Let's all work for Ridley Scott

[kurtj]

With Dunkirk in theatres, I was reminded once again of the dichotomy of aerial dogfights in film: they're either far too small in scale (1969 BoB excluded), using practical effects, or far too unrealistic, using CGI (see: Tuskeegee Airmen).

 

Whereas some of the IL-2 machinima on YouTube is stunning, with way more realistic physics than most Hollywood CGI...

 

So, for the upcoming Battle of Britain film, what if we were to fly "mo-cap" sorties, and the track data could then be used to create full-CGI action sequences? The physics would match, the tactics could match, and the scale could be immense!

Edited July 21, 2017 by kurtj

[JetlinerX]

I'll fly some sorties or help with the video side, either way is fine with me!

[CanadaOne]

Feasible or no, that's an awesomely interesting idea!

[ShamrockOneFive]

I had no idea Ridley Scott was doing a Battle of Britain film. Interesting.

 

Also an interesting thought. Hollywood has really done some terrible CGI work when it came to aircraft. Nolan sidestepped all of that for Dunkirk by using real airplanes which from what I've seen in the trailers certainly did the trick.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I wonder if TacView could provide some useful perspective for dogfight choreography.

[xThrottle_Geek]

Going to see it in a couple of hours.

[kurtj]

I wonder if TacView could provide some useful perspective for dogfight choreography.

We could mo-cap the VR headset perspectives as well! Not just inside the cockpit... inside the pilot's head!

 

I imagine this is just scratching the surface...

Edited July 21, 2017 by kurtj

[CUJO_1970]

Just saw Dunkirk and the aerial sequences were pretty bad unfortunately. 

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

It's a pity that Peter Jackson [ Lord of the Rings ] has not resurrected his plans to make a new version of "The Dam Busters"   which was the talk of the town  a couple of years ago, we live in hope!!!!! 

[Firestorm07]

Just saw Dunkirk and the aerial sequences were pretty bad unfortunately. 

 

I'd be interested in hearing why you thought they were pretty bad?  I'd love to know how people empathise with what they saw on screen...

[Flitgun]

I'd be interested in hearing why you thought they were pretty bad?  I'd love to know how people empathise with what they saw on screen...

 

I haven't seen this particular film - yet. I've seen about 2 seconds of planes in the trailer, which was not enough to be able to form a reliable opinion on your first question.

 

As for your second question I'll add that I can imagine exactly what OP is describing. So many films are laced with footage made by an amazing CGI artist who has nicely modeled an aircraft in a scenario impossible to replicate in real life with traditional cameras. However, it appears that the flying models are not obeying the laws of physics. How can I empathise with that? Well, it just seems that what I am looking at - is wrong.

 

It seems like they tried to squash the action into the cinematic frame - a manoeuvre that looks like it should take a box of 3 miles to fit inside, due to the perceived speed and a basic understanding of an aircraft's performance ability, is reduced to an unrealistic fraction of that distance - all for cinematic beauty. This annoys me.

 

It comes across as if the artist is very talented at 3D art, but almost childlike in their perception of realistic aircraft aerodynamics. It's like watching a 5 year old with a plane in his hand - he knows what sort of thing an aeroplane can do, but it's all squeezed inside the outside reach of the kid's arms. 

 

I am rarely annoyed at spaceship maoeuvres in sci-fi films.

[CUJO_1970]

I'd be interested in hearing why you thought they were pretty bad?  I'd love to know how people empathise with what they saw on screen...

 

The use of Buchons were an immersion killer for me...but I understand. They obviously used CGI for the Stukas and the HE-111...they should have used it for the 109 as well IMO. I didn't like that really tight vic formation the spitfires were flying in...should have been more loose...OK those are very nitpicky things I guess, so what I really didn't like was this:

 

The flow of the aerial battles was very bland. There was no sense of suspense, everything was a foregone conclusion..."OK turn left on 3" ? Seriously? Every shootdown looked like stock footage on loop, none of them looked unique or different from one another...the German fighters of course flew like idiots but that was to be completely expected and not surprising in the least for a Hollywood movie.

 

The weepy, bleary-eyed Spitfire worship (also expected, but please let's keep it reasonable) was all out of proportion to the actual story of Dunkirk. The deadstick Stuka kill to wrap things up was pure Hollywood popcorn nonesense.

 

Fade to the heroic Spitfire funeral pyre to close the movie...which was supposed to be about Dunkirk...

 

*sigh*

[kurtj]

Flitgun, well-put re: CGI. Cujo, I agree with you as well. If you want to search for it, they actually used large r/c aircraft for the Heinkel and Stukas!

 

Speaking of sci-fi, I found the x-wing movement in The Force Awakens to be very video-gamey and without regard to physics, but the scenes in Rogue One were much more on point! Maybe there is hope. Once someone definitively does it right, others will follow.

 

Coincidentally, I was in a Spit in CloD yesterday and found myself in an almost exact frame-for frame match of Dunkirk, on the tail of a zigzagging 109... maybe they were panicking newbies?

Edited July 22, 2017 by kurtj

[TheNotoriousFNG]

After what he did to the Alien franchise, I'm not sure how to feel about his upcoming BoB film.

 

Hopefully he'll actually throw some money to get some authentic 109s instead of the Buchons, but I guess time we'll tell. Some CGI touchups with Buchons would even be nice...just doesn't look right, IMO.

[TG-55Panthercules]

 Every shootdown looked like stock footage on loop, none of them looked unique or different from one another...the German fighters of course flew like idiots but that was to be completely expected and not surprising in the least for a Hollywood movie.

 

You do realize of course that most of the shootdowns were exactly the same - Nolan showed us the exact same air battles (and the same ship bombings/sinkings, etc.) 3 or 4 times each - his way of showing the same action from several different characters' perspectives (the Spitfire pilots, the guys on the yacht, the guys on the bigger ships, the guys on the smaller boat, the guys in the water, etc.).  So of course they looked like they were on a loop and didn't look unique or different.

[Sokol1]

... way more realistic physics than most Hollywood CGI...

 

So, for the upcoming Battle of Britain film, what if we were to fly "mo-cap" sorties, and the track data could then be used to create full-CGI action sequences? The physics would match, the tactics could match, and the scale could be immense!

 

Problem is that for Hollywood industry the air combat "to be good" should follow Star Wars formula with planes zip'ing all around in vacuum, what  result in that ridiculous sequences of Fly Boys, Red Tails, THC Dogfights... CGI.

 

Look at YT for CGI (Tochy I think) used in Battle 360 episodes, aerial combat CGI can be done in convincing way - if the movie producers think that will please the mass audience.

[Cybermat47]

I haven't seen this particular film - yet. I've seen about 2 seconds of planes in the trailer, which was not enough to be able to form a reliable opinion on your first question.

 

As for your second question I'll add that I can imagine exactly what OP is describing. So many films are laced with footage made by an amazing CGI artist who has nicely modeled an aircraft in a scenario impossible to replicate in real life with traditional cameras. However, it appears that the flying models are not obeying the laws of physics. How can I empathise with that? Well, it just seems that what I am looking at - is wrong.

 

It seems like they tried to squash the action into the cinematic frame - a manoeuvre that looks like it should take a box of 3 miles to fit inside, due to the perceived speed and a basic understanding of an aircraft's performance ability, is reduced to an unrealistic fraction of that distance - all for cinematic beauty. This annoys me.

 

It comes across as if the artist is very talented at 3D art, but almost childlike in their perception of realistic aircraft aerodynamics. It's like watching a 5 year old with a plane in his hand - he knows what sort of thing an aeroplane can do, but it's all squeezed inside the outside reach of the kid's arms. 

 

I am rarely annoyed at spaceship maoeuvres in sci-fi films.

Yep, the CGI was terrible. Because there were no CGI planes. They were all real. Real Buchons, real Spits, a real Blenheim, and miniature Heinkels and Stukas.

 

Nolan doesn't use CGI much, only when it's absolutely neccessary. He'll use practical props even when they're more expensive than CGI, like he did in Inception.

[Dave]

They obviously used CGI for the Stukas and the HE-111

Nolan hates CGI apparently. The HE-111 was a flying RC scale model. I don't know about the Stukas but I read that where real aircraft were unavailable RC scale models were purpose built. The total complement of real aircraft available for filming were (from memory) 2 MkII's, a MkV (with cannon removed) and a Hispano Buchon. No Emils were available (or Freidrichs or Gustavs for that matter). The Spits were only made available for filming by generous benefactors.

 

While I really love seeing the real thing flying, CGI must be the future of WW2 aerial cinematography as people who own surviving aircraft aren't about to allow them to be flown anywhere near the edges of their envelopes.

 

I haven't seen Dunkirk yet - I hope it isn't as bad as you say.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Dave

[Gambit21]

I have yet to see a successful CGI WWII aircraft sequence.

They just never get it right - so whatever the realities with using real aircraft, color me skeptical that we'll ever see a good film produced with 3D graphics.

 

It's more than possible, which always adds to my frustration when they get it wrong.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Gambit21

[Cybermat47]

I have yet to see a successful CGI WWII aircraft sequence.

They just never get it right - so whatever the realities with using real aircraft, color me skeptical that we'll ever see a good film produced with 3D graphics.

It's more than possible, which always adds to my frustration when they get it wrong.

Peter Jackson used CGI pretty well in his WWI short film Over the Front, but he also had real aircraft for reference and "hero" shots.

 

[Feathered_IV]

I have yet to see a successful CGI WWII aircraft sequence.

They just never get it right - so whatever the realities with using real aircraft, color me skeptical that we'll ever see a good film produced with 3D graphics.

 

It's more than possible, which always adds to my frustration when they get it wrong.

 

I thought Tochy did very well.  Particularly as these works are quite old now and did not benefit from a very high budget.

He's one of the rare examples of a CGI artist that could be entrusted with more than just the making of the models.  The Hollywood ones seem little qualified by comparison and need someone else to give them direction. It's like putting a bean counter in charge of a film plot, or putting a game developer who specialises in workflow in charge of gameplay. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRMp4Or6GL0

[Gambit21]

That's actually pretty impressive Feathered...thank you for posting.

Others have posted in the past I think and I never clicked on it because I wrongly assumed it was going to be cheesy.

[TheBlackPenguin]

Nolan hates CGI apparently. The HE-111 was a flying RC scale model. I don't know about the Stukas but I read that where real aircraft were unavailable RC scale models were purpose built. The total complement of real aircraft available for filming were (from memory) 2 MkII's, a MkV (with cannon removed) and a Hispano Buchon. No Emils were available (or Freidrichs or Gustavs for that matter). The Spits were only made available for filming by generous benefactors.

 

While I really love seeing the real thing flying, CGI must be the future of WW2 aerial cinematography as people who own surviving aircraft aren't about to allow them to be flown anywhere near the edges of their envelopes.

 

I haven't seen Dunkirk yet - I hope it isn't as bad as you say.

 

Its not as bad, people on here are too technical . I giggled thinking Nolan had selected Novice AI and unlimited ammo, but its not aimed at the technically minded, rather its aimed at emotion (I do wish they could've kept the ammo realistic like they tried to do with the fuel)...Just today a co-worker who watched it explained how, in the row ahead of him sat a WW2 vet and his son. At the end of the movie the vet was in tears and when his son asked "is that how it was?" the vet said yes, that was "exactly how the Germans strafed us". Now, this was in the US, so I don't know if it was an ex-pat UK vet, or US vet as I didn't ask, however I would say its safe to say that it was a US vet.

 

Maybe we'll get a movie no with better flying, at least we've seen far worse and I agree CGI has come along way.

 

Last I heard about Dambusters:

 

https://dambustersblog.com/2016/10/25/dambusters-remake-shoved-to-back-of-the-queue-again/

 

Maybe with Dunkirk actually being a hit they will then push this to the front again?

Edited July 26, 2017 by TheBlackPenguin

[Gambit21]

Yeah - that's not new