Username: Password:

Author Topic: CGI or models/puppetry?  (Read 25753 times)

Andrew W

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
    • http://www.andrew-whitehurst.net
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2009, 04:02:07 PM »
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.

badgermark

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
  • Mm-hai!
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2009, 07:13:23 PM »
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.
Mississippi Queens, Holydiver.

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2009, 07:33:29 PM »
The worst part about Transformers is Shia LeBoef and his overuse of the word "no" in every film he's ever done.

Afghan Dave

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 3315
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2009, 07:37:19 PM »
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:
"There's more knowledge on these boards than there are necks under PhillyQ's bed"

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2009, 07:55:15 PM »
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

badgermark

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
  • Mm-hai!
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2009, 08:36:32 PM »
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

And Megan Fox looks like a porn star. Not a good thing. I really don't like her.
Mississippi Queens, Holydiver.

dave_mc

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 9796
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2009, 09:26:39 PM »

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 )?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 09:28:36 PM by dave_mc »

mecca777

  • Bantamweight
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2009, 12:16:02 AM »
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...

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2009, 12:19:24 AM »
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.

gwEm

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 7456
    • http://www.preromanbritain.com/gwem
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2009, 09:47:58 AM »
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.
Quote from: AndyR
you wouldn't use the meat knife on crusty bread but, equally, the serrated knife and straight edge knife aren't going to go through raw meat as quickly

Philly Q

  • Light Heavyweight
  • ******
  • Posts: 18109
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2009, 11:17:00 AM »
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?
BKPs I've Got:  RR, BKP-91, ITs, VHII, CS set, Emeralds
BKPs I Had:  RY+Abraxas, Crawlers, BD+SM

gwEm

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 7456
    • http://www.preromanbritain.com/gwem
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2009, 11:26:02 AM »
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.
Quote from: AndyR
you wouldn't use the meat knife on crusty bread but, equally, the serrated knife and straight edge knife aren't going to go through raw meat as quickly

Philly Q

  • Light Heavyweight
  • ******
  • Posts: 18109
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2009, 12:02:56 PM »
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:
 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 12:04:39 PM by Philly Q »
BKPs I've Got:  RR, BKP-91, ITs, VHII, CS set, Emeralds
BKPs I Had:  RY+Abraxas, Crawlers, BD+SM

gwEm

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 7456
    • http://www.preromanbritain.com/gwem
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2009, 12:51:11 PM »
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
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 01:19:55 PM by gwEm »
Quote from: AndyR
you wouldn't use the meat knife on crusty bread but, equally, the serrated knife and straight edge knife aren't going to go through raw meat as quickly

Philly Q

  • Light Heavyweight
  • ******
  • Posts: 18109
Re: CGI or models/puppetry?
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2009, 01:27:04 PM »
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....)
BKPs I've Got:  RR, BKP-91, ITs, VHII, CS set, Emeralds
BKPs I Had:  RY+Abraxas, Crawlers, BD+SM