• t0fr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.

    However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That’s what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      And that’s my point. It wasn’t cartoonish special effects with bizarre physics.

      It was well down.

      • t0fr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Alright. Well I agree

        Perhaps you did not get your point across in your downvoted comment

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          When cgi is done right, it enhances the movie. It’s nearly seamless. Too gun 2 combined great cgi with great practical effects. They didn’t just slap shit cgi over everything and expect people to love it. In thirty years top gun 2 will still look amazing.

          I’ve watched it at home and in the theaters. It still looks good at home. Obviously it looks better in the theaters.

          I’m not a fan of cruise but damn his vision was solid.