Films! good, bad, recomendations, and general film talk

[Philly Q]

i dunno, but i just kinda imagine that if you jumped onto a fighter jet you might, y'know, die. especially one which is about to crash.

It was too much CGI and not enough real stunts.  Just like the last Indiana Jones movie.

They seem to think that just because something can be animated and the individual bits of the picture look realistic, it makes the whole thing plausible - but it doesn't.  

Like the dinosaur stampede in the King Kong remake - yeah, they animated the guys dodging between the dinosaurs' legs, but no-one would survive if that actually happened.

[_tom_]

Isn't the whole point of action movies like Die Hard to be completely over the top and impossible? :P

Watched it at the weekend but I've seen it loads of times before, cant beat a Die Hard film for a bit of fun! Helicopter takedown was the best part of the film haha

[Mr. Air]

Isn't the whole point of action movies like Die Hard to be completely over the top and impossible? :P

Watched it at the weekend but I've seen it loads of times before, cant beat a Die Hard film for a bit of fun! Helicopter takedown was the best part of the film haha

Die Hard is top class. Really good action movies expecially the first one.

[Philly Q]

Isn't the whole point of action movies like Die Hard to be completely over the top and impossible? :P

Yeah, I love the first two Die Hard movies (and to a lesser extent the third one too) but the fourth one was disappointing.

There's a big difference between watching a stuntman on a wire smashing through a sugar-glass window and watching something that only ever existed in a computer.

They're both fake and ultimately unrealistic, but at least in the first case something really happened, somebody got some real bruises.  Action scenes done with CG just don't have any "weight".

[Mr. Air]

Isn't the whole point of action movies like Die Hard to be completely over the top and impossible? :P

Yeah, I love the first two Die Hard movies (and to a lesser extent the third one too) but the fourth one was disappointing.

There's a big difference between watching a stuntman on a wire smashing through a sugar-glass window and watching something that only ever existed in a computer.

They're both fake and ultimately unrealistic, but at least in the first case something really happened, somebody got some real bruises.  Action scenes done with CG just don't have any "weight".

I don't think I quite agree on this one. I like CG because it makes the impossible possible. But if the CG effects are cr@p and they don't look real then everything falls apart. In that case it's better to stick to regular stunts. And just to clearify: I have nothing against regular stunts.

A movie like Die Hard is great with just lots of stunts and no computerized effects, but imagine super hero movies without the use of CG. We would be back to the "Stoneage".

[Will]

I only liked the first die hard. Then again there is always the Die Hard 2 solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSRIaZBsv5k

[_tom_]

I don't think I quite agree on this one. I like CG because it makes the impossible possible. But if the CG effects are cr@p and they don't look real then everything falls apart. In that case it's better to stick to regular stunts. And just to clearify: I have nothing against regular stunts.

A movie like Die Hard is great with just lots of stunts and no computerized effects, but imagine super hero movies without the use of CG. We would be back to the "Stoneage".

+1

Lord of the Rings wouldn't be possible without CGI. Well it would, but it'd look shitee.

[Mr. Air]

I don't think I quite agree on this one. I like CG because it makes the impossible possible. But if the CG effects are cr@p and they don't look real then everything falls apart. In that case it's better to stick to regular stunts. And just to clearify: I have nothing against regular stunts.

A movie like Die Hard is great with just lots of stunts and no computerized effects, but imagine super hero movies without the use of CG. We would be back to the "Stoneage".

+1

Lord of the Rings wouldn't be possible without CGI. Well it would, but it'd look shiteee.

Exactly! 

[dave_mc]

It was too much CGI and not enough real stunts.  Just like the last Indiana Jones movie.

They seem to think that just because something can be animated and the individual bits of the picture look realistic, it makes the whole thing plausible - but it doesn't. 

funnily enough, i looked up about die hard 4 on wiki, and apparently the point was to not use too much CGI and make it seem more realistic... :lol:

Isn't the whole point of action movies like Die Hard to be completely over the top and impossible? :P

Watched it at the weekend but I've seen it loads of times before, cant beat a Die Hard film for a bit of fun! Helicopter takedown was the best part of the film haha

oh yeah, i'm not saying i didn't enjoy it. But as i said, i prefer my actioners to be almost impossible, not completely impossible. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a certain extent, of course, but if every second you're having to do it...

Lord of the Rings wouldn't be possible without CGI. Well it would, but it'd look shiteee.

yeah, but that's slightly different... it's not actually meant to be realistic, plus the scale it's on.

[Philly Q]

funnily enough, i looked up about die hard 4 on wiki, and apparently the point was to not use too much CGI and make it seem more realistic... :lol:

That's exactly what Spielberg and Lucas said about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but in fact almost everything you see is CGI!  They seem to think having a real car or a real horse in front of your green-screen means "there's not much CGI"!  :roll:

I'm not totally against CGI, it's great for doing "the impossible" (as in superhero movies or parts of LOTR) or for subtly enhancing an existing image.   But it's never as effective as real location shooting, real stunts or practical FX. 

To use an analogy relevant to this forum, it's like the difference between a real valve amp and a digital model thereof.  IMO, of course.

[murraymurray]

I watched gran torino on the flight back from aussie, was pretty damn good i thought, the ending wasnt what i expected. but pretty solid, clints looking pretty old these days but still rad

then i had about 90 mins left in the flight so had to choose a shorter movie, so watched bolt. I actually really enjoyed it too.

not a film, but metalocalypse series 3 just started this week too, they seem to have improved the animation a bit.
first episode was pretty funny, noticed in the credits it had vai and satriani as guest voices too. i thought vai wouldve taken himself too serious to be on a cartoon. was just looking to see who they were voices of but cant find it, but it also says scott ian was on that episode.

[dave_mc]

yeah, exactly, philly. if it's something you just plain can't do without CGI, then use CGI (as long as it looks reasonably realistic). If it's something you can do in real life, unless it's really dangerous, or prohibitively expensive, don't use CGI. And even if it is either of those two, you shouldn't use CGI too much or it starts to look a bit fake.

that new indiana jones film was spoiled a bit by it, too, yeah. I kinda fell asleep towards the end though and woke up not knowing what the heck was going on, so I probably didn't give it a fair chance, though... :lol: though if it were truly awesome, would i have fallen asleep?

[Mr. Air]

yeah, exactly, philly. if it's something you just plain can't do without CGI, then use CGI (as long as it looks reasonably realistic). If it's something you can do in real life, unless it's really dangerous, or prohibitively expensive, don't use CGI. And even if it is either of those two, you shouldn't use CGI too much or it starts to look a bit fake.

that new indiana jones film was spoiled a bit by it, too, yeah. I kinda fell asleep towards the end though and woke up not knowing what the heck was going on, so I probably didn't give it a fair chance, though... :lol: though if it were truly awesome, would i have fallen asleep?

It is possible, at least for me, to fall asleep watching a good movie. That doesn't imply that Idiana Jones 4 is a good movie  :lol: It's watchable, but doesn't quite catch the spirit of it's predecessors.

I fell alseep first time I watched the Fugetive and it's a good movie IMO

I fell asleep watching the Blairwitch Project - best descision I've ever made!

[Philly Q]

It is possible, at least for me, to fall asleep watching a good movie.

I quite often do that, too.  Nothing to do with the quality of the film, I think it's just something to do with sitting still in a dark room!  It tends to happen at certain times of day, especially around 6-7pm.

[Ian Price]

It is possible, at least for me, to fall asleep watching a good movie.

I quite often do that, too.  Nothing to do with the quality of the film, I think it's just something to do with sitting still in a dark room!  It tends to happen at certain times of day, especially around 6-7pm.

Me too. Lights on with film = Ian staying awake. Lights off with film = Ian nodding off every now and then.