Needs more CGI

Seriously tho, this thing is going to kill epileptics from miles away.

That's probably okay, though, since it's clear they didn't make this movie for me or people like me.

Cars flipping around and defying gravity would have been much more organic had they managed to find a way to shoot them as real as possible. Look at the Wachowskis' amazing effects efforts with Matrix Reloaded in that highway sequence. It was damn near photorealistic (to bad the rest of that flick was bloated nonsense... but it looked great). THAT is what is missing with SPEED RACER thus far. THAT was what was missing with the SW Prequel trilogy (besides good scripts, solid direction, etc.).

The direction they took here, I don't know. It would have been more badass had they gone for an organic looking production and action/stunt design. If I saw a variation of the Matrix Reloaded highway sequence, but with the race cars having the otherworldy defiance of gravity showcased in the martial arts scenes of that trilogy, THEN I'd be pumped. Now... not so much. Time will tell though once the movie comes out.

It's not supposed to look real. It's supposed too look Hyper Real. And man oh man does it Pop!

Hope it gets the RealD 3d treatment. Looks like it will be hella fun.

That's the eternal problem with CG--the lack of "weight" or presence. (I can hardly watch Gollum at this point, it bugs me more with each viewing.) Is anyone closer to solving it, or is it simply that our eyes ultimately can't be fooled by unreality? In a way, that would be reassuring.

What seems to be failing in this, as least based on these quick little trailers, is that it seems like they're trying to achieve Actual Drama with the actors, but pure candy with the visuals. It's hard to see how they can possibly make it gel. (Remember Dick Tracy? Ugh.)

But I'm splitting hairs. Kudos to them for trying something this whacked-out, even if it fails.

Dumb-ass.

I will not sleep for the next hour.

And...ENTER.

Yes... even more than The Dark Knight!

Ick.

I guess one of the problems I have with most CGI is that it's an example of people (studios, producers, directors, others as the case may be) seemingly obsessed with the technology over the substance. It's gone from masterful uses (in films like the original Jurassic Park) to a dime-a-dozen crutch in garbage like Van Helsing. It's allowed filmmakers to make their films look even more dated in a more efficient and spectacular way.

Someone above brought up older special effects like Harryhausen's, and how CGI is just more of the same. But in critical ways, it's *not* the same. Practical effects, no matter how cheap, have a presence that our eyes understand. CGI has its uses, which are most effective when subtle or blended with actual reality. But these days, it's often used as a shortcut that cheapens the experience for viewers.

I predict that TRON will be the last film whose CG effects will be looked back on with fond nostalgia. Everything we're seeing these days will just look stupid and primitive, and unlike, say, Harryhausen or Gene Kelly with the mouse, devoid of the all-important direct hand of the creator. Sorry, clicking a mouse doesn't count.

Upon a second viewing, it's got me jazzed to see..right after taking a few mind bashing shots of absinthe, a few 'shrooms and watching it in IMAX. This will be fun, but again, I don't think it's going to affect the films that come after it in the same way the Matrix did (for both good and ill)...It does look like an impressionistic art piece, but if the Wachowskis actually direct instead of produce...this might be okay.

I can be nervous because of this shot right? ---> http://tinyurl.com/2gruvd

Looks average with a high gloss coat of paint...

I will say that the Mach 5 has all the cool shit from the cartoon, but I miss the yock-yock-yock sound from launching itself into the air. Also, I hope there's more than one full race...you know instead of a 'Karate Kid' "You're The Best" / montage sequence of Speed winning a bunch of races. Still concerned...but very, very hopeful!

I think what Albertson/Milla are trying to say is that people irrationally attack CGI while at the same time defending older techniques that can be even less effective/realistic. They make the point that realism is overrated and there are other ways of telling stories/creating art.

In point of fact, CGI will be the tool that will allow film to move beyond its realistic form. Now every frame of film is a palette from which you can create art unrestricted by actual geography/laws of nature. Certainly there were and still are other techniques that can do this, but I think CGI is the most powerful in its potential.

C'mon!!

Anyway, I'll take a pass on the SR either out of skepticism or the fact that I'd rather hope in vain for a Robotech or Gatchaman/BOTP film adaptation.

"Meh"