a subsidiary of Nu Image/Millennium films.

Were there any particular sequences you are particulary proud of?

Two. The throat rip. Those shots were HARD. The blood coming between his fingers is entirely digital.

The other is the boat sequence. The one I pointed to in a post for the movie's thread in CD. While we were working on the movie I wasn't never able to ever make something that was too much for Sly. He always kept asking for more, MORE! When we were doing the shot of adding a bullet hole to the boat captain, as a joke I told my people, "make a tunnel through the guy. I want to see the control panel." I sent it to Sly, expecting to be told to tone it down. Instead Sly said, "Needs more blood". That's one detail out of the sequence, I'm really proud of the whole thing. None of the damage to the boat was real. None of the explosions on the boat were real except for the final one.

...but I will say that this IS CGI. CGI is "computer generated imagery". The blood was generated, the explosions were generated, the smoke was generated, the fire was generated.

...The guy who got his legs blown off was a digital leg removal. There was a LOT of stunt work. So we didn't have to do that many complete person replacements. Even the guys we replaced, we only tried to replace as little as possible of them. For example, when the guys were shot in half at the beginning of the last scene, we mostly used 2d body shifting with 3d blood added.

How much enhancement was needed on Stallone's kill of the Burmanese general?

That was entirely us. Nothing was shot gore wise. It was Stallone's idea to make the guy roll down the hill as two separate halves.

riddlermarc · 22 Feb 2008 at 16:31

nutcase_1uk said:
You say that as though you think cgi is a GOOD thing?

Quoted

I just sat and watched First Blood I'd recorded last Monday - apart from the fact it was an ITV presentation and hence minimal swearing/violence it was SUCH an enjoyable film - no CGI, unnecessary love interest, no stupid hook lines etc.. a proper film and the first film for ages I was totally engrossed in.

Part II is on next Monday, looking forward to watching that again