Originally posted by Hides in Shadow
Well Zoso... Well about this?...feast your eyes on this pizza...:eyespop:
You bastard. Now I have to find a way to sneak in 30 mins of this at work.
Hides in Shadow
quote:
Originally posted by Zoso
You bastard. Now I have to find a way to sneak in 30 mins of this at work.
They should have given these guys the directer's seat Imo. :whip:
Edit: & Also..pizzaa.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i actually rate solo 2nd (behind rogue) in the new entries. this is definitely related to how low my expectations had reached by the time it came out, but it just didn't make me roll my eyes like the main trilogy films. i really liked that han shoots first again lol.
I was going to say the fact you rate it doesn't surprise me given your awful taste and lack of appreciation for prometheus but your Australian timezone got the better of me :p
I truly don't understand people who say Solo was good, except that they must be die hard GoT fans and love anything with that bungle soft porn actress, but then
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
game of thrones
And it all suddenly made sense.
I literally couldn't sit through the first 40 mins. Absolute CGI fest, he looked nothing like Ford (as opposed to say Age of Adaline where for most fo the film I thought they'd CGI'd in footage of a young ford), her acting was terrible and that worm monster just made giggle so had to switch off.
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
But this is exactly why these ty sequels and remakes and reboots still get made. The studios know that geeks will dutifully file down to the cinema even if they know in advance the thing will be rubbish. And as much as I enjoy trashing terrible films, this culture of watching bad films almost for the sport of mocking them has to stop. Stop giving money to these pricks.
I thoroughly agree with this; the only way these products (and that's what they are, not movies or pieces of art) continue to get made and budget given, is that slavish geeks will still go out and see them. The moment that stops and they lose money, that project gets cancelled.
Look at Jon Carter - that movie was meant to be the start of a mega franchise, and instead of getting a trilogy, bunch of spinoffs and all according merchandise, it not only got put to swift death, but studio heads got fired and everyone down the chain was told never to make the same mistake.
Sadly, the downside of that was studios such as disney doubled down on preexisting IP and less OC, meaning we not get endless superhero dross and a raping of our original childhood characters in to a new version.
I mean , do we really need a second Charlie's Angels Reboot?
Are we really going to just get a new iteration of the same crap each generation?
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It's our only hope.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I was going to say the fact you rate it doesn't surprise me given your awful taste and lack of appreciation for prometheus but your Australian timezone got the better of me :p
I truly don't understand people who say Solo was good, except that they must be die hard GoT fans and love anything with that bungle soft porn actress, but then
And it all suddenly made sense.
hahaha, i literally have no idea who you're talking about and that's not how i choose my pop culture. i just raised GoT and BSG as two examples of nerd TV that achieved mainstream success while mostly remaining pretty good.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I literally couldn't sit through the first 40 mins. Absolute CGI fest, he looked nothing like Ford (as opposed to say Age of Adaline where for most fo the film I thought they'd CGI'd in footage of a young ford), her acting was terrible and that worm monster just made giggle so had to switch off.
i didn't say it was good, just that i liked it better than 7 & 8 which at that point surprised me. and of course, enjoyed it more than prometheus :D as the lowest scifi bar currently available it's good to make use of it :p
actually, my favourite thing about the new films is their use of less CGI per square inch than the prequels. most of the world-based scenes are so much better-looking now because there's actual dirt, sand, props and actors in the shot rather than everything having been magicked in by ILM.
Zoso
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
actually, my favourite thing about the new films is their use of less CGI per square inch than the prequels. most of the world-based scenes are so much better-looking now because there's actual dirt, sand, props and actors in the shot rather than everything having been magicked in by ILM.
Which is kind of ironic, because back in my day (I'm 42 for full disclosure), ILM was famous for a lot of the "real" (as in physical) model work they did for sci-fi films and for using "real" (again, real as in physical) objects to create SFX shots. I think of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as an example of their great, physical model work and the tank they used to create the nebula for the climax battle between the Enterprise and the Reliant.
Originally posted by Zoso
Which is kind of ironic, because back in my day (I'm 42 for full disclosure), ILM was famous for a lot of the "real" (as in physical) model work they did for sci-fi films and for using "real" (again, real as in physical) objects to create SFX shots. I think of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as an example of their great, physical model work and the tank they used to create the nebula for the climax battle between the Enterprise and the Reliant.
indeed! though i wasn't aware of ILM's star trek lineage.
and it's good to know there's at least one person here older than me :tongue2
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Zoso
Which is kind of ironic, because back in my day (I'm 42 for full disclosure), ILM was famous for a lot of the "real" (as in physical) model work they did for sci-fi films and for using "real" (again, real as in physical) objects to create SFX shots. I think of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as an example of their great, physical model work and the tank they used to create the nebula for the climax battle between the Enterprise and the Reliant.
While it’s true the original Star Wars effects were all miniature and stop motion work, the huge leap forwards in the effects in A New Hope were only possible because of computer-controlled cameras that could track past a model and give the illusion of movement. Each model was filmed against blue screen, and the ability of a computer to replicate an exact field of motion meant they could film numerous separate models and composite them together to create complex sequences. So ILM’s reputation has always been built on their use of computers to some extent.
Zoso
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
indeed! though i wasn't aware of ILM's star trek lineage.
and it's good to know there's at least one person here older than me :tongue2
I am proud of my 42 years and every gray hair, as I've earned them.
I recall watching some of the special features on the the Special Director's Edition DVD of The Wrath of Khan and learning about ILM and how they did their SFX. It was truly amazing what those guys and gals could pull off back then with practical effects. Even as good as CGI has gotten today, there is still no substitute for using actual physical models. Maybe we'll get there one day...with deep fakes, or some such.
Zoso
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
While it’s true the original Star Wars effects were all miniature and stop motion work, the huge leap forwards in the effects in A New Hope were only possible because of computer-controlled cameras that could track past a model and give the illusion of movement. Each model was filmed against blue screen, and the ability of a computer to replicate an exact field of motion meant they could film numerous separate models and composite them together to create complex sequences. So ILM’s reputation has always been built on their use of computers to some extent.
Yes, I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that ILM originally used ONLY all practical SFX. I just wanted to point out that much of their early SFX work was still based off real/physical/practical effects work. When we were kids, we were very frustrated that no toy company was producing durable, accurate toys/models of the ships from Star Trek. Outside the AMT/ERTL officially licensed models, there was almost nothing in toy-form of the various Star Trek ships. We of course purchased and built the model kits to use as toys, but they were very fragile and required painting and decals if you wanted the ultimate realism.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hahaha, i literally have no idea who you're talking about and that's not how i choose my pop culture. i just raised GoT and BSG as two examples of nerd TV that achieved mainstream success while mostly remaining pretty good.
Ha I think you're confusing commercial success with with "good" content and they're not necessarily the same thing :p GoT was utter dross it's only really manchildreden (the same who keep these endless flow of superhero films popular) who like their incest porn to have dragons and swordfights. There was a really interesting analysis over on reddit a while back that demonstrated all but one of the major "stars" have been unable to capitalize on the success level of GoT and all of them had movies that underperformed, indicating that the shows success wasn't down to talent or writing (lol).
I think BSG is an entirely different beast. it firstly was a reboot of existing IP so already had a fan base, and the reboot was really in the grand scheme, lower budget scifi on a scifi network that was a runaway success becuase it was indeed good quality programming and storytelling, as opposed to GoT that was obviously gratuitous geek porn on various levels.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i didn't say it was good, just that i liked it better than 7 & 8 which at that point surprised me.
Well that's a fairly low bar, but at least I was able to sit through 7 - Solo was just ing awful.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and of course, enjoyed it more than prometheus :D as the lowest scifi bar currently available it's good to make use of it :p
Wash your mouth out :p
While prometheus is a shining beacon of scifi wonderment, I will say that covenant was really an absolute ing mess. I'll admit I'm a sucker for well made atmospheric big budget but Covenant has more holes than Emmental cheese.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
actually, my favourite thing about the new films is their use of less CGI per square inch than the prequels. most of the world-based scenes are so much better-looking now because there's actual dirt, sand, props and actors in the shot rather than everything having been magicked in by ILM.
Solo had less? I'm not sure we watched the same movies. The whole point that Lucas held off from making 1,2 and 3 the first time round was that Lucas and ILM, who were by far the world leader in FX simply didn't have the tech to create the worlds required for the clone wars etc, and his plan was to make those later when technology eventually caught up.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
While it’s true the original Star Wars effects were all miniature and stop motion work, the huge leap forwards in the effects in A New Hope were only possible because of computer-controlled cameras that could track past a model and give the illusion of movement. Each model was filmed against blue screen, and the ability of a computer to replicate an exact field of motion meant they could film numerous separate models and composite them together to create complex sequences. So ILM’s reputation has always been built on their use of computers to some extent.
You make a good point but the computer aspect of this is somewhat mechanical here in comparison to the vast majority of what they really excelled at them time, which was
unbelievable models, painted backdrops and characters. The computer tech they were using wasn't just the GCI fest we see in Jar Jar's big day out, it was to help bring the physical models to life, so yes, computers were intrinsic to their success and development but they were really aiding their incredible and prolific ability to create galaxies and worlds from actual models. I think peoiple forget that ANH was released in 1977 and computer graphics at this point even at the bleeding edge was line drawings.
I'm sure everyone has seen before but it gives and indication of just how damn good they were at not using computers, and why the original movies felt so real:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Ha I think you're confusing commercial success with with "good" content
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
There was a really interesting analysis over on reddit a while back that demonstrated all but one of the major "stars" have been unable to capitalize on the success level of GoT and all of them had movies that underperformed.
Ah, RANN. Never stop.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Ah, RANN. Never stop.
Genuinely confused as to what point apparently makes sense in your head but not on this forum???
I *think* you're trying to suggest that comparing the success of the stars to the show somehow contradicts itself, but it clearly doesn't.
GoT was a commercial product, and all of the "stars" tried to do other similar commercial projects (see Dark Phoenix or the Mi5 spinoff movie for more details) which flopped.
In fact, the only that has done well, was in a show that was really well written, so the point remains, that good and successful can be mutually exclusive and in the case of Got, most definitely were.
