[Cloral] In this topic, we will describe the layout and appearence of the locations on Cloral. Unlike Denduron, Cloral is unlike any location on our actual Earth. The oceans, planet itself and many of the scenes will involve heavy CGI.

For close-up shots with actors, water tanks and secure locations will be used along with portions of the Grallion set and in some cases, ships. Accompanied with green screen for backgrounds in many cases.

Basically, draw a map on Paint or some other program and find a way to post it on here.
Image hosts: photobucket.com, imageshack.us

Feel free to post text from the novel to explain your point or add locations, landmarks, etc.

[Second Earth] You may also do the same for the locations visited on Second Earth. Any additional locations not suggested in the Merchant of Death topic.

[Locations/Sets] This is also the place to help describe or design sets. You may also suggest locations for the filming of Cloral or whether it should be a CGI background.



Location ideas will not matter for Cloral as much as descriptions OF the locations. What does the environment look like. Artist depictions are very welcome for this film.
Concept drawings will mean a lot, since there are really no locations like this in existence. And the technology is entirely different as well. The boats, guns, smaller boats, smaller guns, etc.

And of course the mythical city of Faar.

So let's get brainstorming!

I'll do a sketch of Faar like I am doing for the Bedoowan castle.

I feel I should say a bit though. I mentioned it in another topic before this one was made, but I think it is relevant here. I think that the underwater portions on Cloral should be done in a variety of ways:

for closeup shots, we could go one of two ways: dry for wet, and water tanks. Water tanks were used for the underwater sequence in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Dry for wet was used for the underwater sequence in the extended cut of Peter Jackson's King Kong. (Which is worth watching.) Dry for wet usually involves using shots with wind and then slowing them down, then add cgi water effects. The problem with water tanks is that the actors will have to hold their breath, plus I guarantee that no one will be able to wear air globes, those will have to be added with a computer. A person can only hold their breath for so long, dry for wet fixes this, but with the absence of an air globe, we won't be able to use wind cause their hair will be blowing around when it isn't supposed to. But they wear swimsuits anyway, so you don't need the fans, those are for making cloths and hair move. What would probably be best is if we use a combination of the two. Use water tanks (with green screens in the background) for the shorter shots, and the shots with no dialog. use dry for wet (which without wind doesn't need to be slow) for the parts with dialog. (I don't think anyone can do speaking scenes parts in the water. Even in Harry Potter, they had bubbles coming out of his mouth, and we aren't supposed to have bubbles. Another problem with water tanks is their hair will be moving around. A problem, but I'm sure there is a solution (perhaps dry for wet is best for all these things). For wide shots, we shouldn't even use the actors. Build miniature sets and do matte paintings (you can also use those to fill in the green screens). Film those and add cgi water and cgi people swimming in it.

For the scenes on the surface of the water, in the boats, etc. There is a water tank that they used for Titanic, one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (I think, if they used it at all it wasn't for the whole movie), and I think they will be using it for Voyage of the Dawn Treader. But anyway, it would probably be better than open ocean. The habitats will need to be locations on dry land. Sets for the one where spader's mom lives, Magarin, on board ships, and the interior of Grallian. (Pardon any misspellings.)

Btw, that city where Spader's mom lives? I always pictured it as a kind of metal Venice.

Thought I would add my two cents worth.

Dry for wet does seem the right idea in general. Air globes might have to be CGI. Wouldn't be too high-tech. Will be used a lot, but I'm sure something possible especially in the near future.

There will be the inactive globes at about fishbowl size that easily fit over the actors' heads. Actual props for those purposes. And then CG models that will morph to fit their faces.

My thoughts exactly

A good example of the CGI mixture can be seen here in the ending of the movie Evan Almighty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yYC5RH9ksM They have the arc and all the people on it but the background is all blue and green screen. at 2:16 is a really good example.

I just thought of another real life prop to CGI usage. In the third resident evil movie the villain tyrant has that hand with the giant fingers that grow. In real life he had a hand made of latex or whatever, and then the fingers are manipulated in CGI and grown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjgSsy8mHfA

Umm, I really didn't like Evan Almighty. Bruce Almighty was better (because Jim Carrey is hilarious and Steve Carell is just average.). So I don't think that's a good example.As for that Resident Evil scene, looks awesome.Although a bit fake. Besides that, it could work.

I wasn't talking about the movie itself just the way the effects were done. And yes,
Bruce Almighty>Even Almighty

Well, the tough thing is that the actors will need an effect that makes it look like there's an air globe over their face while the rest of them is moving underwater.
Actually putting a globe like that on an actor would likely make them a little claustrophobic to begin with, so that part almost has to be CGI, at least after it contracts, but if they're just holding it, it could simply be a large bowl.

Cloral technology will be pretty tough to portray really.

just something to throw out there, what if the air globe only covered part of their head?

Uhm?

What do you mean?

And I guess they'd be wearing wetsuits, so their clothing wouldn't have to move in water.

And don't forget the skimmers and speeders (that thing that Bobby gets caught on in the start). The skimmer is sort of like a ski-do, but with "wings" and go underwater.

The way the airglobes were shown in the guide (about the only thing I found useful to me in that thing...) were like formfit helmets with a sort of rebreather on the interior...... I don't know how it would exactly work in modern movie terms, though....

Yeah, true. With the air globes, I always pictured them as being something that once you put them on your head, it's almost like you forget they're even there. Or maybe once they're on, they form fit to your head so perfectly, you hardly see anything there.

Hope that makes sense. We'll have to discuss that though...

What I meant was that the actual prop would only cover most of their head, but wouldn't cover their face, so that their hair would be flat, but that way they wouldn't be claustrophobic. Also, I don't think the "harmonica" device should be on top of the head, I think it should be in front of the mouth.

Yeah, I think in front of the mouth would look much better as opposed to on top of the head. I dunno, it might look a little odd having that on top of the head :P Just my opinion, anyway.

And since it gives them oxygen and whatnot, having it in front of the mouth would make sense anyway.

For some reason I thought the harmonica thing was on the back of the head or neck somewhere. I'm probably way off though.

I kind of pictured it top and back, kind of a parietal region from how it was described in the book. But the front makes just as much sense as anything.

The front makes the most sense, but it seems like it may look a little weird if it's covering the mouth. That's just me, of course.

Hmm...yeah, might look a little odd. We'll just have to play around with it and see where best to put the "harmonica" device ;)

I think somewhere betwen the top of the head and neck. Where I allways pictured it.

In front of the mouth will not look wierd, what I think would look wierd is the top of the head:



I personally think that looks dumb.

Yeah, it does look kind of odd. I'm not a big fan of the Guide to the Territories of Halla anyway. Near the mouth would look more natural, I always thought.

I would agree with that.

The filter (harmonica thing) is supposed to go at the back of the head. It is referenced as such on pages 29 and 38 and 39 of LCoF. It might make more sense to have it in frony, but I think it might look weird and it would sort of be a distraction. If we had it had the back, it would hold true to the story more and wouldn't be such a distraction.

That's true, too. We certainly don't want it being a distraction to the audience. Might get a little annoying, seeing as they'll be there for almost the entire length of the film. I'm alright with it at the back ;)

It makes plenty of sense at the back, and wouldn't get in the way of their faces. Plus, the globe contracts and becomes form-fitting, so the device would then be pressed against their face.

Exactly, and plus I think we're all in agreement here for the back of the globe.

This movie is going to cost a lot of money, lol.

I also agree. On the back is best. The front would obscure the actor's face, and it looks like they have a C4 strapped to their heads if it's on the top.

Agreed.

If it is in the back of their head, it is going to be in their hair. So that ceases to make sense there too. This thing is meant to transfer radio waves, and gather the oxygen that is dispersed throughout the water.

So it needs to not be at the hair, it needs to be near the mouth, because the mouth is what needs the oxygen, and it also needs to be there to record their voice and transmit it via radio waves. Plus, it won't be that distracting.

We see characters in movies all the time that have helmets or masks on. Does that become distracting? Not really.

Mmm, yeah, forgot that it also helps with communication as well. You know what, I actually think having it near the mouth wouldn't be that bad, after thinking it over. I don't think it'll be so much of a distraction that people would think, "I don't want to see this film..." That'd be a bit extreme, I think.

Not that big of a deal.