CB2001
Master Member
I think it was intentionally vague.
Top Gun: Maverick
- Thread starter Mr Webber
- Start date
Top Gun art director assets
52 pages of concept art, etc.:
https://assets.adg.org/media/submis...VERICK_ADG_DESIGN_PRESENTATION_221107_v1d.pdf
I finally saw this last week and was very pleasantly surprised. I didn't have a lot of expectations for this since most sequels are crap and something done 30 some odd years later would be even worse. I was also worried that much of the flying sequences would be CGI but again was surprised that most of them were live action.
Riceball
Master Member
A lot of the flying scenes were actually partially CG. They shot real planes actually flying, but in some scenes, Maverick's F-18 was actually a 2 seat model and they made it a single seater in post.
They also fabbed all the F-14 flying scenes. They didn't have access to a real flyable one, only a grounded display model.
IIRC they did the scenes with an F-18 and then overlaid an F-14 image onto it with CGI. They did that with the Darkstar spy plane at the beginning too. That way the CGI planes still move with decent physics.
The movie is one of these cases like 'Mad Max Fury Road' where it's actually covered in tons of CGI but they used it effectively. They modified a lot of real stunt footage rather than trying to create it all from scratch. And there was lots of pure CGI too, but it was done well.
I wonder how much the long delays in the movie's release helped. It's such a big problem with modern tentpole movies where they bang it out so fast and every shot is down to the wire. If I was Tom Cruise and my big movie was being delayed for a year, I would tell the producers to let the CGI crews bill us for a zillion extra labor hours and get it all perfected.
IIRC they did the scenes with an F-18 and then overlaid an F-14 image onto it with CGI. They did that with the Darkstar spy plane at the beginning too. That way the CGI planes still move with decent physics.
The movie is one of these cases like 'Mad Max Fury Road' where it's actually covered in tons of CGI but they used it effectively. They modified a lot of real stunt footage rather than trying to create it all from scratch. And there was lots of pure CGI too, but it was done well.
I wonder how much the long delays in the movie's release helped. It's such a big problem with modern tentpole movies where they bang it out so fast and every shot is down to the wire. If I was Tom Cruise and my big movie was being delayed for a year, I would tell the producers to let the CGI crews bill us for a zillion extra labor hours and get it all perfected.
sbaxter
Sr Member
Agree with most of the other comments here -- I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I liked it significantly more more than the original, which I have seen once (many years back, even though I own it unopened on Blu-ray). The original did give us "Take My Breath Away," which, to this day, is on my bedroom playlist for myself and my wife, so there's that.
One thing -- I don't think I would have ever recognized Jennifer Connelly in it. She's appealing in the film, but I'll never be able to shake how jaw-dropping she was in The Rocketeer.
SSB
One thing -- I don't think I would have ever recognized Jennifer Connelly in it. She's appealing in the film, but I'll never be able to shake how jaw-dropping she was in The Rocketeer.
SSB
Fun vfx sizzle reel at 3:51:
Cephus
Master Member
Everything is full of CGI these days. It's where you don't realize it that it's at its best. That's really the problem most of the time, most CGI is so absurdly flashy that it detracts from the actual movie.
Riceball
Master Member
I think that the problem isn't so much bad or too much CG as much as people are looking for it and being extra critical of it. People are looking for and criticizing CG in ways that nobody seems to do with older analog effects. There are no complaints about dodgy matte work in the original Star Wars, obvious matte paintings, or some of the absolutely horrible compositing in The Last Crusade. Things that if they were done nowadays, would be ripped apart for bad CG yet get a pass when done using old optical printers and the like.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
My problem with it is the uncritical way that it's used. Physical effects have inherent limitations. You can only push things so far before you can't do any more. CGI can do anything, no matter how bizarre or ridiculous. Plenty of filmmakers are doing things that take you right out of the movie because they are so stupid looking, even if well executed, that your head explodes. It becomes so physically impossible that you're no longer watching a live-action movie, you're watching a cartoon. Just because you can, that doesn't mean you should. Effects should be invisible and aid in the storytelling, not the focus of the movie and get in the way.
Weak computer effects are more objectionable than weak optical & practical effects.
I don't think it's entirely nostalgia/bias either. I think certain CGI-specific problems just come across as more annoying than the drawbacks with the older methods. The physics problems, inadequate resolution of the computer imagery, etc.
In another generation or two, I think people will look back and say that *ALL* the CGI work from our time was being done at too low of a resolution. If the rest of the movie was live-action filmed at 720 res (hypothetical figures) then the CGI work needed to be rendered at 1080 or more just blend in evenly with it. Etc.
I don't think it's entirely nostalgia/bias either. I think certain CGI-specific problems just come across as more annoying than the drawbacks with the older methods. The physics problems, inadequate resolution of the computer imagery, etc.
In another generation or two, I think people will look back and say that *ALL* the CGI work from our time was being done at too low of a resolution. If the rest of the movie was live-action filmed at 720 res (hypothetical figures) then the CGI work needed to be rendered at 1080 or more just blend in evenly with it. Etc.
Last edited:
p51
Sr Member
Sadly, not very well because I could spot two really obvious scenes where you could see the clear silhouette of a long canopy for a 2-seater.
Riceball
Master Member
I don't thnk that's the case, I think that, as with old optical effects, a matter of time and budget. You don't have much time or budget for effects work, you're going to wind up with subpar effects regardless of the techniques used. Good effects require both time and money to do right and, in retrospect, it's amazing what ILM and Lucas were able to do with so little time and money.
It's not really worth starting a thread for so I'm putting it here. The complete score to Top Gun is finally being officially released.
Similar threads
