Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Irishman (Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci and Pacino)

Options
12467…25

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,668 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I think The Irishman will be a much bigger test of the technology than Captain Marvel. Jackson looks extremely good for his age and has kept in shape. Also he's only being de-aged to what, his 40s? De Niro, Pacino etc are older than Jackson and I assume there will be a lot more de-ageing involved and probably the use of body doubles. Aren't they also making De Niro look taller? And these are the main characters.

    I dunno, it's Scorsese and all, but I'm very sceptical about this film.


  • Options
    #93
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    That's a fair point; Michael Douglas looks a bit more his age, and the de-aging in Ant-Man wasn't quite as spot on. Though again, Douglas is still in excellent shape for his age, while DeNiro / Pacino look a bit ... doughy these days...

    Holy sh*t though, I just googled and Jackson is 70 :eek: May we all age as gracefully...


  • Options
    #94
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users Posts: 60,280 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Netflix had gotten an agreement for this to be shown at Cannes this year.

    However the film won’t be ready with all the visual effects still ongoing.


    It is now expected to premier at the Venice in September.


  • Options
    #95
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users Posts: 60,280 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    The film will debut at the New York film festival as the opening film in September.

    https://twitter.com/TheNYFF/status/1155871442715717637?s=20


  • Options
    #96
    El Duda
    Registered Users Posts: 867 ✭✭✭El Duda


    https://twitter.com/Sgtzima/status/1155890386654679041


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    the whole year inn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,077 ✭✭✭the whole year inn


    Say everyone that has Netflix will watch this even if it gets slated.


  • Options
    #98
    branie2
    Registered Users Posts: 10,288 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    No cinema release though


  • Options
    #99
    Autecher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Autecher


    branie2 wrote: »
    No cinema release though
    It will be getting a limited cinema release, enough to qualify it for award shows particularly the Oscars. Netflix did the same with the move Roma which I think was shown in the Lighthouse Cinema and the IFI over here.


  • Options
    #100
    helenawalsh
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭helenawalsh


    I'd say it's probably the best Netflix production so far and will encourage other outstanding directors to work with Netflix.


  • Options
    #101
    Roar
    Registered Users Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Roar


    Trailer was released on Twitter

    https://twitter.com/TheIrishmanFilm/status/1156534975983828993

    *Edit

    And on YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Expe7hf6MU


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users Posts: 60,280 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    The deaging looks good they don't over do it.


    Great to see Pesci on the screen again after one film and one cameo in 20 years.


  • Options
    #103
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Looks like a mashup of many classic Scorcese films, but as the last moment was an example of the de-ageing, that's my first reaction. The CGI looks bloody awful; I hope it's a WIP, but how often does it ever get better?


  • Options
    #104
    Technocentral
    Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    De-ageing and aging was never and will never be convincing, you look at the "younger" person but your mind knows they are 75 or whatever and vice versa.


  • Options
    #105
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Technocentral wrote: »
    De-ageing and aging was never and will never be convincing, you look at the "younger" person but your mind knows they are 75 or whatever and vice versa.

    Naw, Captain Marvel showed it could be done; maybe the big cinema screen wasn't a 1080p laptop monitor, but the work done with Jackson was uncanny (the same done to Clark Gregg wasn't as great, ditto Michael Douglas in EndGame). That same film had a fully CGI cat in it & I didn't notice, so the bar has been raised IMO.


  • Options
    #106
    Autecher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Autecher


    pixelburp wrote: »
    That same film had a fully CGI cat in it.
    Seriously? Wow! What was the reason for doing it that way do you know?


  • Options
    #107
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,134 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Naw, Captain Marvel showed it could be done; maybe the big cinema screen wasn't a 1080p laptop monitor, but the work done with Jackson was uncanny (the same done to Clark Gregg wasn't as great, ditto Michael Douglas in EndGame). That same film had a fully CGI cat in it & I didn't notice, so the bar has been raised IMO.

    The cat was entirely CG? I knew there some parts where it had to be but I thought surely when they were picking it up and that it was a real one.


  • Options
    #108
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Autecher wrote: »
    Seriously? Wow! What was the reason for doing it that way do you know?
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    The cat was entirely CG? I knew there some parts where it had to be but I thought surely when they were picking it up and that it was a real one.

    Well the classic line in Hollywood is "never work with children or animals". I guess if you can recreate a realistic looking feline you don't have to struggle with the vagaries of a real one.

    I don't know the precise percentage so 'entirely' is probably untrue, but there was a showreel of FX that showed a few scenes - not action ones either - where Goose was a CGI character (only recall Nick Fury cooing over a 'cat' in his lap)


  • Options
    #109
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Ah here we are: 8 minute puffery video from Marvel, but if you go to about 7 minutes in they talk about the cat. Apparently there were approx. 100 shots featuring 'the cat', with about 70 of them being CG. 7:30 you can see Sam Jackson stroking a CGI Goose (looks a bit freaky given they show the modelled skeleton n' all)



  • Options
    #110
    sky88
    Registered Users Posts: 8,689 ✭✭✭sky88


    ill wait to see film before going to strong on de ageing but i thought film looks very good

    on the cgi cat i think brie larson is allergic to cats so couldnt be around them


  • Options
    #111
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Oh yeah, I think the rest of the film looks strong: Scorsese going back to waters very familiar to him (which is ironically, considering the distribution being used & technology on display), and the film otherwise looks to have a bold, forceful & colourful palette. Just at first blush the de-ageing looks very rough - and is worrying given it'll likely be in a lot of the final film.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users Posts: 15,281 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    Folks I’m old school I want to see this in the cinema preferably biggest screen they have

    So will this be getting a cinema release in Ireland do you think ?


  • Options
    #113
    Shred
    Registered Users Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Shred


    It looks great other than the de-aging, particularly the last shots of De Niro speaking on the phone.


  • Options
    #114
    Skerries
    Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭Skerries


    Ould Fellas
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #115
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    The deaging effects were fine in Captain Marvel but Jackson still moved like an old man. I didn't really buy it.

    Looking forward to a new Scorsese film though. Whatever age they seem to be.


  • Options
    #116
    El Duda
    Registered Users Posts: 867 ✭✭✭El Duda


    Is it just me that thinks the de-aging looks almost immaculate?!


  • Options
    #117
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I think the rest of the film looks strong: Scorsese going back to waters very familiar to him (which is ironically, considering the distribution being used & technology on display), and the film otherwise looks to have a bold, forceful & colourful palette. Just at first blush the de-ageing looks very rough - and is worrying given it'll likely be in a lot of the final film.

    My big takewway from this was that I never saw DeNiro actually SPEAK on the phone. There may have been half a word that you saw but that was it.

    I mean it's obviously got a good pedigree, they have obviously put the money and effort into it but I'm very wary. Sam Jackson's de-aging looked very good in Captain Marvel but then Coulson (Clark Gregg) looked terrible.

    I believe this is supposed to span a long time (Was that Anna Paquin and I'm assuming the girl was her younger) so we will see different stages. The trailer was obviously going: Look it's 80's Scorsese DeNiro. But I believe,even if it's 100% perfect, we will be distracted by the effects and it will limit our ability to fully engage with the movie. Will you be looking at CG-Niro or DeNiro or (Hopefully) DeNiro's character? I believe we will be seeing CG-Niro and not his character


  • Options
    #118
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    TheIrishGrover wrote: »
    Will you be looking at CG-Niro or DeNiro or (Hopefully) DeNiro's character? I believe we will be seeing CG-Niro and not his character

    That's definitely the worry at the moment. It is Scorsese, though! The guy knows a thing or two about making movies, so here's hoping the occasional glassy eye or waxy looking face is less of an issue when it's all put together.

    In contrast to a Marvel film where "look at the FX!" is often a big part of the draw.


  • Options
    #119
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Scorsese knows a bit about making movies, but it's fair to speculate he might be a little behind the curve on the movie magic of de-ageing; heck it's debatable how much of a hand he has in it. Quite possibly, he might have shot all the 'yesteryear' material under the promise from his FX Wizards they'd make DeNiro look 30 years younger in post-production. Wouldn't be the first time the FX couldn't deliver what was promised, and a lot of modern production passes the buck sideways to FX studios...

    I go so far as to say the fact we're even talking about the de-ageing means it has already failed (assuming it isn't going to be further massaged between now and 'release'). The best FX are the ones you just don't notice.


  • Options
    #120
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    pixelburp wrote: »

    I go so far as to say the fact we're even talking about the de-ageing means it has already failed (assuming it isn't going to be further massaged between now and 'release'). The best FX are the ones you just don't notice.

    With regards to the de-aging, yeah, I'm sure he was just told: Look, just film it as you want. We'll take care of the rest.

    Regarding the fact that we are talking about it, yeah, I agree. the best FX are the ones you don't even notice or notice and just.... accept.

    I remember seeing Golum in the cinema (An effect that still holds up 95% of the time today). I remember seeing Golum and, after the initial shock of how well done he was, you saw him as a character not an effect.

    The problem is when the face is one you know. From the laughable (even at the time) Rock in The Scorpion King to Mark Ruffalo's Hulk in Avengers Endgame.

    The Hulk was startlingly well done. Every facial movement perfect. It was actually distractingly well done. Admitadly that may have been down to the fact that the CHARACTER of The Hulk suddenly became more expressive (As pointed out by Valkyrie: "I think I liked you better either of the other ways").

    So, while I think we are there with 100% convincing non-human CGI characters, generating faces we know still has that Uncanny Valley issue when presented front and centre under close observation. They are 99% there but that 1% is the killer. They'll get there but......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    cdgalwegian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭cdgalwegian


    There's a lot of talk about the de-aging involved in this. What worries me more is the term 'passion project' used by many to describe it. That tends to trigger warning lights for me.


Advertisement