Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: gwEm on August 10, 2009, 02:14:01 PM
-
To be honest, I think really good models and puppets can beat even the best CGI. I was watching some sci-fi at the weekend and I'm pretty sure about this.
-
Depends how good the model or cgi is..
ie I think ET looks shitee in comparison to Gollum in LOTR :)
-
Models and practical effects for me every time! Even if they look at bit ropey sometimes, the fact that you're watching the actors engaging with something that's actually there makes all the difference IMO.
When I watch things like the Matrix sequels, Van Helsing ( :x ) or even Peter Jackson's King Kong remake I feel like I'm watching someone else playing a computer game.
Having said that, practical effects combined with subtle CGI can be very effective. CGI is best when you don't know it's there.
-
What?? Van Hesling was cgi?!! :o
:lol:
I dunno, I find there are other things that have a far greater effect on my enjoyment or otherwise.
Eg. We recently got hold of Indiana Jones IV and Mummy III (whatever they're actually called) for really cheap money. I'd heard varying reports that summed them both up as "@rse, they're nearly all cgi" - so I decided I wouldn't get them until they were under a fiver...
Mummy III - total fecking @rse, even on second viewing, absolute sh1te... Yeah, I can see cgi there but, to be honest, nothing to make me complain, in fact, I thought it was alright in that department... What buggers this one for me is the total lack of coherent/engaging story, characters, actors even, and all the usual things that make a film half enjoyable, or at least good enough to doze through - what were they thinking? :lol: (btw does anybody know how/why Rachel wotsit managed to dodge this particular bullet? and why did they think it was worth making without her??)
Indiana Jones IV - I had very low hopes on this one, but was extremely pleasantly surprised. Are the effects any better on this than the Mummy fiasco? I really don't know and I must admit I don't really care - they seemed much of a muchness to me. The difference was I liked the story (as much as any of them), characters, actors... it romps along like it's meant to, it's daft, etc, blah...
For me, effects are effects. While I'm watching the film, if I can suspend my disbelief, and the effects are good enough not to jeopardise that state-of-mind, then I'm happy, and I'm really not too fussed how they did it. After the event, eg watching the "extras", I can get impressed by folk who don't use computers if they can avoid it (eg Eternal Sunshine) - but it has very little impact on whether I enjoy the film or not...
(Do bear in mind that this is from someone who is extremely happy to use modellors instead of "real" amplifiers because they're cheaper and a lot less hassle... :lol:)
-
Interesting! I haven't seen Mummy III (and have no intention of ever doing so) but I found the enormous amount of CGI in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (catchy title :| ) pretty distracting and irritating. Fortunately(?) the plot, performances and direction were sufficiently cack that at least everything felt consistent....
Any film where the presence of Shia LaBeouf is one of the least annoying aspects has got big problems. :?
-
yeah, i saw Indy IV last week on Sky HD. i had thought "it can't be that bad, people are just being nasty because it's not the original". i was wrong, it is at least that bad! really awful film. i reckon John Hurt just got utterly stoned to make his character more convincing and so he'd be oblivious to the actual movie! :) Cate Blanchett's Russian was so over the top it was brilliant. Hurt and Blanchett are the film's only good points, and only because they were aware they were no more than cartoon characters and played up to it.
i also saw the Mummy one on sky HD recently. it is utterly daft and pointless, but i think more enjoyable than the Indiana Jones mess.
oh, yeah, this was about CGI versus practical effects. CGI can be great, but these days too many films are just about those effects with some sort of half assed story tacked on. if you want great practical effects, watch John Carpenter's The Thing. absolute masterpiece!! funny enough, some of the best CGI i've seen is still the original Jurassic Park.
-
Wallace & Gromit rule for me every day!
-
if you want great practical effects, watch John Carpenter's The Thing. absolute masterpiece!!
+1 trillion!!!
The first "X" certificate film I ever saw at the cinema (totally legitimately, l could never have got in underage, I looked about 12).
-
CGI can be great, but these days too many films are just about those effects with some sort of half assed story tacked on.
I agree completely. I had the misfortune of seeing the first Transformers movie and I couldn't process what I was seeing for large amounts of time; the robots looked like Magic Eye pictures, no familiar geometry to follow. Whereas the puppetry/animatronics in Aliens and the camera matting effects in Predator still work the same magic for me as when I first saw those movies over 20 years ago.
It's the same when it comes to animation; the story should be the most important part. Pixar use CGI, Studio Ghibli use traditional animation, Aardman use stop-motion, and all three studios produce good films because they concentrate on character and story instead of pointless effects.
-
Good call Mecca and Blue - "effects with some sort of half assed story tacked on" and "the story should be the most important part" :)
I guess I really don't mind "how they did it", as long as they're entertaining me. I still get a kick out of both Jason and the Argonauts type stuff and Matrix/Van Helsing type stuff.
Interesting though, Blue, that you found the mummy debacle more enjoyable than the jones one :lol: (I only used them as examples anyway). We watched the mummy one a second time just to see if it really was as bad as we thought, we watched the jones one a second time because we wanted to!
-
Depends how good the model or cgi is..
ie I think ET looks shiteee in comparison to Gollum in LOTR :)
sure, but Yoda looks definitely better than Jar Jar...
and LOTR itself wouldn't be so beautiful without its million tons of models, miniatures, costumes and props... i hate "modern" movies where every damn thing is rendered in CG... if you watch Jurassic Park today, CGI looks dated, but animatronics kick ass like 16 years ago!
-
A lot of CGI almost feels like its there because they want to say "look how good our CGI is".
Boring. I dont care. No one has cared since about '95, when cgi did start getting good enough you could replace whole objects with it on screen.
Have a $%&#load of effects and do them with whatever methods you please, but dont do them so that my suspension of disbelief unsuspends!
-
Use both and get the best of both :)
But as above, it's the story, script, acting, direction, etc. the are important. So many studio think they can make a totally sh*t film and 'fix it in the mix' with CG :roll:
One of the problems with CG is it gives the film maker the ability to place (or move) the camera in impossible ways. The brain immediate sees this and dismisses it as 'fake', removing the sense of immersion. And as Philly says, watching the film is like someone else playing a video game.
-
Use both and get the best of both :)
But as above, it's the story, script, acting, direction, etc. the are important. So many studio think they can make a totally sh*t film and 'fix it in the mix' with CG :roll:
One of the problems with CG is it gives the film maker the ability to place (or move) the camera in impossible ways. The brain immediate sees this and dismisses it as 'fake', removing the sense of immersion. And as Philly says, watching the film is like someone else playing a video game.
I agree with all of that but unfortunately the people who watch the most cinema are teenagers and young adults who like that stuff. Transformers 2 has grossed, to date, $818m and that means even more extreme examples of the same recipe will be made because it's a formula that works.
I've been making CGI visual effects for a living for over a decade and I strongly dislike all the, "Yeah, can you make this stuff fly through the camera? Yeah, that'd be cool!" stuff but it's what the client wants. I kinda think, and I know I would say this wouldn't I, but it's rather unfair to blame CGI for this. What we should do is blame people with no taste who go to see these terrible films, thereby enabling more to be commissioned. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "The people get the films they deserve."
This summer I saw "Star Trek", which I kind of enjoyed and thought had beautiful visual effects but haven't bothered with the rest because they don't excite me as films. I'm sure the VFX work in Transformers 2 is excellent, ILM seldom disappoints, it's just not my kind of movie, but summer movies aren't made for me, they're made for adolescents.
I'm very thankful that no one has said, "CGI is sh*t because it's done with computers and that's easy." which is a complaint I often hear. That is the most hurtful comment because it really ain't, and there are some really great artists who toil long and hard to make this stuff. Sorry, to be a bit ranty, but it's my livelihood and my passion. I really love digital effects, it can do things impossible to achieve in any other way. It's not perfect for everything but I think it's capable of producing some really beautiful, amazing images. OK rant over, I'll get my coat.
-
Use both and get the best of both :)
But as above, it's the story, script, acting, direction, etc. the are important. So many studio think they can make a totally sh*t film and 'fix it in the mix' with CG :roll:
One of the problems with CG is it gives the film maker the ability to place (or move) the camera in impossible ways. The brain immediate sees this and dismisses it as 'fake', removing the sense of immersion. And as Philly says, watching the film is like someone else playing a video game.
I agree with all of that but unfortunately the people who watch the most cinema are teenagers and young adults who like that stuff. Transformers 2 has grossed, to date, $818m and that means even more extreme examples of the same recipe will be made because it's a formula that works.
I've been making CGI visual effects for a living for over a decade and I strongly dislike all the, "Yeah, can you make this stuff fly through the camera? Yeah, that'd be cool!" stuff but it's what the client wants. I kinda think, and I know I would say this wouldn't I, but it's rather unfair to blame CGI for this. What we should do is blame people with no taste who go to see these terrible films, thereby enabling more to be commissioned. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "The people get the films they deserve."
This summer I saw "Star Trek", which I kind of enjoyed and thought had beautiful visual effects but haven't bothered with the rest because they don't excite me as films. I'm sure the VFX work in Transformers 2 is excellent, ILM seldom disappoints, it's just not my kind of movie, but summer movies aren't made for me, they're made for adolescents.
I'm very thankful that no one has said, "CGI is sh*t because it's done with computers and that's easy." which is a complaint I often hear. That is the most hurtful comment because it really ain't, and there are some really great artists who toil long and hard to make this stuff. Sorry, to be a bit ranty, but it's my livelihood and my passion. I really love digital effects, it can do things impossible to achieve in any other way. It's not perfect for everything but I think it's capable of producing some really beautiful, amazing images. OK rant over, I'll get my coat.
You can just not go and see the films. Theres no need to try and spoil it for the rest of us.
Those of us to whom its niether passion nor livelihood can like films that are mindless fun. Theres nothing to hold me to your exacting cinematic standards, and I wouldnt want them anyway. I actively seek out dumb films. I get more than enough real human drama in my real human life, and if I want to gain any insight into life, existance and the human condition, I'll read it (just embarked on Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio, very interesting so far!). When I want to see giant robots fighting, where else can I turn to?
-
CGI can work very well I think. I love toy story and pixar animations and the CGI in transformers is pretty much spot on.
However think puppetry can be better. The end of Rec comes to mind....shudderingly scary, I dont think CGI would work so well there. I also love the labyrinth and the dark crystal.
I think puppetry can be better but for destruction and explosions its way better to use CGI
-
You can just not go and see the films. Theres no need to try and spoil it for the rest of us.
Those of us to whom its niether passion nor livelihood can like films that are mindless fun. Theres nothing to hold me to your exacting cinematic standards, and I wouldnt want them anyway. I actively seek out dumb films. I get more than enough real human drama in my real human life, and if I want to gain any insight into life, existance and the human condition, I'll read it (just embarked on Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio, very interesting so far!). When I want to see giant robots fighting, where else can I turn to?
Sorry, I'm not making myself very clear. I don't have any issue with dumb movies, many of my favourite films are dumb movies (I loved "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull") and clearly anyone who goes to see Transformers 2 is in good company: the ticket sales don't lie. All I was trying to say, not very well, is that the reason summer films are as they are today, love them or loathe them, is because they are specifically crafted to appeal to a certain demographic: it's a purely commercial imperative and nothing, really, to do with tools used to make it.
-
.
Interesting though, Blue, that you found the mummy debacle more enjoyable than the jones one :lol: (I only used them as examples anyway). We watched the mummy one a second time just to see if it really was as bad as we thought, we watched the jones one a second time because we wanted to!
just different views andy, would be boring if we all liked the same ones! :) it was more issues with the script that annoyed me in Indy. like, at the tomb where they found the dead spaniards and the skull, who were the guys with the blowpipes? why did the monkeys behave the way they did? random things happened with no explanation whatsoever. also, maybe i did give in to having high expectations. thinking about it, the Mummy was rubbish too! it was just that i saw journey to the centre of the earth before it, and i think Zippy and George doing Waiting For Godot would have made sense after that!! :) actually, that's not a bad idea....
-
I'm not usually that interested in CGI films. If I am, its not something I would particularly notice.
-
You can just not go and see the films. Theres no need to try and spoil it for the rest of us.
Those of us to whom its niether passion nor livelihood can like films that are mindless fun. Theres nothing to hold me to your exacting cinematic standards, and I wouldnt want them anyway. I actively seek out dumb films. I get more than enough real human drama in my real human life, and if I want to gain any insight into life, existance and the human condition, I'll read it (just embarked on Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio, very interesting so far!). When I want to see giant robots fighting, where else can I turn to?
Sorry, I'm not making myself very clear. I don't have any issue with dumb movies, many of my favourite films are dumb movies (I loved "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull") and clearly anyone who goes to see Transformers 2 is in good company: the ticket sales don't lie. All I was trying to say, not very well, is that the reason summer films are as they are today, love them or loathe them, is because they are specifically crafted to appeal to a certain demographic: it's a purely commercial imperative and nothing, really, to do with tools used to make it.
Oh, all true enough. Anyone who doesnt think that the big film industry and summer blockbuster thing is all just to make money from the lowest common denominator of taste in that particular area, marketing and screening times set accordingly, is an idiot. Some of them are actually good films, but I'm sure its all just a horrible accident.
I'm just content to be in the lowest common denominator for some things :D
-
Models and practical effects for me every time! Even if they look at bit ropey sometimes, the fact that you're watching the actors engaging with something that's actually there makes all the difference IMO.
When I watch things like the Matrix sequels, Van Helsing ( :x ) or even Peter Jackson's King Kong remake I feel like I'm watching someone else playing a computer game.
Having said that, practical effects combined with subtle CGI can be very effective. CGI is best when you don't know it's there.
agreed.
there are certain things that you can't really attempt without CGI- gigantic battles etc., and in those cases i make an exception, but certainly when it could be done without CGI, or it's just an excuse to put some CGI in, i'm not a major fan.
You can just not go and see the films. Theres no need to try and spoil it for the rest of us.
Those of us to whom its niether passion nor livelihood can like films that are mindless fun. Theres nothing to hold me to your exacting cinematic standards, and I wouldnt want them anyway. I actively seek out dumb films. I get more than enough real human drama in my real human life, and if I want to gain any insight into life, existance and the human condition, I'll read it (just embarked on Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio, very interesting so far!). When I want to see giant robots fighting, where else can I turn to?
agreed wholeheartedly. EDIT: just realised that wasn't what andrew meant- disregard! :lol:
-
Models and practical effects for me every time! Even if they look at bit ropey sometimes, the fact that you're watching the actors engaging with something that's actually there makes all the difference IMO.
When I watch things like the Matrix sequels, Van Helsing ( :x ) or even Peter Jackson's King Kong remake I feel like I'm watching someone else playing a computer game.
Having said that, practical effects combined with subtle CGI can be very effective. CGI is best when you don't know it's there.
agreed.
there are certain things that you can't really attempt without CGI- gigantic battles etc., and in those cases i make an exception, but certainly when it could be done without CGI, or it's just an excuse to put some CGI in, i'm not a major fan.
You can just not go and see the films. Theres no need to try and spoil it for the rest of us.
Those of us to whom its niether passion nor livelihood can like films that are mindless fun. Theres nothing to hold me to your exacting cinematic standards, and I wouldnt want them anyway. I actively seek out dumb films. I get more than enough real human drama in my real human life, and if I want to gain any insight into life, existance and the human condition, I'll read it (just embarked on Descartes' Error, Antonio Damasio, very interesting so far!). When I want to see giant robots fighting, where else can I turn to?
agreed wholeheartedly. EDIT: just realised that wasn't what andrew meant- disregard! :lol:
:lol:
Yeah, the wires crossed somewhere there!
-
:lol:
-
there are certain things that you can't really attempt without CGI- gigantic battles etc., and in those cases i make an exception, but certainly when it could be done without CGI, or it's just an excuse to put some CGI in, i'm not a major fan.
Well, of course, in the good ol' days of Hollywood they did stage gigantic battles with hundreds and hundreds of extras. And it was a hell of a lot more effective that shite like Troy. :P
Anyone seen The Good, The Bad, The Weird? I'm sure it has tons of CGI as well, but there's a massive battle scene with loads of extras in vehicles and on horseback, charging around a huge desert plain. It's packed with live stunts and brilliantly directed.
-
there are certain things that you can't really attempt without CGI- gigantic battles etc., and in those cases i make an exception, but certainly when it could be done without CGI, or it's just an excuse to put some CGI in, i'm not a major fan.
Well, of course, in the good ol' days of Hollywood they did stage gigantic battles with hundreds and hundreds of extras. And it was a hell of a lot more effective that shitee like Troy. :P
A good point. In spite of their lesser "scale" in terms of number of participants, the battle sequences in Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan have a sense of reality to me that isn't present when I see two huge CGI armies wheeling across a field in a swooping long shot, Lord of the Rings style.
-
However think puppetry can be better. The end of Rec comes to mind....shudderingly scary, I dont think CGI would work so well there.
Indeed, that ending scene is horrible!
-
Gonna Be The Best film EVER!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o
-
This is pure class..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYRZ_-RXtk
-
hahah oh my god. I must see this film.
-
hahah oh my god. I must see this film.
F**k yeah... Its even got Debbie Gibson in it!! (the old guys will know about her)
-
This is pure class..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYRZ_-RXtk
It's from these people: http://www.theasylum.cc/
I love them. I may have to buy all the "Transmorphers" movies.
-
Have to say I think the effects in Aliens is the best I've seen, it still looks super realistic to me, even though the movie is as old as i am.
Though I liked what they done in Aliens Vs Predator. In the first one at least, they used puppets but smoothed things over in CGI. And too much CGI can be a bad thing, Transformers was great until the robots started moving. But that's not the worst part of the movies.
-
The worst part about Transformers is Shia LeBoef and his overuse of the word "no" in every film he's ever done.
-
The worst part about Transformers is Shia LeBoef and his overuse of the word "no" in every film he's ever done.
I wish Shia LeBoef would say no more when being offered a part... He is rubbish.
That's why Transmorphers is better! :lol:
-
I will have to check out this Transmorphers!
Oh and I just thought of another bad thing: Megan Fox has far too many clothes on all the time
-
The worst part about Transformers is Shia LeBoef and his overuse of the word "no" in every film he's ever done.
I wish Shia LeBoef would say no more when being offered a part... He is rubbish.
That's why Transmorphers is better! :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s)
And Megan Fox looks like a porn star. Not a good thing. I really don't like her.
-
Well, of course, in the good ol' days of Hollywood they did stage gigantic battles with hundreds and hundreds of extras. And it was a hell of a lot more effective that shiteeee like Troy. :P
sure. I meant more from the point of view that you can do it now in any old film, not just the one film in 20 years which can afford it. Of course, real extras is far superior, just it's so expensive it's rarely done. :) I haven't seen troy... :(
Look at sharpe (which kicks ass anyway)- you'd have thought the battle of waterloo was fought between about 15 french, prussian and english soldiers. :lol:
A good point. In spite of their lesser "scale" in terms of number of participants, the battle sequences in Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan have a sense of reality to me that isn't present when I see two huge CGI armies wheeling across a field in a swooping long shot, Lord of the Rings style.
is lord of the rings meant to be realistic? ;) was braveheart realistic (the accent wasn't, anyway o_O )?
-
A good point. In spite of their lesser "scale" in terms of number of participants, the battle sequences in Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan have a sense of reality to me that isn't present when I see two huge CGI armies wheeling across a field in a swooping long shot, Lord of the Rings style.
is lord of the rings meant to be realistic? ;) was braveheart realistic (the accent wasn't, anyway o_O )?
I wouldn't necessarily call either of them "realistic", especially since almost any "historical" movie with Mel Gibson attached is likely to be about as accurate as an episode of Blackadder. I just meant that the battle scenes in LOTR don't connect with me at all; it's like suddenly switching from live-action to a cartoon, it takes me completely out of the movie. The best thing about Braveheart is definitely the Lee & Herring alternative ending...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s)
And Megan Fox looks like a porn star. Not a good thing. I really don't like her.
haha yeah thats the video I was going to post, but couldnt be bothered to open up a new tab and go to youtube.
I agree re: Megan Fox, but you cant deny it would make the films more watchable.
-
watched transmorphers this morning - full of hot women! the CGI is pretty bad, but the story is entertaining. good film i reckon
:)
re megan fox, i thought she was good in transformers, but not at all sure about her in general.
-
re megan fox, i thought she was good in transformers, but not at all sure about her in general.
How in the name of all that's holy can anyone be "good" in Transformers? :?
I can't remember her doing anything other than looking sultry or mildly distressed (in an "ooh what's that big thing you're pointing at me" kind of way). Why the hell did they cast an actress who looks like a 30-year-old porn star as a high school kid anyway?
-
re megan fox, i thought she was good in transformers, but not at all sure about her in general.
How in the name of all that's holy can anyone be "good" in Transformers? :?
I can't remember her doing anything other than looking sultry or mildly distressed (in an "ooh what's that big thing you're pointing at me" kind of way). Why the hell did they cast an actress who looks like a 30-year-old porn star as a high school kid anyway?
Transformers isn't a Cannes nominee, and it doesn't pretend to be. Just judge it for what it is, in these type of films the leading lady is all about looking sultry and mildly distressed.
-
Transformers isn't a Cannes nominee, and it doesn't pretend to be. Just judge it for what it is, in these type of films the leading lady is all about looking sultry and mildly distressed.
I do judge it for what it is - a bag o'shite.
I agree it's not meant to be taken seriously - in fact it's meant to make $$$ MONEY $$$, and NOTHING else - but that doesn't justify what utter tripe it actually is.
The thing that always amazes me about blockbusters is that the worst aspect is, without exception, the part that costs the least - the script. It's as cheap to write a good script as a bad one. All it takes is one or two people sitting at a keyboard, costs almost nothing. But on all these films, they pay some buffoons to write some nonsensical rubbish, then get some more buffoons to patch it up a bit (when it's too bad even for Michael Bay, Brett Ratner or Stephen Sommers to use). And then they get some "script doctors" to add a bit more romance, or more explosions, and cut down the talky bits, and make sure it'll run for the designated time (about 150 minutes, by current standards). And it's still shite.
And then you get some dopey bint like Megan Fox being interviewed on the DVD extras, saying she took the part because it was "such a great script" and "you don't see many strong, assertive female characters like this one". :roll:
:gib:
-
you have strong points philly
but lets not forget this is transformers - you go to see giant robots fighting each other. the script of the original TV series and movie wasn't exactly at shakespearian levels of rhetoric or irony. "me grimlock" etc etc
for me the weakest part of transformers was the reimagining of megatron
edit: having said all that, Transformers:The Movie (the animated one) did deal with some pretty complex ideas
-
I've never seen the TV series - after my time! - but of course you're right, it's not Shakespeare and I don't expect it to be. I did actually go to see the first Transformers thinking it might be entertaining - I'd be perfectly happy to watch giant robots smashing each other up if it was done well. But it wasn't.
I'm not totally against the principle of blockbusters or big dumb action movies - they have their place, and some of them are great fun (although I'm struggling to think of examples). I can be a bit highbrow sometimes but, to be honest, I find a lot of "serious" movies boring, too.
It may be naive, but I think people should make movies because they love movies. If you want to make a dumb, fun movie to entertain people, fine. But If you make movies for "target audiences" with nothing but $$$ as a motive, then $%&# you as far as I'm concerned. It's the cynicism and laziness of the process I most object to - "oh well, it'll be good enough as long as there are enough tits, explosions and product placement".
It's strange that most of us - at least on a forum like this - would object to bland, manufactured, lowest-common-demominator music, but we're much more prepared to accept it in films.
(Thinking about it, I'm surprised Simon Cowell has never tried his hand as a movie producer....)
-
yeah, my issue with transformers was that the decepticons in particular just look like big piles of scr@p metal. what were they thinking!?!?
-
Come to think of it - and back on topic - Transformers would be a million times better if it was stop-motion, rather than CGI. And if it was directed by a non-idiot, rather than Michael Bay.
-
Models and Puppets all the way, I think CGI's place should be filling in the blanks and helping the models / puppets work well.
Not just my honest opinion, but I have to say it anyway, I have a friend who used to do sculpting and creating puppets / models and work is really hard to come by. He survives by sculpting scale models and stuff for...I think the British Institute? Some kind of museum I think anyway. It sucks to know he has to do that when his past includes designing and building Jabba the Hutt for Return of the Jedi, a whole load of stuff for The Dark Crystal and more recently, designing and building the costume and prosthetics for "The Diva" in The Fifth Element (the tall blue singing lady...)
A man with such legendary credentials shouldn't be making models of frickin' Antarctica. Down with CGI, give the real artists their jobs back! :)
-
I wouldn't necessarily call either of them "realistic", especially since almost any "historical" movie with Mel Gibson attached is likely to be about as accurate as an episode of Blackadder. I just meant that the battle scenes in LOTR don't connect with me at all; it's like suddenly switching from live-action to a cartoon, it takes me completely out of the movie. The best thing about Braveheart is definitely the Lee & Herring alternative ending...
ah, ok. I get you now :)
you have strong points philly
but lets not forget this is transformers - you go to see giant robots fighting each other. the script of the original TV series and movie wasn't exactly at shakespearian levels of rhetoric or irony. "me grimlock" etc etc
for me the weakest part of transformers was the reimagining of megatron
edit: having said all that, Transformers:The Movie (the animated one) did deal with some pretty complex ideas
good job you came in with that edit, can't have people slagging off the original 1986 cartoon!
That being said i actually liked transformers (the one with leboeuf), though the big CGI fight at the end kind of sucked. EDIT: as did the soundtrack, compared to the original, anyway. Hmmm, 80s metal or linkin park? :shock:
Haven't seen the second one yet.
grrr, the darn quote thing has stopped working for me again... i hate when that happens. Anyway:
"It's strange that most of us - at least on a forum like this - would object to bland, manufactured, lowest-common-demominator music, but we're much more prepared to accept it in films. "
Makes perfect sense if you ask me, we're more music buffs than film buffs. though i like plenty of trashy music too. Don't make me bring up winger again! :lol:
-
Makes perfect sense if you ask me, we're more music buffs than film buffs. though i like plenty of trashy music too. Don't make me bring up winger again! :lol:
Yeah, but it's so obvious when music is manufactured, it's completely soulless. And I think it's exactly the same for films.
And....
WINGER IS NOT TRASHY!
:lol:
-
i love winger. I just mean that lots of other people would consider it trashy.
I agree about the money/manufactured thing. But even manufactured stuff can occasionally be decent.
-
It's strange that most of us - at least on a forum like this - would object to bland, manufactured, lowest-common-demominator music, but we're much more prepared to accept it in films.
:?
A high percentage of this forum love 70's/80's stadium rock, I can think of few things more bland. :lol:
-
It's strange that most of us - at least on a forum like this - would object to bland, manufactured, lowest-common-demominator music, but we're much more prepared to accept it in films.
:?
A high percentage of this forum love 70's/80's stadium rock, I can think of few things more bland. :lol:
OK, I'll take out the word "bland", now you've had your fun. :P
-
:lol:
In all fairness, I think there's a lot of great tunes amongst manufactured pop, and I think there are plenty great "lowest-common-denominator" films. There's a time and a place for these things. I love steak, but sometimes I just really want a kebab, y'know?
-
I really do love good films Philly, but sometimes all you need is a cr@p predictable action film. I find that rubbish films have their own charm as well. Rubbish music is just, well.. rubbish.
edit - nfe basically posted the same thing as me :) Also agree with him about the manufactured pop stuff
-
Tom, nfe, I don't disagree with either of you.
Believe me, I watch and enjoy a lot of rubbish films. But there's "so bad it's good"...... and there's just plain bad.
But to reiterate, I'm mainly objecting to the fact that so many mainstream Hollywood films are rubbish. Especially when, as I said, the main problem is almost always the script - the bit which doesn't cost tens of millions of dollars.
-
hm yeah I agree.. I've recently seen so many adverts for films which just look shite. Like that one where that guy is forced into marrying his boss. Cant remember the name. Just terrible - not even worth a download!
-
[cough] The Proposal. [/cough]
Last night I watched Max Payne. There's nothing "so bad it's good" about that. It's just 95 minutes of torture-by-boredom.
-
haha I turned off Max Payne after about 15 minutes. Mostly because of the sound, it was atrocious. All seemed really compressed, it was fatiguing to my ears. Never had that with a film before!
Oh and there was something about shadow monsters or something :?
edit - just saw an advert for something called Dance Flick. Clearly its a spoof but it looks so bad :(
-
The flying shadow monsters were just hallucinations caused by the drug.
So the only bit of the film which was slightly non-boring... wasn't actually there. :(
-
[cough] The Proposal. [/cough]
Last night I watched Max Payne. There's nothing "so bad it's good" about that. It's just 95 minutes of torture-by-boredom.
I couldnt sit through max pain
Yes, I, lover of dumb and bad films thought it was too dumb and bad.
Saw Highlander Endgame the other day. Now THATS what I call a good bad film! I immensly enjoyed hating every second of it
-
generally speaking i just refuse to watch films based on computer games. And refuse to play computer games based on films. They're just cash-ins and generally suck. I haven't seen the max payne film (though the fact it stars mark wahlberg is hardly a good sign), but the game was good.
-
They're good rules! I watch films based on games, but I've never liked any. I've never played a game based on a film. They all look balls.
-
I guess I've seen quite a few films based on computer games, but I don't know the games so I don't have any preconceptions.
I like the Resident Evil films - there you go, some cheesy rubbish I did enjoy! - but the presence of Milla Jovovich helps.
I had high hopes for Silent Hill, but it was a little disappointing.
The rest were all rubbish, as far as I can remember (is Hitman a computer game?).
-
Oh, wait, I like resident evil and hitman.
Yes, hitman was a game.
-
I thought Hitman was terrible - it was exactly like a humourless version of Transporter 3, which wasn't much good in the first place....
-
which leads me to another rule, avoid all films with jason statham (exception: chaos theory? something like that... ryan phillipe was in it, it wasn't bad).
-
Dont forget Snatch and Lock Stock.. :)
-
I quite like Jason Statham, to be honest! He's not a great actor but he's got a little spark of personality/humour that raises him way above most action-movie stars.
He doesn't come across like he's in love with himself or thinks he's doing something profound (very unlike, say, Seagal or JCVD).
-
I thought Hitman was terrible - it was exactly like a humourless version of Transporter 3, which wasn't much good in the first place....
:lol:
We're just never going to agree on films! The avp films, transformers, hitman
I could do with a couple of new films to watch: what do you really hate? :lol:
-
We're just never going to agree on films! The avp films, transformers, hitman
I could do with a couple of new films to watch: what do you really hate? :lol:
:lol:
I'll have a think - any particular genre? Foreign films OK?
-
Explosions and a cheesy script are requirements!
-
Escape from NY/LA?
-
Oh man I hated escape from LA
Never seen the first one though
-
Oh man I hated escape from LA
Never seen the first one though
Escape from LA is just like a really bad remake of Escape From New York.
But I love EFNY - you'll hate it. :lol:
-
Oh man I hated escape from LA
Never seen the first one though
Escape from LA is just like a really bad remake of Escape From New York.
But I love EFNY - you'll hate it. :lol:
:lol:
-
i've wanted a big american car with chandeliers on the front wings since i saw that!
don't think i could carry it off as coolly as Isaac Hayes though :)
-
Dont forget Snatch and Lock Stock.. :)
haven't seen those :lol: i can't get past his accent either. Clive Owen is another one like that- "I'm King Ahhhhhfuhhhhh!"
-
:o
You need to watch them. Both typically Guy Ritchie. If you liked RockNRolla (if you've seen that?) then you should love those! Snatch is my favourite, if not only for Bricktop.
-
i don't think i've seen anything by guy ritchie. I don't really like those style of films.
-
Explosions and a cheesy script are requirements!
Taken
Transporter 3
I didn't actually hate these, but you may not have seen:
Death Race
Wanted
Punisher: War Zone
Other than those, I'm having trouble thinking of anything recent, you've probably already seen atrocious shite like Bad Boys (1 & 2).
-
Seen taken and transporter 3; thought taken was pretty good and transporter 3 was high quality nonsense, and rather enjoyed it!
Out of the other 3 all Ive seen is punisher war zone, which I LOATHED. I liked the previous punisher film with the chap that plays 2 face in batman much better.
Will check out death race and wanted :D
-
:lol: I really hated both taken and Transporter 3 (although I like the first two Transporter movies).
And I think the Ray Stevenson Punisher is the best so far. The Tom Jane one was OK but not nasty enough (and let's forget the Dolph Lundgren one...).
-
:lol: Youre on the right track then!
The chap that was punisher in punisher war zone was a better punisher, but the film was utterly godawfull (which hardly means to say that the tom jane one was 'good', but I did quite enjoy it). Ive never seen the dolph lundgren one! Maybe I should :lol:
I downloaded (didnt want to risk paying for it or having it around) transmorphers. I don’t know if it should be mandatory viewing or every copy destroyed. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT watch it sober. Easier to see the funny side while drunk.
-
off topic, but i just remembered a movie that, despite being one of the worst movies ever made (at least until van helsing and the league of extraordinary gentlemen), fascinated me in some strange way...
adrenalin: fear the rush - with a desperately descending christopher lambert
if you're real shitehounds you should try to see it... if you can manage to find it somewhere in VHS... :)
-
Those Asylum movies look amazing!
-
This video reminded me of this thread - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YozMDzOAGxk
:lol:
-
Recently saw District 9
Both very good use of CGI and a very good film. (Philly, like, an actually good film, not a film that I like because its bad! I think you might like it).
-
Yeah, District 9 sounds very promising. Maybe a film we'll agree on! :D
I think it opens in cinemas end of next week?
-
Surely not!
You wont like it now, I've jinxed it for you :lol: