comment #1

Edward says ...

My wife had no interest in seeing Zodiac, so we never got around to it. Damn, I really need to see it NOW. Thanks for posting this. I've got a lot of catching up to do: Zodiac, Jesse James, No Country, TWBB, Bourne...

comment #2

AdamJ says ...

I'm watching that feature on the DVD right now and its really quite amazing. I certainly had no idea there were this many CG shots when I first saw it in theaters.

comment #3

Geoff says ...

Yeah...no one knew that had this many, but people like to think they did.

comment #4

businesstoolz says ...

I picked up the Directors Cut yesterday and the first thing I meant to go through was the visual effects stuff. But damn, I put in the movie first just to see how good the DVD looked and I ended up watching the whole thing straight through. It's so thoroughly engaging right from the get go. It's like a great novel you can't put down. I only saw it once in theatre and haven't seen it since last night but it just may be my favorite flick this year. Probably until I see Into the Wild again on DVD!

comment #5

thebuddha says ...

Need to pick up the dvd. Fincher's dvd's are usually worth their weight in gold just for the extras, commentary and technical features.
Pretty fantastic work by Digital Domain. Impressive coming from a group of CGI and FX guys widely known as "Drunk & Disorderly"

comment #6

MilkMan says ...

Seen the movie three times. I had no idea. Unbelievable. That's how you use CGI. It was seamless in the theatre.

comment #7

OddDuck says ...

I saw the movie twice and this look into the CGI effects still has me stunned and flabbergasted.

I completely agree with whatMilkman just said - THIS is how you use CGI.

comment #8

MilkMan says ...

The problem with CGI has mainly been with whose hands have been controlling the mouse. The only other person besides Fincher I can think of that used CGI in the right way was Alex Proyas in Dark City, as the machine underneath was essentially a computer creating new worlds, so it heartens me to know that not everyone is interested in using CGI to create monsters and creatures and worlds of yore. Fincher used CGI to fill in the gaps. Perfect. And more importantly, HE DIDN'T TRY TO CALL ATTENTION TO HIMSELF. Peter Jackson and Michael Bay and George Lucas should take note. CGI is a tool, a weapon, not the entire freaking arsenal.

comment #9

frankbooth says ...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, Jeffrey actually posted this here on HE first, some months ago.

Several commenters have asked (on a previous thread) why Fincher used CGI for stuff that could have been filmed on location. Maybe the neighborhood doesn't exist as it did when the events took place, but it's not as if anyone is gonna say "hey, that London Plane tree wasn't there on that corner of Presidio Heights (not Nob Hill) in 1969!"

I'm assuming he did it for the same reason Hitchcock so often filmed in the studio: control. Let's say you get a location permit, get the area roped-off, set up your cop cars and extras and cameras and lights. It's now 2 or 3 am. How many takes does that give you before the sky begins to visibly change?

Maybe someone who has the DVD can tell us if DF addresses this in the commentary.

comment #10

MickTravis says ...

Yes, in the commentary Vanderbilt mentions that, when shooting the evening scenes around Presidio Heights, they only had until 10 p.m. and then they had to be out of there. The CGI gave them more freedom and also I just think it looks cooler.

Speaking of commentaries, I'm irked that they crammed the actors (Downey & Gyllenhaal in one separate recording session) onto the same track at the writer, the producer and James Ellroy.

But maybe I'm just picky.

comment #11

frankbooth says ...

Thanks, Mick.

comment #12

Bocephus says ...

"The only other person besides Fincher I can think of that used CGI in the right way was Alex Proyas in Dark City."

Good to see some love for Dark City. It's still one of my all-time favorite sci-fi movies.

I thought the use of CGI in A Very Long Engagement tapped into the same sort of brilliance. CGI is a terrific setting-enhancing tool. (set-enhancing, not setting-building; 300, the Star Wars prequels, Sin City, and Sky Captain took the concept too far)

comment #13

MilkMan says ...

Bocephus, Dark City kicks The Matrix ass. Best Sci-Fi since Blade Runner. The Matrix had a nice hook, but Dark City is fucking DEEP.

comment #14

businesstoolz says ...

I think it also helps when the CG is meant only to enhance. Especially when its used to build inanimate objects like a car or an apartment building in Zodiac. It starts looking ridiculous when you have 300 butt naked men storming a beach against a cyclopse riding on top of some imaginary beast.

comment #15

christian says ...

Spielberg's use of CG in AI is perfect, seamless and stunning.

comment #16

Bocephus says ...

I agree, I instantly wrote off The Matrix as a lame Dark City ripoff with a little kung fu mixed in after my first viewing. I was so surprised when it became such a huge hit.

The set design in Dark City was incredible. The way the architecture blended styles from so many different places and time periods.

I should really own it. I was waiting for a better version to be released on DVD when the robot movie came out, but it never happened.

comment #17

Craig Kennedy says ...

MilkMan is exactly right about CGI. It's a means to an end and the less obvious it is, the better.

Also, Paramount can blow me with this Director's Cut until they cave in to BluRay. Cocksuckers.

comment #18

sarkmbt says ...

Her face was covered with wrinkles, her
hair was nearly white, and she walked rather stiffly.
When these people drew near the house where Dorothy was
standing in the doorway,
-----------------

Nike shoes
MBT
supra footwear
famous footwear
shoe dept

comment #19

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review