Sign In

DominicCobb

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
16-Aug-2011
Last activity
22-Jul-2018
Posts
9763

Post History

Post
#715591
Topic
THE FORCE AWAKENS (Episode VII) Discussion *SPOILER THREAD* See OP For Trailer/Teaser Links--Trailer is out!
Time

If I'm not mistaken there's only one or two IMAX theaters that still uses film prints. The IMAX I typically go to is full size but they went digital about a year ago. The last film I saw there was TDKR. Ever since then it's been digital projection when I've gone. Seeing STID was a bit of a disappointment, as the IMAX weren't full size and didn't seem to be of much higher quality.

Can the DCP produce the same image quality as the 70mm? I doubt it, but would like to hear an exact answer. Nolan's filming more in IMAX for Interstellar than anyone has ever done before, and I'd like to know if, when I see it, it will be full quality.

Post
#715469
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

doubleofive said:

DominicCobb said:


I think many of us don't see those big CGI laden shlockfests. You won't find many here who went to see Trans4mers. You are again misinterpreting our issue with CGI. It's not that we hate it, or think that it should never be used, it's just that we are annoyed by its overabundance in mainstream films today.

I don't hate the Transformer movies because they used CGI to create robots that change into cars, I hate them because they insult my intelligence.

I think in a world without CGI, we'd still be complaining about practical effect shlockfests. We're blaming the hammer for the carpenter's shoddy work. And I mean the studios/directors are the carpenters, not the VFX artists who work their butts off to try to make whatever it is look good.

No, I don't blame CGI itself or the people who create those effects - they have all my respect. I completely blame the directors and the studios. My point about TF4 specifically was in response to DrCrow, who said we should stop seeing movies that feature oodles of CGI and stop perpetrating the trend if we don't like it. 

There are two issues here. One is that there are movies that over rely on effects. You're right, there will always be these types of movies and there's nothing we can do about it. My main issue is that there is an over reliance on CGI in particular. This is a problem with both good and bad movies. 

Post
#715427
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

I think many of us don't see those big CGI laden shlockfests. You won't find many here who went to see Trans4mers. You are again misinterpreting our issue with CGI. It's not that we hate it, or think that it should never be used, it's just that we are annoyed by its overabundance in mainstream films today.

As for 48fps, I think James Cameron was considering it for the Avatar sequel trilogy, not sure if he's going with it. I think it's an interesting idea and I hope to see the final Hobbit film in the format, as I've missed it with the other two. But I doubt it'll catch on, and that's because there's no reason for it to. The human eye can't process more than 200fps or something like, so any frame rate lower than that is to a degree unrealistic and arbitrary. 24fps has a reason for being because it has become the standard and everyone is so use to it, but 48fps is just random and kind of pointless. If a filmmaker really wants to experiment with "high frame rate," they'd shoot at 200fps (but of course that's rather impractical currently).

Post
#715271
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

DrCrowStarWars, are you high? What's with these tirades? They seem rather unprovoked. I think everyone here would agree CGI is a highly useful tool and none of us are against it being used in films today. We're just sad that so many practical effects are being replaced by digital ones for no reason, and because those new effects look like something out of a video game while the practical effects are clearly things shot on camera with the actors, which makes them look more real.

Post
#715105
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

Apparently the creature costumes in The Hobbit looked cheap in 48fps according to behind the scenes docs. No idea how true that is.

I have a feeling we'll be seeing more practical effects in the years to come. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a flash in the pan, but CGI does feel like a bit of a fad to me. It's here for good, no doubt about that, but I think it's days as the go to special effect are numbered. If Episode VII uses practical effects as much as they say they will, I believe it could be the turn of the tide.

Post
#714928
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Little room for a review battle. 17% on Rotten Tomatoes and 32 on Metacritic.

I would consider checking it out if it weren't three hours long. I do enjoy some good robo action and Marky Mark funky bunching. But I take my popcorn in bits. Anything longer than 100 minutes for a movie like this is way too long for me. I can handle stupidity but only for so long.

Post
#713113
Topic
General Star Wars Random Thoughts Thread
Time

TV's Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

doubleofive said:

I'm really just wondering about the Seven thing. I mean, everyone knows what we're talking about.

I was going to name my first born Seven. Now are people going to think he/she is named after a Star Wars movie?

 Nah, they'll think s/he is named after a Seinfeld episode.

Well at least they'd be right.

Post
#710589
Topic
STAR WARS: EP V &quot;REVISITED EDITION&quot;<strong>ADYWAN</strong> - <strong>AVAILABLE NOW</strong>
Time

Bingowings said:

I would use the old Imperial motif from ANH as the Clone Motif in the PT. I would even spread it around the other OT films a bit.

 I've always thought of that as more of a Death Star theme (though obviously it was used more generally for the imperials) and, as such, I'd love to hear it used in ROTJ (a film which uses the imperial march way too much). It'd be cool if it was in ESB also, but I feel like if it was only used once or twice (without the Death Star visual to connect it to ANH) it would seem kind of random.

Post
#709946
Topic
THE FORCE AWAKENS (Episode VII) Discussion *SPOILER THREAD* See OP For Trailer/Teaser Links--Trailer is out!
Time

I never minded the Jedi robes and I thought some of them looked pretty good (the highlights being Kenobi and Anakin in ROTS I think. But I think, unfortunately, a lot of them were perhaps a size too big. 

Also, I'm still torn on whether I like that every Jedi wears robes. Can't decide how I feel about the look all of them wearing robes in the Geonosis battle, for instance.

I always kind of liked the garb that this toy Obi-Wan had

I got that a bit after TPM and I thought it was awesome. This one's kind of cool too but I think I lost the figure and I never had much allegiance to it:

Post
#709695
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Hitchcock was, in a way, the best person to remake his own film, so I don't think that point is valid.

However, I'm the type of person who doesn't have a problem with the idea of a remake. Though I think they should only happen if the original film isn't great or if the new film has a new twist on the story. 

But Rear Window's just about perfect so that'd be a no on the first one, and, as for the second, there have been a number of films that have reimagined its premise, so a straight remake was highly unnecessary.