Bad Photoshop job on Gulf War group photo - State of Play (2009) Discussion

[–] orangeisthenewawesome 16 years ago

I KNOW! It was shockingly bad. Pathetic.

Even if it means me taking a chubby, I will suck it up! - Tobias Funke

reply

[–] JonDavis 15 years ago

My sentiments exactly. I actually started laughing when I saw it because of how fake it looked. That was the best Photoshop job they could get?

----
I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.

reply

[–] Cynic_Guru 15 years ago

Why did they have to photoshop it anyways?? Too hard to dress up for the photo?

reply

[–] tlwilliams 15 years ago

"Why did they have to photoshop it anyways?? Too hard to dress up for the photo?"

Why the hell would you spend time and money arranging a photo shoot when you could just photoshop it in 10 minutes? Do you forget that films run on budgets and schedules too? I don't care how "easy" it is to arrange one picture... it's a million times more practical to shop it. And it is shocking that they got an easy thing like that so wrong. It's no like it ruins the film or anything but come on.... this is supposed a film made by "professionals" and any distraction htat takes you out of the film for a second is always a no-no

This signature represents a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

reply

[–] m_tron32 15 years ago

"Why the hell would you spend time and money arranging a photo shoot when you could just photoshop it in 10 minutes? Do you forget that films run on budgets and schedules too? I don't care how "easy" it is to arrange one picture... it's a million times more practical to shop it. And it is shocking that they got an easy thing like that so wrong. It's no like it ruins the film or anything but come on.... this is supposed a film made by "professionals" and any distraction htat takes you out of the film for a second is always a no-no"

Wow, in a movie this far fetched and goofy, the photo is what causes an argument? I really didn't see anything wrong with the photo. The reason you'd stage a new photo is that it's easier to "get it right" when you have control over the lighting, film quality, and photo subjects. Running to photo shop for something that can be done in a short session with some rented props is much more cost efficient than hiring a freelancer.

Hey, maybe it really IS a bad photo editing job that many of the experts here could remedy. I think I may have been paying too much attention to Javier Bardem reprising his oscar winning performance.

reply

[–] gotrice8 15 years ago

I laugh at all these stupid people trying to defend the photo. Granted it's a movie but I can produce a better photoshop picture in my highschool media arts class then what these guys being paid millions are suppose to do. This picture wasn't used once hanging off a fridge this was re-shown to us many times and was their art for the story as well.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CQTiger 15 years ago

Not that I am disagreeing with the thread but I do photoshop all the time and it didn't even bother me. I guess some people just look for goofs in the movie and when you know something is going to be a fake you will specifically look for at it in detail if that is your thing.

reply

[–] eddy77 15 years ago

"Not that I am disagreeing with the thread but I do photoshop all the time and it didn't even bother me."

Well its not because it didnt bother you that it didnt bother anybody just because 'you photoshop all the time', as if thats supposed to make you for some kind of expert.

"I guess some people just look for goofs in the movie"

No people watch a movie and when theres a big close up on something thats fake we can spot it and it messes with the immersion plain and simple.

I was really into that movie and that thing just messed it up a bit. Its like you're falling asleep and some dork who shoops a lot wakes you up.

"and when you know something is going to be a fake you will specifically look for at it in detail if that is your thing."

Yeah right because people were just watching the movie in theaters on dvd going, 'holy crap I hope theres a shopped picture in there, I know its in there and its totally going to be fake Im so excited I could pee'.

reply

[–] CQTiger 15 years ago

man you need to chill out and get a life. I imagine every dvd you see you check out every scene starting and stopping on all the errors and jotting them down in your little 'obsessive compulsive ' book Next time save us your whinging and just put it in the goofs section and dont waste a hole thread on it or better still write a letter to the FX department of the film ...I am sure they might be interested in your opinion because I am not!

reply

[–] eddy77 15 years ago

"man you need to chill out and get a life. I imagine every dvd you see you check out every scene"

My god you're such a moron. Thats exactly what you said in your first post and thats the very thing I refuted. You're too dumb to even acknowledge.

reply

[–] bronzescag 15 years ago

If this thread has generated this many responses of viewers finding the photograph amateurishly photoshopped, then trust me, it's a real issue - especially when it concerns a key plot point in the film. And I'm pretty sure the producers and directors are right now cringing about this crappy moment that pulls the audience right out of the film.

reply

[–] Oneiric 15 years ago

Thank you for bringing this up. The bad photoshop was jarring and took me out of the story. Not the right place to skimp on budget. Whoever did this little bit of work needs to find a different profession, or take some more lessons.

reply

[–] Sulalee 15 years ago

I'm glad that somebody pointed out the sh--ty photoshop job in the pictures. The screenshot someone posted with Ben Affleck's big ass head has me rolling!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dannyvazmon1 15 years ago

I have to agree the picture looked horrible. It's as if they took a picture of Ben Affleck, cut out his head with a pair of scissors, glued it into somebody else's body, and made a photocopy of it.

reply

[–] chasman99 15 years ago

Agreed - it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the photo.

*** I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?" ***

reply

[–] sencheezza 15 years ago

I couldn't agree more. Bad job and I'm glad there's a thread about this, 'cause it's not a stupid detail. Not like it ruins the movie, but it matters a lot. When no one can pay attention and notice what is supposed to be noticed on that picture but the first thing that's seen by everybody is Ben Affleck's head, then, come on, nobody can tell me it doesn't matter.

reply

[–] philippo_021 15 years ago

Good thing there is a thread for all wannabe movie critics who zooms in on a PHOTO in a moving picture.

If you dont have problems yourself you must go out and search for things that are wrong. Problems of the industrialized world. But again good for you there is a thread on a PHOTO.

reply

[–] razman1983 15 years ago

The only reason it may have look fake is because they needed younger pics of everyone. Now as far as I know it is not possible to go back in time and take 5 people together and get them to take a picture for a movie they are going to make in 15 years, but if you guys know of someone who can do that then great!

-Spoilers are for the weak

reply

[–] BarryFrom 15 years ago

Howd it look fake to you virgins? And why does it even matter, guys its a movie, its not real!

Yes, you're right anyone who spotted that glaringly bad graphics job can't have ever had sex with a woman. Are you trying to suggest that even those who work professionally with Photoshop are virgins?

Sounds more like you're just feeling a little stupid that you didn't spot it.

But yes I would guess that 9 out of 10 people who even own Photoshop could have done a better job than that.

reply

[–] xangadix 15 years ago

Even looking at the screenshots posted here, I can't really see what's so wrong with the photo. I must be turning blind or something.

Am I right that they just pasted Ben's face on somebody elses head? Cause the size of the head itself looks pretty accurate to me...

reply

[–] Preraphaelite-1 15 years ago

Totally agree. Very poor.

reply