Buscemi wrote:Why I don't like the casting of Chris Evans in Captain America:
1. the guy can't act
2. he only seems to play the cool guy or the wannabe gangsta
3. those two things do not fit Captain America
Reportedly, Alex Ross (the famed comic book artist) tried to get Paramount and Joe Johnston to cast Jon Hamm in the lead. However, Joe Johnston (who of course fucked up another classic with The Wolfman back in February) wanted a younger actor. Isn't that why we have CGI?
LIke i just said, he can act, he showed it in Sunshine. and he didnt play 'the cool guy or wannabe gangsta' I dont think he's great but he has potential. Also using CG to make someone looking younger or older where it needs to be done or it serves the story is fine, but having a whole film of someone CGed younger is really stupid and expensive.
W wrote:I think the way "The Incredible Hulk" performed at the box office is going to keep him from being green. And, though I really liked the film, Hulk would probably just distract.
The leaked avengers script had The Hulk being the bad guy, but he was actually being brainwashed by Thor's brother Loki. Although it's not bad, i kind of hope they use a different script
Is it as dumb as making practical effects CGI? The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button had a reason for costing $175 million (to make Brad Pitt look younger and older with lots of CGI and makeup effects). Meanwhile, how the hell did a movie like Spider-Man 2 cost over $200 million? Because they had to go out and create a CGI Spider-Man in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING SHOT rather than have a stuntman in a costume playing Spider-Man in those shots. The budget could have easily been slashed in half had they not seen an incredible need for CGI when practical effects would have done the job.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
I think Brad would have needed a hell of a lot of make up to make him look 16 again in Benjamin Button, but because he was to be continually changing his age and look, CGI was a must for that kind of movie. As with Spider-Man, it's just how it is these days with action films, I doubt 90% of those web slinging effects could have been achieved with just stunts.
Using CGI over the course of an entire movie just to make an actor look younger rather than cast another actor is just plain stupid. No studio would ever do that.
And Chris Evans is just fine as an actor. He has picked bad projects over the years, but he has certainly shown in Sunshine for one that he has the potential, as well as being a pretty likeable actor, which I think is essential for the role.
oy, that was kind of the point of Benjamin Button. do you know of any 5 year olds that look 80? and spiderman swinging through the skyscrapers isnt practical, you would have to set up every swing on different skyscrapers, you would have to pay stuntmen, the time spent setting up each shot and getting it right you would probably spend almost as much money as well. plus its dangerous, there is no chance of anyone being killed in CG
Have you seen the budgets on some of these tentpole movies? Avatar cost $300 million, Pirates Of The Caribbean 3 cost $300 million, Spider-Man 3 cost $250 million, Superman Returns cost $200 million, hell even Wall-E cost $180 million. Other than delays in production (most notably Superman, Avatar and Wall-E) it's easy to determine that CGI is fucking expensive. And in everything except for Avatar (four years in production and lots of work put into the visual effects) and Wall-E (four years in production using nothing but computers), you don't really see where the budget went.
Meanwhile, there are movies like Independence Day. Budgeted at $75 million (adjusted for inflation, this is probably about $135 million), that film has a fair amount of CGI. However, the majority of the effects were practical effects and it was awesome. Compare Independence Day to a movie such as Starship Troopers one year later. Starship Troopers cost $50 million more than Independence Day due to the CGI...and that movie's CGI sucked.
In conclusion, I'm saying that studios should learn to use CGI in major or desperate situations. Don't use it for every single effect in your movie. This is why the studios are losing money.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
I don't think most studios are really losing money. It's like when a sports team cries that they're losing money, but they're the ones choosing which players at what amounts to buy. The same thing with stars salaries, CGI expenses, etc. You're not going to produce a film if similar films have given you a negative return. You're just not going to...
Anyways, they could have easily grabbed Channing Tatum for Captain America, especially after "Dear John". I think we can all agree that its better this way comparatively.
Tenet: Criterion Edition. Now with more Backwards Man.
Of course CGI costs money, I don't think any of us have suggested that a production budget of a movie is not affected by the use of CGI. However, some things need to be CGI. No way in hell would anyone have allowed some stunt guy to put on a Spidey costume and attach him to a couple of wires and swing him across half a city. For a start, logistically it is not possible. They would have to shut the city down to achieve this, then on top of that is the very real possibility (and probability) that the guy would probably die from a fall. That is just plain stupid, and will never happen in a movie. Ever. CGI has its flaws, but you cannot suggest it doesn't have a place in movies. It's costly, but essential.
But anyway, going back to the original argument, Jon Hamm is not the greatest actor in the world, and just because Ross wanted him in the movie (and since when did he even have a say) doesn't mean he should. Especially when he is approaching 40 and Cap. America is supposed to be in his early 20s. They will have to spend a lot of money on CGI for the movie do to the action scenes, I'm pretty sure they don't want to be spending any more for the sake of making an actor look younger when a younger actor could do the job equally as good.
And Starship Troopers did not cost $50m more than Independence Day, closer to $30m.
That's why I called Avatar and Wall-E the exceptions to the rule, Monkey. More exceptions include 300, Watchmen, Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (all four films were filmed entirely in front of green screens so CGI was there more for style rather than as an add-on).
And you're right Surfer, Starship Troopers did cost $105 million. I had remembered reading $125 million on another site.
Everything on this post is strictly the opinion and only the opinion of Buscemi.
