Sky Captain and the Films of Tomorrow

professorfalcon writes "Foxnews.com has an interview with the stars of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. They talk about their experience hugging a green screen for the entire film, and how the movie is 'unlike anything most audiences have seen before. It uses no sets, only computer generated imagery.' So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?"

Comments

Poll Troll Toll

[PollTroll]

What's better...

Sky Captain
Star Wars
Sex with a wookie
Sex with a mare

Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[bwd234]

In fact Gwyneth Paltrow was interviewed on TV and the host asked about the green screen and she corrected him.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[XiChimos]

Wouldn't a blue screen make it harder for the actors to show any emotion beyond sheer anger?

They are Windows users, aren't they?

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[iamdrscience]

Actually, I saw that as well, but it was the other way around. The interviewer said they filmed it on a blue screen and she corrected him saying that they were on a green screen. Although the technology began with blue screens, green screens are far more prevalent today.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[Planesdragon]

What show did you watch?

The Daily Show had the host asking if it was a green screen, and the actress corrected with blue.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[iamdrscience]

Well, whatever color the screen is can't be used in the scene and blue is quite common for clothing, whereas green is much less common, especially the very bright green used for green screens.

There are tons of stories about people with conflicting wardrobes and green screens. My favorite is of a weather lady with heavy blue eyeshadow -- when she blinked you could see rought through her eyes.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[britneys 9th husband]

Although the technology began with blue screens, green screens are far more prevalent today.

I guess Hollywood is finally ditching their Windows 98 installations and replacing them with old school monochrome monitors.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[bigbigbison]

Yes, it was blue. An on "set" picture shows them in front of the blue screen.

Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen?

[Waffle Iron]

Most chromakey technology these days uses a truly hideous green that's less likely to conflict with clothing or props.

The whole thing would be simpler if you could just buy paint that has a zero alpha component.

Sky Caps does not look 'real'

[Anonymous Coward]

as far as sci-fi flics go. The backgrounds seem blurry and a bit off-sync with the characters. It's a good start - maybe in 5 years they'll get this blue-screen technology right - and maybe one day they will not need actors either.

Re:Sky Caps does not look 'real'

[bd32322]

Part of the reason for making it slightly blurry is probably to fit in the actors/actresses seamlessly into the background (no sharp edges etc.), but part of it could also be deliberate .. (gives you the feeling that you are watching a comic book in motion ).

After all you only need to blur the edge of the actors and not the whole scene. Per haps somebody knowledgable i graphics could comment.

As for being out of sync -> the worst case I saw was when Gyneth was running along side the robots in the streets of NY. Otherwise they were pretty much in sync (as far as I could detect). For example, people interacting with objects in a room.

Another strange thing was the movie never showed the people getting in and out of the vehicles, to save some graphics work.

Re:Sky Caps does not look 'real'

[Simonetta]

... - and maybe one day they will not need actors either.

Actors are the cheapest part of making a movie. It the stars that are super-expensive.

Now if the studio can 'persuade' unknown actors with great potential to sell their facial expressions and movements, human characters can be inserted into movies like hordes of digitized extras. At some savings to the studio.

Even then the cost of promotion and advertising of a new film is often approaching and sometimes even surpassing the cost of making the film itself.

Hollywood films, despite all the emotion and news coverage that they induce, are not very profitable. Individual films can be, but on the whole, film studios just barely break even on box office receipts over the entire year's worth of releases. Profit from a film comes over time through the ancilliary markets, such as TV, hotels, airlines, theme parks, and video/DVD rentals.

Variety magazine is a good place to get an overview of the film business. However, they're so specialized towards industry detail and consumate boosters that one has to read between the lines with them.

Basically, the film industry is peaking after years of annual double-digit box-office growth in the past 15 years. The audience numbers (# of butts in seats) are flat for two years now, they're no longer growing. Box office receipts rise directly according to admission price increases, but these gross receipts are eaten up by greatly rising costs in film production and advertising. Audiences over 28 years old have fallen greatly, and under-25s are being siphoned off by video games.

The film industry is on the verge of a crisis not unlike those of the early 1950s and early 1970s. But they are the most creative industry in the world, and they always bounce back.

Horray for Hollywood!

Re:Sky Caps does not look 'real'

[thrash242]

Exactly right. It thought it achieved its goal very well. It's definately a genre tribute, not an all-things-to-all-people film. I found that the CG fit so well with everything, that I didn't think about it. Yes, it's blurry and dark and monochromatic, along with the characters. But it makes it look very Noir-ish, and that's the point. It accomplished the feel that its creators were going for *very* well, IMHO. If you don't like that style--and it's *very* stylized--then you probably won't like the movie, so if you see it, don't complain when it's not The Matrix or Star Wars or whatever. If you really like the 30s and 40s style of comics and movies (like me), then by all mean, go see it. I don't watch teen comedies or romance movies for this very reason--I don't like that sort of movie, and even if it was a good example of its genre, I still wouldn't appreciate it.

Indiana Jones is another example of movies with the same 30s pulp inspiration, although it's not nearly as stylized as Sky Captain, and is more accessible to more people. It still has the somewhat cheesy unbelievable parts, though.

No offense, but I hate it when people who obviously don't "get" or like what is the creators of something are trying to do complain when it's not like every other movie/game/etc out there. Example: complaining that Doom3 is too dark and that you can't use a flashlight and a weapon. Or someone who hates classical music reviewing a classical record and saying it sucks.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on anything, but in order to express a "useful" opinion, such as a review, one needs to adopt, at least temporarily, the expectations of a fan of the genre. I don't go to a Schwarzenegger film expecting Oscar-worthy plot or acting, but an hour or two of mindless entertainment. I went to see Sky Captain expecting a tribute to the 30s/40s film and comic style, with its pros and cons, and that's exactly what I saw. I give it four out of five stars.

SW Prequels - how about...

[JoshNorton]

Tron only used sets for about ... what 30 minutes, maybe, of a 90 minute movie? Heavy use of blue-screened backdrops isn't THAT new...

Star Wars AOTC went even further in fact

[Anonymous Coward]

It used no actors, only computer generated whiny melodrama

suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

If the special effects make you woozy, take some Milk of Magnesia.

Re:suggestion

[orthogonal]

If the special effects make you woozy, take some Milk of Magnesia.

I saw the movie; now I want Milk of Amnesia.

That's ninety minutes I'd prefer to forget.

Hardly a first

[Jay Maynard]

All of the scenes in TRON inside the computer were shot on a bare black set with the computer imagery filled in later. This was done in 1982. The actors talk about how hard that was in the making-of video in the collector's edition box set.

So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

[echeslack]

So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

Star wars is very different. Sure, a lot of the stuff is CG or green-screened, but a lot of the stuff is done on sets with more than just a few props.

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

[DreadPiratePizz]

Star Wars did a much better job of keying in my opinion. Quite often the edges of the actors in Sky Captain looked pretty fake.

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

[Scrameustache]

Sure, a lot of the stuff is CG or green-screened, but a lot of the stuff is done on sets with more than just a few props.

And my understanding is that most of the movie was done before they started shooting with the actors of Skycaptain, so they could show them ahead of filming what it was that they were supposed to pretend was there.

Whereas in Star Wars, Lucas is in love with his new found ability to change stuff at the last minute and not let any of this second-opinion peer-review stuff get in the way of his "vision" getting heaped in a big pile of pixels.

At least, that's the impression I got from the interviews of the stars of both flicks.

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

[Scrameustache]

I guess this started with Return of the Jedi, when, in order to keep the story ending secret to the last minute, he shot the actors doing really ambiguous stuff, to insure they could not figure it out.

I've turned very cynical about Lucas, I'm thinking he probably was shooting stuff until he figured it out ;-)

Reminds me of Psycho though, all the actors had to sign strict NDAs so the secret punch wouldn't get out before the movie was released. Of course, society has done a very thourough job of spoiling that for the rest of eternity now, so the wisdom of the NDA about the shower scene was in retrospect quite undenyable.

Off-topicish rant: Planet of the apes, they released a version where the punch is ON THE FREAKING COVER. Jeez...

Re:So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

[mabhatter654]

There's a huge difference in how the movies were made even though the technology is similar. For starts, Skycaptain had a whole short movie already made...it was no secret what the movie was about and the director encouraged the actors to "go with it" [note that's how SW ended up such a hit as well] The director of skycaptain put his actors in a "black box" and let them work the drama out.

Lucas on the other hand wants "cartoons" with people. In many ways Skycaptain hit Lucas' goals for SW better than Lucas did! Lucas real problem is that he's trying to cut actor's personalities entirely out of the movie process...that makes for flat, sucky films because there's no "ensamble" energy that happens when the cast "gets" what their supposed to do. Also, sometimes the cast sees things that don't work..or personalities make the end result better...again, lucas cuts all that out with his "secret" scripts and digital "horseplay" in the editing room.

It is NOT the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actors hate it because they have no set to act in.

Audiences hate it because they're made so conscious of the forgery they're watching.

This sort of thing is a nice little novelty, but in time it'll be no more than a niche product.

Re:It is NOT the future.

[WindBourne]

Considering that we have been accepting of CG for so long, I think that Consumers will be happy to accept it.

Also, Movie making is horribly expensive of which Movie sets account for a good chunk of that. I suspect though that we will see a CG actor in about 3 years, where the public will not know it is CG. And I say Thank God. I am tired of the idiots that run around inisiting on huge checks, yet act like total babies.

Re:It is NOT the future.

[dbolger]

True, but the problem is, precident has already been set regarding huge prices for films - prices that translate to the box office.

If a film would have cost 10 million with sets and actors, and will only cost 5 million without (assuming kick ass, relatively cheap CG), do you really think the film industry going to pass 5 million to the consumer? The films will be cheaper to make, but this wont have any effect on us, the end consumers.

A film that costs 500 million to make, and a film that was made on the cheap for 50,000 cost the exact same to go see.

Re:It is NOT the future.

[wisebabo]

actually at a special presentation which I was fortunate enough to attend, Gweneth Paltrow and Jude Law said that the lack of sets "freed" them in their acting. The fact that they had an animatic of the entire film that they used as reference before every take allowed them to "hit their marks" more easily and allowed them to be more creative in their acting. It was like theater acting on a bare set.

As far as the audience reaction, this film was deliberately made in a stylized form. In fact they processed it in black and white and recolorized it to give an old movie feel! (They also didn't use the state of the art capture technology, just plain old Sony HD-CAM 1440x960, 3:1:1, 8bit). It is clear from many other recent motion pictures that they could have made it appear as realistic as they wanted but chose not to.

The main reason why it IS the future is because it is thought that it cost about 1/3 what it would have been if they had shot it on "real" sets! Hate to say it but saving more than $80 million dollars (estimated cost of the film $40M-$70M) would drive any producer to making his film this way, regardless of actor preference or (most) audience reactions.

Re:It is NOT the future.

[tukkayoot]

People are only accepting of CG when it's used effectively. Bad CG work, like bad acting, sticks out like a sore thumb and does meet with disapproval from critics and fans.

Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors.

The geeks, voices actors, artists and digital puppeteers will be the new "movie stars" with huge paychecks, only without all the glamour. Though maybe this in some ways is better than an average actress with nice T&A getting paid millions, I sincerely doubt it's really going to shake the movie industry to its foundations or anything. I don't really care if celebrities act like babies, I don't have to deal with their day to day attitude... I just have to be able to watch and enjoy their performances.

Besides, I don't think human audiences will ever totally connect with an actor that isn't real. Many movies' success are greatly influenced by how recognizable the stars are. If you're a fan of a particular actor, you're probably more likely to go out and see their movies, right? Will people have this same sense of attachment and "loyalty" to CG characters, even if the same characters are used throughout different movies? I kind of doubt it.

Also, I think your 3 year estimate is a little optimistic. The most lauded, advanced CG character in a live action movie ever created, Smeagol, was still quite recognizably a CG character in many scenes, and Smeagol had many aspects of a "creature" to him, something unrecognizable that our minds can't as easily recognize as "fake" because we don't have anything to compare it to. Unobstructed, unmasked, convincing human CG characters are going to be many, many times more difficult to create than gollum was.

Plus, the Lord of the Rings trilogy were some of the most successful movies ever to heavily use CG, but just as much energy seems to have been put into finding good locations, creating elaborate and convincing physical sets, and finding the right flesh-and-blood actors.

CG is increasingly going to become a more important element of movie-making, and it may trim down costs here and there, but I think it's going to be a long time (decades, at least, probably) before we see another dramatic shift in the way CG changes movie-making. But then, I'm not in the business and I'm not really a great visionary. It would be cool to be proven wrong, but there's always the possibility that the heavy use of CG and digital effects will just create a whole new host of problems and flaws to deal with.

Re:It is NOT the future.

[Master of Transhuman]

"Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors."

You're forgetting technological improvement. And it won't take "decades" (well, maybe one or two.) The computer hardware and software available by another ten or twenty years will be so good any director will be able to order up any kind of character he wants, AND tweak scenes as he likes, AND generate voiceovers with any emotional content he wants.

Of course, this will result in a lot of bad movies as bad directors ignore the interplay of real actors for their own obsessive interpretation of the movie (see: Lucas, George).

However, good directors will be able to produce great movies exactly as they want them for less money.

Net effect will be like the introduction of word processing on computers: some great documents, and a lot of over-fonted crap.

Re:It is NOT the future.

[MtViewGuy]

Plus, the Lord of the Rings trilogy were some of the most successful movies ever to heavily use CG, but just as much energy seems to have been put into finding good locations, creating elaborate and convincing physical sets, and finding the right flesh-and-blood actors.

The reason why The Lord of the Rings movies are so well-liked was the fact they used as many natural locations as possible to provide a background to "layer" in the CGI effects. A good example is the from The Fellowship of the Ring when they were travelling down the Anduin River; much of the background is CGI, but that was in addition to scenes filmed at various locations in New Zealand itself.

Star Wars?

[Tim C]

You're telling me that Star Wars used only computer-generated sets? That there were no physical sets involved at all?

Offtopic I know, but I'm really starting to wish that article submitters could save the commentary for comments...

Re:Star Wars?

[Colonel Cholling]

Many of the scenes in Star Wars were filmed in Tunisia.

Sure, but how do we know Tunisia isn't computer-generated?

Star Wars had sets

[Larthallor]

Star Wars had sets with some green screen work.

Sky Captain has green screen work with ... even more green screen work.

This is the future of special effects movies, because of the creative freedom and reduced costs. The hardest part will be for actors to have something to act against. I think this gets solved by creating preliminary computer models as part of the concept art and using it to show the actors, in realtime, what they're interacting with.

The Weather?

[ottergoose]

The TV weather guy is always standing in front a of green screen. It must be really distracting, because the forecasts rarely verify.

Star Wars

[9Numbernine9]

So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?

I did - but I can always dream that I didn't!

Re:Star Wars

[renehollan]

That's rather like a 70s kid commenting that "You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before 'Wings'?".

To us old fogies, "Star Wars", without an explicit episode reference, implies the first one to hit theathers, i.e. "A New Hope".

Re:Star Wars

[HeghmoH]

In the context of ubiquitous computer-generated graphics, you have to be deliberately obtuse to think that it refers to the original trilogy. I don't care how old you are.

Just another buzzline

[DumbWhiteGuy777]

"how the movie is 'unlike anything most audiences have seen before"

I heard that same thing about Battlefield Earth before I saw it.

Uh... it's like... did anyone see the movie Tron?

[scotay]

Hibbert: No.
Lisa: No.
Marge: No.
Wiggum: No.
Bart: No.
Patty: No.
Wiggum: No.
Ned: No.
Selma: No.
Frink: No.
Lovejoy: No.
Guy hyping Sky Captain: Yes. I mean... um, I mean, no. No, heh.

I want the two hours of my life back.

[rjelks]

I saw this last night. I was interested in the visuals, after reading about the filming method. After ten minutes, the novelty of the effects wore off. I could get past the 30'-style campiness, but the actors didn't seem to be interacting with each other. As the movie progressed, you could tell that the actors were acting by themselves in many of the scenes. It was a neat idea, but it got really distracting for me after a bit. I think for a short film, it would have been pretty cool, but a full-length feature? I was bored out of my mind by the end of the movie...just my $0.02.

Re:I want the two hours of my life back.

[Jonny_eh]

I also ended up getting bored. I just couldn't stop thinking "This looks like one of those 'interactive movies' computer games from the nineties.

The CG wasn't even that good, in some scenes the Doom 3 engine could have rendered more convincing backgrounds.

Plus the actors didn't seem like they wanted to be there.

The biggest hole in the movie though: Where is everyone? It seems like the main actors are the only people that populate this world. Polly would run around the streets but no one else is to be seen.

I really appreciate the style that the director was aiming for, but it just didn't seem to hold up over two hours.

George Lucas and Spielberg made Indiana Jones as an homage to old serials, but at least they pushed the format forward, sky captain seems to push it backwards, yuch.

Re:I want the two hours of my life back.

[Scrameustache]

I could get past the 30'-style campiness

Get "past" it?
Do you have to "get past" the zombies in Dawn of the Dead? Or the spaceships in Star Wars?
Did you have to "get past" all that fantasy nonsense in LOTR?
You had to get past the film itself...sad.

I was interested in the visuals, after reading about the filming method.

Oh, that's why you went to see it. Not to see a movie, but to see the result of a technological process. Well, then...

you could tell that the actors were acting by themselves in many of the scenes.

Really? Are you sure?
You're not just, you know, looking for flaws, even if you have to make them up are you?

It was a neat idea, but it got really distracting for me after a bit. I think for a short film, it would have been pretty cool, but a full-length feature? I was bored out of my mind by the end of the movie.

You went to see a special effects demonstration, and you got annoyed that they were showing you a movie. I just saw it. Its not perfect, but I wasn't looking for a demonstration of technological achievements, I was looking for a movie, so I got what I wanted.

I guess its a question of expectations and of the frame of mind you're in when you go see it.

Star Wars?

[antikarma]

Many of the scenes in Star Wars were filmed in Tunisia. None of the films are completely computer generated.

In the director's cut...

[Snart Barfunz]

... the CGI future-retro backgrounds are completely replaced, re-locating the entire plotline to the fictional town of Springfield.

This decade's "Star Wars"

[chiph]

I saw it last night -- highly recommended. It will probably will come to be regarded as the "Star Wars" of this decade -- something that changed the entire nature of filmmaking.

There may not have been any sets, per-se, but there were a fair amount of props used in close-ups (like where the characters were leaning against a railing), so not absolutely everything was painted green. :-)

Chip H.

Coining a phrase

[iamdrscience]

Slashvertisement
'slash-v&r-'tIz-m 'slash-'v&r-t&z-m&nt, -t&-sm&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of advertising on Slashdot via news articles
2 : an advertisement with a really big knife

Another interesting article...

[Polo]

There's an article about this on Apple's website:
Apple - Pro/Video - Kerry Conran

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

If the special effects make you woozy, take some Milk of Magnesia.

I spat Milk of Magnesia out of my nose when I read this! It's from the film, FYI.

You know...

[iamdrscience]

I would bet that a lot of the digital effects used in this film were rendered and perhaps even designed with Linux. If they were done with Windows they would have used a blue screen.

Re:You know...

[mbourgon]

Actually, done on a Mac.

I wonder if that's why Gwynneth's child is named Apple.

Re:You know...

[CrackedButter]

Will she get sued by Apple if the baby ever starts singing?

Re:Whoo Hoo

[13Echo]

It's truly a visually spectacular film. It draws a lot of influence from the 1930s/1940s, and the art just blows my mind. Everything about it is beautiful. It's a shame that the characters seemed shallow and the plot was a bit thin. Sure, it's probably intentional to some degree; it's supposed to be a beautiful action film and it succeeds in this area. I really feel that a lot more could have been done with it though. Neat ideas, but might have benefited from some better writing (and maybe a better actress than Paltrow). In the end, the movie seems almost like an anime movie with real actors - drawing influence from WW2 movies, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, comic book scifi, and classic love stories.

but a few serious problems

[snStarter]

...like mentioning World War One in 1939. And strobe flash photography.

I enjoyed the look and feel of the film, and Paltrow (a lot), and the luscious close-ups, but the story was just LAME. The film treated pre-WWI Germany as if it were Nazi Germany -- totally different kettles of fish.

On the other hand the last two words of the movie were hilarious.

Enjoyed it thoroughly.

[mbourgon]

Think Indiana Jones, but on an even bigger scale. Globetrotting around the world, giant robots, flying aircraft carriers, underwater planes, etc. Yes, you need to turn off your sense of disbelief, but it was an absolute blast. Ebert said it best, it went from Conrad's mind to film without reality intervening. A glorious film about an alternate reality we should've had.

Cliffhangers revisited

[MalachiConstant]

You know, I'm rather surprised that so many people seem to think the retro feel is some kind of handicap to this movie. It's the whole point of the movie.

You might as well say "Yeah, I like 2001 but why'd they have to put it in space?".

I've always liked the 30's vision of the future: dirigibles, flying fortresses, giant steel robots. And the old serials had a certain charm, you know that crawl at the beginning of star wars? Lucas got that idea from serials, which would use it to catch everyone up on the last episodes. Longtime fans of MST3K will remember "The Phantom Creeps" serials and especially "Radar Men From The Moon".

Sky Captain is a direct homage to these serials. I imagine that this movie would be the dream of any kid who watched those.

I guess it's a very different genre of movie from anything that's been produced in the last 70 years. Sky Captain isn't the best movie ever, but it's a lot of fun to watch the "we-make-it-up-as-we-go-along" style of storytelling. He crashes his plane into the ocean? No problem, Dax fitted it with submersible gear. Who cares if that's ridiculous. It's supposed to be, but it's still exciting.

I mean, how can you hate a beautiful movie like this, a british commander on a hovering air field saying things like "Alert the amphibious squadron!".

Chroma Key

[DragonHawk]

"So why did green take over? Is green dye just cheaper or is there a technical reason behind it?"

The technology of blue/green/organge/whatever screens is called "chroma key". The computer knows that anything of the key color is "background" and should be replaced with other imagery. They use those bright, stand-out colors for that reason -- those colors are unlikely to conflict with real actors or props. The computer could replace another color, e.g., black, just as well, but black appears normally all over the place.

They use the same technology for the "magic weather maps" you see the meteorologist stand in front of during modern TV weather reports. The map isn't really there; the meteorologist stands in front of a color screen, and the map is composited in electronically. You can occasionally see a goof where some part of the meteorologist's wardrobe is too close to the screen's color, and the map "bleeds through" and the person appears "hollow".

Re:Chroma Key

[Doppler00]

I've always wondered why they can't use some type of surface that is sensitive to infrared or ultra violet (or possibly emitting one of those non visible wavelengths). If they could find a way to split the image into a 2nd camera that was sensitive to one of those frequencies, they could then shoot with the actors wearing just about any color and be able to mask out the background perfectly. I guess it's probably too technically involved.

Real stuff

[DragonHawk]

"You're telling me that Star Wars used only computer-generated sets?"

Yah, I thought that statement was bogus.

The interesting part is I've always maintained that the signature look of the original three Star Wars films (Episodes 4, 5, and 6) comes about because they didn't have all the special effects tech they have these days. Computer generated imagery didn't really exist; chromakey didn't exist. Everything was done with models (and paintings for large stuff) and then manually compositited. Even today's best computer models still don't manage to get all the details of a "real" scene completely right. If you look closely, you can still almost always spot the CG models. But in the original Star Wars, every time they blew something up, they actually built something and blew it up.

(Of course, the artifacts resulting from inaccurate hand compositing detracts from the overall quality, but hey, you can't have everything.)

I imagine CG models will eventually catch up, but right now, you still can't beat the "real thing".

Sequence

[DragonHawk]

"Man are you confused. World War One was 1914-1918."

Right. And until they had another one, it was called "The Great War" or "The World War". They didn't know to call it "World War One" until there was a second one.

This reminds me of the gag with the guy who finds a coin dated "50 BC".

But it LOOKS good

[EtherAlchemist]

Excellent 3d graphics, poor 2d acting.

Re:But it LOOKS good

[mabhatter654]

that was the point!!!

It's a spoof as much as anything. It was intended to be a "cheesy" type movie...like they used to make in the 30's. It was intended to have stereotypical, bubble-gum-pop acting and gee-wiz special effects...It wasn't trying to be "realistic".

It was a really cool movie....I took my two kids[frankly the target audience!], way past their bedtime and they didn't make a peep for the whole show!! Therefore, it's a great movie!!

This really is the future of filmmaking...

[koganuts]

The upcoming Sin City (based on Frank Miller's graphic novel series, and it's directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller) uses a similar filmmaking technique as "Sky Captain," although not to the same degree. An FAQ is here.

Compare the behind-the-scenes footage to the trailer that was shown at this summer's San Diego Comic-Con (they had originally posted a 640x480 version but it's been replaced by a 480x272 version).

Check it out (there's a brief topless scene, so it's not SFW), if only for the shots of Jessica Alba dancing around seductively in leather chaps. :)

Re:Whoo Hoo

[Backov]

Umm.. You want a better actress than Paltrow.. You mean 1999s Best Actress Academy Award winner, that Gwyneth Paltrow?

Oh, yah, and to answer your question....

[DragonHawk]

"So why did green take over?"

Ooops, got so caught up in my explanation I forgot your question had two parts.

The critical element is that the key color not appear on the actors or props. Bright blue works well for many indoor scenes and bright lighting, but does poorer in "outdoor" and low-light conditions, where blues are more common. That green color can provide better contrast then. I've also seen them use an orange screen for spaceship models which contained blues and greens. Again, the computer can key on any color; the important part is that the color not be present on the "real" stuff. I imagine bright purple or yellow would also work well in some cases.

Re:Oh, yah, and to answer your question....

[3D Lover]

I remember reading an article about shooting miniatures for Star Trek and they used a red screen.

But yes, he is correct, with todays computer keying software, you can key on anything. With some of the advanced keying plugins for After Effects, I've been able to key on several colors at once and extract subjects out of some fairly complicated backgrounds.

Originally, when the chroma key was first invented, and when everything was done with analog equipment, they were able to take the blue signal created by the blue orthicon tube and use it as a "switch" from one source to another, much like an alpha channel is used today. The blue signal was used because they were able to create the greatest contrast with the blue tube. The Red and Green tubes were not used for two reasons, one, they did not produce an image with enough contrast, and two, skin tone for all races contain a lot of red, some green and very little (if any) blue. By using blue, you don't run the risk of keying out an actors face.

The Slashdot Defect

[ajs]

You just have to love the Slashdot crowd. Anything new comes along and all you get is "oh, it's been done before... it wasn't quite as fully developed, and was only part of a larger whole, but it was done."

When are we going to stop and think about the fact that all innovation in human history involved taking things that already existed, and combining them in ways that no one else had?

No one had ever fillmed a feature-length movie with live-action actors as the primary stars in which there was only one set and 90% of the film was CG. If hollywood had nixed the idea of doing this, Slashdot junkies would be the first to rant that Hollywood never does anything innovative like this, but when they do, it's all just, "been there, done that."

Tron was an innovative and well-made film. So was Sky Capt. Why can we not celebrate the innovation of both (while lamenting that Hollywood DOES limit such innovation such that it took us 30 years to get from the one to the other)?

Re:The Slashdot Defect

[HeghmoH]

To the average slashdotter, the only thing that really counts as innovation is making a half-assed, incomplete copy of some proprietary technology, putting it on sourceforge under the GPL, and watching as nobody ever uses it.

Re:The Slashdot Defect

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

And to the average proprietary company, the only thing that really counts as innovation is making a half-assed, incomplete copy of some half-assed, incomplete prototype from academia, slapping software and design patents on it, and suing the crap out of anyone who complains.

Another, another interesting article...

[LikelyStory]

also at Apple, about a sci-fi epic shot in 15 days for $30,000, also all in green screen. Called Able Edwards... frankly, judging by the clips, it looks a lot more interesting than Sky Captain!

http://www.apple.com/pro/video/robertson/

You know..

[wuice]

For a movie that everyone HATED so damn much, you guys sure can't seem to stop talking about Star Wars. Ever.

Re:Uh... it's like... did anyone see the movie Tro

[mabhatter654]

Actually most of Tron was brute forced effects using tons of layers of traditional layering. The key difference between Tron and Skycaptain, is that when Tron did it, it was as a form of "artsy" Extreme special effects...and extremely costly and time consuming. In the case of Skycaptain it's now to the point that one could do this "business as usual" Where it's cheaper and easier to do it their way.

Star Wars 1& 2 as well as LOTR were nearly Skycaptain in their use of special effects. Skycaptain finally makes the leap from trying to "merge" real and imagined sets to simply shooting the actors ACTING and building all the sets from CGI. it's a nice middleground for a few years.

Saw it & loved it

[Tumbleweed]

Okay, I saw it, and loved just about everything about it, except the opening title sequence was so jarringly out of place - it's like a standard opening title sequence for a regular movie, not for a 30s/40s sci-fi homage. Weird.

I thought the storyline was great, the characters were very well realized, and the special effects were fantastic, most especially the designs. The more 30s & 40s sci-fi/action serials you've read/seen, the more you'll realize how effin' brilliant this homage is. If you've never read or seen anything from that era, you're really gonna hate this movie, though you may have enough artistic appreciation in your soul to see the beauty in the designs (though I doubt it, from most of the comments in here thus far).

The effects aren't _intended_ to be realistic. Another movie that did this to great effect was last year's fantastic version of "Peter Pan," which I very highly recommend. Kerry Conran (writer & director) came up with the idea to make, essentially, a comic book come to life, IN THE STYLE OF THE COMICS. _That_ is something noone has done before. The 'set' design evokes a time that never really existed (well, much like most movies do). I love the revisionist history, Hindenburg III, indeed, and docking with the Empire State Building like the original - nice touch! I found out that some New Yorkers don't even know about that.

I think a travelling museum piece about all of the things that influenced the making of "Sky Captain" would be a pretty marvellous thing.

re: the acting

Okay, it wasn't bad, first off. They did what they intended to do, so guess what? You missed the whole point. This is a comic book. Use your brain and think about the things that implies, okay?

The character I was most impressed with was Dex - a character that could have easily have been a helpless little geek character. Instead, he's the one responsible for most of the technical innovation the good guys use. His inspiration? Comic books! Brilliant. And I want that ray gun of his in the worst kind of way! Every time Cap said, "Good boy," I wanted to beat the shit out of him. And I cheered when Cap socked Polly. :)

I'd say anyone bitching about this would bitch about the original Star Wars (A New Hope) if they were seeing it for the first time now. You've got no soul.

And people are _bored_ by this movie? Geez. I feel really sad for you.

Re:Whoo Hoo

[EEBaum]

I enjoyed it as well... it felt halfway between an action movie and a cartoon, which is something different anyways.

The one thing that bugged me was the sound. Of all the elements of the film that they tried to give a 1940's feel, they seemed to gloss over the musical score. Stylistically, it was appropriate, but the recording itself sounded WAY too "2004 clean and accurate." I'd expected and hoped for a bit of campier orchestration and old-style recording quality (not the scratches and hisses, but the balance between instruments). There's a certain zing to older soundtracks, and this opportunity was completely missed in the movie.

Errrmm, they can use both, you know.

[Ayanami Rei]

It all depends on the colors on the clothing of the actors whether they do a blue or green screen for a particular scene. It also may depend on the lighting they are trying to use (need to add directional color the actors, but not effect the hue of the screen in the shot)

Re:Whoo Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Halle Berry (2002 Best Actress Academy Award) could've done it better. Just look how well she did in Catwoman.

ObHomer

[sharkey]

Homer: "Shake hands with the Slashco!"
Old woman: "AAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhh!"
Homer: handle first, handle first

None of the above

[leonbrooks]

Tron beat StarWars by a considerable margin, I'll have you young whipper-snappers know.

Star Wars References

[Dfiant]

I caught at least three Star Wars/George Lucas references when I watched it:

• The door of the laboratory (where Polly breaks the window with a rock) is numbered 1138. 1138 is a number commonly seen in Lucas' films ("Prisoner transfer from cell block 1138.") and is a reference to THX-1138, Lucas' first movie.
  
  
• (Pretty sure about this one) When Joe and Polly are on approach to Franky's mobile airstrip, the radio hisses with "Permission granted to land on platform 327." This was a line spoken by the air traffic controllers of the tibanna gas mining station on Bespin in The Empire Strikes Back.
  
  
• When Joe's plane surfaces in Dr. Totenkopf's secret base, they emerge in a kind of swampish area, with some remarkable similarities to Dagobah. In fact, if you watch as they walk away, you can see a swamp monster arch its back out of the water just as it did in The Empire Strikes Back.
  

I'm sure there are more, these are just little bits I picked up on.

Re:Stupid plot

[Steve B]

The script may be stupid, but I'll be that the script writer was familiar with the concept of "paragraphs"....