Movies you love, but a little new CGI could help...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 14:41
VIEWED: 8794
PAGE 3 of 4
Cybersnark that's the ending I like.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Naww, all was cool in that flick IMO.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Perhaps the monster scenes in Forbidden Planet could use an update. Though I am very impressed with that movie's FX.
Quote:I bought that as it was a machine not needing to seem human in front of others.
Incidentally, the worst FX in Terminator was not the stop-action terminator chassis. It was the fake Arnold head in the scene where he tends to his eye.
But that may just be me.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Malachite,Greedo shooting first is an artistic change of the movie not an upgrade. Lucas went anti-gun for the kiddies like in star wars 1 thru 3. But hey that is what made Solo a bad ass. Shoot first ask questions later.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me too also.
Originally posted by CatPirate:
Cybersnark that's the ending I like.
Han-shoots-last is the only CGI addition that I really hate.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, that's crap. Han shot first BECAUSE there was no question.
Originally posted by CatPirate:
[B Shoot first ask questions later.
Period.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not the tool that bothers me big 'C' it's the application of it. Just because CGI is out there doesn't mean that all special effects must be rendered in CGI.
It's a little like expecting all black and white films to be coloured. Casablanca is just fine as is. Colouring it would do nothing more for the story.
Revisiting past special effects heavy films and 'correcting' them with the present CGI standard of special effects would just contribute to a generic 'look' that would become visually tedious.
And part of cinema history is captured in those old hand crafted special effects, and to remove them would be like erasing all that hard work and altering cinematic history. Imagine if Jason and the Argonauts were to be completely re-visited with WETA tending to all the effects. Ray Harryhausen would vanish from the archives!
It would also mean that films are never really finished. With effects technology updating so frequently directors or studios would be tempted to regularly 'tweak' their products, ad infinitum.
As it is the whole 're-imagining' thing that went on in the 90's has ruined Bladerunner for me as I have no idea which version is now the definative one and I can't enjoy one without thinking about the other one and thus the story now feels - confused....
Nah... no thanks. Once your film is released that's it. Learn from it with the next endeavour and try and make that the best it can be.
Just my take on it...
Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No this is crap, ya throw it till it's the wall.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Total agreement here, Som.
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
It's not the tool that bothers me big 'C' it's the application of it. Just because CGI is out there doesn't mean that all special effects must be rendered in CGI.
Quote:Yeah, I was just thinkin' about flicks that suffered limitations budget-wise in PARTICULAR shots.
Revisiting past special effects heavy films and 'correcting' them with the present CGI standard of special effects would just contribute to a generic 'look' that would become visually tedious.
Quote:NO!!! NO!
Imagine if Jason and the Argonauts were to be completely re-visited
We do not touch that kind of art.
Quote:Yeah, but we are at a point where anything is possible, even turning old movies into 3D... "cleaning" up some old FX should be a one time thing for 20th Century efforts only.
It would also mean that films are never really finished.
Quote:The 1982 International Cut is the true one.
As it is the whole 're-imagining' thing that went on in the 90's has ruined Bladerunner for me as I have no idea which version is now the definative one and I can't enjoy one without thinking about the other one and thus the story now feels - confused....
Does that help?
The definite Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The real problem with Greedo shooting first is that it completely guts Han's character arc. Lucas' rationale in the SE was that Han was a Hero and wouldn't shoot first --yet the whole point of Han's role in ANH is that he wasn't a hero. He was a self-interested drug-runner in hock to the mob. He became a hero over the course of the trilogy.
RotJ Han might not have shot first. ANH Han most definitely would've.
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, I was just thinkin' about flicks that suffered limitations budget-wise in PARTICULAR shots.
This kinda influences my own perspective; I'm a TV/Film guy. In Canada. We have no budgets.
Yet everyone is so wrapped up in the CGI fetishization that older (and more importantly, cheaper) methods are being completely ignored. I will never be able to produce the next Avatar (not unless/until I can move to the US), but give me a good creature shop, some model-builders, and a cameraman who knows how to use forced perspective, and I can give you the next Dark Crystal or Labyrinth. . .
EDIT: Gah!
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And more artistic, to a large degree IMO.
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
older (and more importantly, cheaper
I mean, imagine a SF movie depending entirely on ONE venue, like stop-motion, for ALL its FX?
Oh... Laserblast. Flesh Gordon.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME