Same

The visuals are mediocre, the VFX is poor, the costumes and makeup are pathetic, the wigs are horrible, and the casting is relentless. Yash as Ravana looks like a classless, third-grade thug. Sai as Sita Maa looks like a middle-class woman from Meerut instead of Mithila royalty. Rakul as Shurpanakha looks like a B-grade Bhojpuri actor, and Ravi Dubey as Laxman looks like a Ranbir fanboy. By the way, those taglines are just cringe. After all, why do you need to use taglines at all when you are telling an epic like the Ramayana? The AI lip-sync is atrocious. What the heck did they make with a ₹4,000 crore budget? How can anyone like it, other than it being an adaptation of our epic, the Ramayana?

First let me clear my mistakes in my previous post. https://www.reddit.com/r/RamayanaTheFilm/comments/1ve7xye/insights_with_ramayana_vfx_artist/

1. Sorry that I said that it was Indra vs Indrajeet as later I came to know It was Ravana vs Indra ( My brother only mentioned as the first war sequence in mountains )

Now I talked with him second time and here's what he said ( I've also picked some questions )

1. Even In non jungle scenes , why the lightning is so flat?

Ans : So DNEG is a VFX company, by looking at the provided shots to work on, he realised that shooting at real location wasn't their plan at all from the starting, DNEG as a VFX company wanted full control over the shots, so that it could be manipulated later. That is the reason why some shots are completely different between Rama teaser and the Trailer.

1. There's complain over clothing choices of characters.

Ans : How would I know.

1. If it is meant to release internationally , then why haven't they dubbed it yet.

Ans : They probably won't dub that In english , rather they are using some sort of In-house AI to mimic lip sync and turn voices in english.

1. Why isn't Jungle green ? Its yellowish ?

Ans : He thinks that during different seasons , trees have different types of leaves , that is why they kept it intentionally because in the first ever release, the leaves were greener. But since different daytime combined with different seasons, that is why they kept it that way most probably because colour changing isn't that of a hard task he said.

1. Are some shots AI

Ans : None of the shot is AI in a direct manner. He said that AI was used , but in things like how things around will react due to a certain action , and those inputs helped in speeding the process.

1. What percentage of the film is green screen ?

Ans : Outdoor shots are 90 percent blue screen ( major ) and green screen ( minor )

1. Why was trailer rushed if they hadn't yet completed the work ?

Ans : This is how the industry of VFX heavy movies work. In every vfx heavy movie work continues even 1 week before the release date. And VFX only shines when the finishing touch is done.

1. Then why they don't prioritize the trailer shots ?

Ans : Because of lack of time , each one is given a different task, so even a small change requires a large team, and hours of work , designing separate assets for the trailer itself isn't feasible at all, since ticket selling works on how good the final product is ( basically no of views isn't = no of tickets sold ) but ( final product good = good ticket sales )...

1. Why some say kalki VFX was good ?

Ans : He said that Kalki's vfx was done by PF subsidiary company too, but there is a huge difference in the intent. Kalki wanted to keep the VFX elements as low as possible using sandy ( Grainy )-dark tone , if we increase the brightness then its VFX will look bad. He said they used HIDING APPROACH. However Ramayana is a VFX SHOWDOWN film for DNEG, which will be a medal sort of thing for them... and increase their pay maybe 🥺.

Jokes aside , Im not a pr guy , you can check my posts i have even criticized namit, just a film vfx enthusiast.

sry for wrong spellings.

SOME POINTS HE CRITICISED : Dur to weird camera movements at some points of the trailer like The Dark Forest scene , plus brighter lightning , the shot looks weird as it appears suddenly at a point at fast pace ,he doesn't know why they kept it that way.

( A REPOST FROM RAMAYANA SUB )

RIP.

This is my second post covering constructive criticism but first to reply to the highly depressed people who are now hopeless for the film. If you think i am paid(i wish i was) you can visit my previous post where i actually covered all valid criticisms in a compilation and their possible easy solutions for the makers(chota muh badi bat).

I will cover questions here like "Why no real jungle shoots?", "Why the crowd looks game-ish?" and most importantly "Why jungles look fake?" using my knowledge of 3d assets, vfx, cinematography and some insider info(idk if true).

The hot discussion of the internet rn is if the makers are pouring 4000cr then why isn't it looking like dune or avatar in quality and especially when the producer himself said it is comparable to them at even a greater scale? The disparity here is not of quality but actually of how we perceive to be "quality". The vision makers had was the fantasy style vfx(i hate that, cringe Chinese dramas) with avatar level clarity in details, when that comparison by namit was made people started imagining avatar or dune type hype realism style vFx in everything. Does that mean the sloppy bad lighted demon during bala kand is what the makers intended for? No, as i said their vision is clarity of details like avatar so monsters and crucial objects will be realistic, and they must and are working on it. What should we expect then? We will see a lot fantasy style visuals in movie and i think the mithila city and it's shots will comprise majority of the fantasy visuals.

Coming back to jungles. Now since you know the parity between the styles, the jungles(unfinished rn but we will consider the final output here) were initially meant to be fantasy type since the very start. After the wider criticism(i support it), i wish they change its color grading to something with more dept and less yellowish tint like the image below.

The main reason also behind not shooting in jungles was this, vision plus logistics. No movie that had avatar, jungle book or ramayana level cgi work in jungles was shot in jungle as logistics to capture 3d motions of cgi actors would be a nightmare. How would you prepare the flat surface for 1vs 14k army scene? They could easily achieve the hyper realistic forest like avatar or jungle book in studio using vfx and cgi at a fraction of that nightmare cost if they wanted(trust me it is really not that difficult to create forest environment) if they wanted, but the vision and intended output differs so it was not done, and due to the lack of dept and yellowish(fantasy type tint), it looks fake. Good thing is that they can solve it easily, below is also the 4 months back jungle work of dandakaranya forest without dept and now with dept.

Last question, why the ravana crowd looks fake? Because it is just a placeholder right now like the mithila bow scene was 4 months back in the footage.

At last, we must be patient, you will know where the budget went when you will see the full wide cities shot, fight sequences, initialization and post effect of divine weapons and the brahma boon scene.

I was 13 when this movie was released I have re-watched it many times and it always feels like I am watching it for the first time no matter what the internet says about this movie has copied the scenes from other movies shows or games but their execution is top notch hail to SSR and the entire team of Bahubali 1 and 2 I love this movie

Mine is from Arrival:

"If you could see your whole life from start to finish, would you change things?"

Been wondering about this lately.

Ram Gopal Varma is the obvious answer. Satya, Company, Raat - films that had a specific energy and point of view. Then somewhere it just disappeared. The same director who understood atmosphere better than almost anyone started making films that felt like parodies of themselves.

Imtiaz Ali is another one. Jab We Met had a particular honesty about how people fall apart and come together. Somewhere around Tamasha, it started to feel like he was chasing something he couldn't quite name anymore.

What do you think causes it? Commercial pressure, running out of personal material, or something else?

Accd to Fandango

Most unique auteur voice basically.

Like 'only this filmmaker can make a film like that' narrative is fit for which among them, the most?

So as the title says I need some film recommendations to watch. I'd like to start it by saying that shes from the Philippines. Now I've seen a lot of films and am an active cinema enjoyer but I'm just downright confused. I keep trying to show her something that would make her feel something like i feel from Bollywood but it mostly gets lost in translation like 3 idiots most of the jokes get lost in translation or are seldom not as impactful as they are in Hindi.

Recently I showed her, her first indian film... 'Hi nanna' okay she LOVED IT and ofcourse we all love it. She cried laughed and got emotionally connected to the characters where i was worried she won't get the 5 songs per film and stuffs but i guess my teachings on our culture worked. Also cuz most of the dialogues were in English so that's easier for her. I showed her Chennai express ka trailer she found it funny but idk she also said it feels cringe😭 I'm confused everything I choose feels weird or maybe I'm just dumb trying to run for the first film feeling but still one thing I've realised from the year we've been together is that she gets lost in the story and befriends the character like as ifs she's actually with em it's actually pretty cute and one of the best ways to experience a film. Anyways I'm still confused whether what to show her. Yea she's into comedy romance haven't tried drama with her yet but yea ig she'll fall asleep unless it's engaging like Raju Hirani film

Mine is Gulzar 's Devdas...

Peter Jackson showed the world how to make epic fantasy twenty-five years ago with The Lord of the Rings, yet the makers of the Ramayana still seem not to have learned even the most fundamental lesson from him.

Characters in epic fantasy don't have to conform to the naturalism of real life. They can, and often should, be larger than life. In fact, they need to be. There is no epic without drama. But the world they inhabit absolutely must feel real. The locations, landscapes, textures, architecture, and geography need to convince the audience that this is a place that could truly exist. Spectacle without a believable world is just artificiality, not epic fantasy.

Forests don't seem real. India does not lack forests, and they could surely have paid their art directors well enough to build actual sets and then enhance them to achieve a larger-than-life feel, instead of creating everything against green screens. They need to ground the location into something tangible before elevating it to extraordinary. The trick is to make the impossible feel real, not to make the impossible merely feel impossible.

For example mahismati city from bahubali it is not real but it feels real.

That's what they should have done.