DrCrowTStarwars

SilverWook said:

The only critics I ever paid attention to have sadly joined the choir invisible, and trailers often are misleading.

CGI isn't the problem here. It's that those in charge think it's the only tool in the drawer.

 Then i would say it's time to give some new critics a shot and look beyond the mainstream press.  I had to do that with video games.  When the mainstream press gave several games perfect tens that I ended up having major problems with or found massive bugs in I was about ready to give up on video games since i had no way of knowing if the thing I was paying $60 for would even work for the whole play time.  Then I started searching the web and found people like Angry Joe who shared my view that games should work out of the box and that for $60 there should be more then four hours of single player content and that has been a big help.

Sorry but it just seems to me that if we want Hollywood to stop doing something then the first step is to stop going to movies that do that thing.  That is all I am saying.

Warbler said:

I am shocked, shocked I tell you to find that there is scandal going on here.

 You know that may be my favorite line in the history of movies:)

SilverWook said:

A bit hard to know if you'll like a movie until you pay to see it though.

The Hobbit conundrum is easily solved by seeing the 24fps version. There still aren't a whole lot of theaters that can show 48fps yet. If Jackson is the only one pushing to shoot in the format, it will end up an interesting footnote in cinema history.

 So wait for a review from a critic you trust or watch the trailers.

When it comes to CGI if you think it is hurting people and destroying film making that is easy to avoid,if you see any sign of CGI in the trailer just don't go to the movie and soon Hollywood will have to stop using CGI.

Yeah me too.

There is only one episode left and I am pretty sure Jack is going to die:(

SilverWook said:

Lucas once wanted to be the guy working outside the Hollywood system. He seems to have ended up becoming just like those he was rebelling against.

 Yeah it really made me laugh when Empire of Dreams tried to paint Lucas as some kind of rebel when he is the single biggest player in the Hollywood system and has been that for at least the past 25 years.

This could really shake everything up in Hollywood.  I wonder if the production of any movies will be effected.

TheBoost said:

I personally have a preference for practical effects, but always reject the notion that CGI is cheaper, lazier, faster, or somehow requires less artistry or craftsmanship.

 Thank you.  As I said I know people who work with computer animation and a lot of hard work goes into it and they are not lazy fools who hate film making,so thank you.

As for Doctor Who i think that is one of the great things about modern film making,that there is no longer a huge divide and that a Tv show can put things that on screen that only movies were able to do.  The big difference is that movies have a lot more shots then any episode of Doctor Who does that is where the time and money comes in and that is why they need CGI. When people go to movies now they want two and a half hours of breath taking fast paced action and like it or not the only way to get that many shots done in two years is to us CGI.  Now if people would start going to shorter movies with fewer action scenes then the films wouldn't need so many shots and they could do more of them practically.

Sorry but ultimately this is on us.  If we want movies to change then we need to stop going to the movies that we don't like,if they lose money then Hollywood will have to change or go out of business.  You don't want films shot at 48fps,that is fine then don't go to the hobbit movies so they bomb.  You think CGI shouldn't be used,again that is fine just refuse to watch any films with CGI and once they start bombing Hollywood will go back to using all practical effects.  We are the ones with the power because Hollywood can't make movies if no one is paying to see them.  Use your buying power to send a message that you don't want CGI in movies any more.

I don't think either looks real.  I can see where the mask joins the actor's face on a mask so that looks just as fake as any effect and there are always tells when you are looking at a model so I really don't think it is worth getting upset about.  That is all I am saying.  All special effect will always look fake if you know what to look for and I don't like second guessing people like directors when I don't have all the facts.  There are so many factors that come into play when deciding if you are going to use a practical effect or a CGI one in a modern film so in this case I don't think we have enough facts to judge what should have been used where since we don't have a budget or production time breakdown or the contracts for every one involved in the making of the film.

I really don't think practical effects get scrapped for no reason and if a director did spend money on them and just scrap them because he wanted a fake CGi effect for no reason(forcing the studio to pay twice for the same effect)I really don't think that director would work in Hollywood again.

I agree that there are times when practical effects look better(Just look at Farscape)but some times using practical effects is not practical and I am not going to hold it against the director or anyone else if they had to switch effects techniques to get the film made on time or on budget.  i really don't think CGI is being used in most cases just to use CGI.  It's being used because it's the best way to get things down for the time and money involved.

Now in a perfect word they would be able to spend ten years on the production of any film and the budget would be unlimited but this isn't a perfect world and the fact is that while directors may be artists the art they are making is a product to be sold so they have to answer to the money men who fund it and they have contracts they have to full fill and release dates to hit and budgets to stick to. That's just the nature of the beast when working with big budget films you don't fund yourself and I have nothing against a director using CGI to get his or her job done.

That is all I am saying.

SilverWook said:

So, you don't think people who bust their ass to make a practical creature work on the set, (and without harming the actors) only to find out it's all been replaced by CGI when they sit down to see the movie, might have a legitimate axe to grind?

When you work in film you know that your work could end up on the cutting room floor,and that goes for every one.  From an actor getting his scenes cut(Clerk Gregg has even joked about the fact that before he played Agent Coulson that he was the guy who's scenes were always cut from the movie to get it down to a decent run time),a composer who writes a piece of music for a scene but then the director finds in editing that the scene plays better without a score,or a special effects person who goes to the trouble of making a mask that seems to work fine in the shop but once it is out in the studio causes trouble and needs to be replaced. If you can't live with that idea then you are in the wrong business.

Oh and as has been pointed out the masks were not just trashed they were scanned,so they were used in the movie just not in the exact way people thought they would be.  That is the thing about Jackson he always seems to use a practical effect as the basis for the CGI effects wither it's taining a make up person to use a computer to pain the skin on Golum,mo capping actors to get the best balance between man in suit and CGi for creatures that would take too much time and money to do with out a computer,or scanning a mask and putting it on the actors' heads digitally,and that is why I have a hard time picking out the CGI from the practical effects in his movies.  The fact is on any movie you have limited time and money so it comes down to finding what works in that time and when you come down to it computers and CGi are a big help there and movies like The Lord of the Rings just couldn't be done on time or budget without them.

Computers are a tool we all use and there is nothing wrong with using them in film making.

I don't know about you but I think all special effects look somewhat fake,even guys in suits I know they are not real monsters so drawing a line with CGI don't make sense to me when something like The Birds with it's back projection that looked silly is considered a classic and I love The Birds,but no means of making special effects is going to be perfect and in the end it comes down to what works best for the time and money that you have.

You are right about lead times CGI artists work insane hours to get projects done on time and don't get nearly enough credit for all the hard work they do.

Oh and my reply was to the whole thread and it's "CGI is evil and always looks bad and every film maker who uses it is a bad person" tone and not to you.

Oh I understand but if you are going to throw people under the bus for using computers then you should first have to get rid of all computers in your own life first.  How come you don't use telegrams,don't you know some people find them more personal then internet posts?

How come you are allowed to use computers to get your work done but other people are not?

Oh and you do know some of the new special effects techniques used in the original trilogy displaced old techniques that had been used for decades before the 70s right?  One of those was computer control of cameras so that passes over models could be duplicated and done faster.  The fact is all the great film makers used the most advanced techniques they had at the time and this techno fear response is just a base human reaction to anything new.  If we were back in the 1880s you all would be calling for light bulbs to be banned.

I don't know about you but I didn't join this site because I hate CGI and the people who worked in the field and if I knew that was required then i would not have joined.  I know people who work in the field and they are not lazy or trying to destroy film making,they work hard to produce good work and most of the time in a modern film I can't tell what is CGI and what is real so I would say they do a good job.

Also CGI has freed film makers from a lot of bonds,now even low budget productions can have decent looking special effects.  Back in the day a movie like Star Trek the Motion picture nearly killed the franchise because the number of effects shots made it cost an insane amount of money,these days you can do a movie on it's scale for a fraction of the cost when you adjust for inflation.  For instance a move like District 9 that couldn't get the backing of a major studio was still able to be made because it could be brought in for around $30. In the old days a movie with a script like that would not have been made without the backing of a studio because no one else would have the money for the special effects.  Now that isn't much of a problem any more.  Heck now a days internet videos that are worked on by one guy like Linkara have special effects that are on par with the original Star Trek 40 years ago and given that that show was one of the most expensive on Tv at the time it aired I would say that is pretty amazing and it is a good thing.

The fact is CGI and computers have down us all a ton of good and there are a lot of hard working people who work in the field who don't get much respect and in some cases are treated like the scum of the earth just because they are working on something new and I don't like that.  I think people should get credit for doing hard work.  Even if you don't like the 48 fps isn't there something to be said for the fact that Jackson didn't just sit around and cash and easy paycheck by doing the exact same thing he did on The lord of the rings?  Shouldn't he get some credit for having the guts to try something new even if it doesn't work out.  I think to truly move forward you have to dare to be stupid,in other works you have to be willing to look like a fool if things don't work out and not let that stop you from trying new things.  I would rather see a film where someone tries and fails to do something new then see one where they just do the same old safe thing.

I don't have problem with CGI even in the specials editions. my only problem is that the originals are not around any more.  If Lucas would release them the same way the original effects were preserved on Star trek i would have no problem what so ever with the SEs.  I have no problem with CGI in any form or the people who work on it.  This website has never been about hatred of CGI for me,it has been about preserving the original cuts of the films on home video. If the original cuts had CG that was later replaced with model shots I would still be upset as a film fan.

Sorry I just don't have a deep seated hatred of CGI and I don't think using it makes anyone a bad film maker.

Oh and the Lord of the Rings used a lot of CGi,in fact is was seeing a demo of CGI tech that had two armies fighting that convinced Jackson that the time had come to make The Lord of the Rings into films. Oh and most of the goblins in the close shots were real actors it's just the heads that were added in post.  Jackson didn't turn his back anything he just moved with the times the way every film maker always has.

Under that logic all films should be shot in black and white and should be silent,because everything new took a while to get the bugs sorted out.

I really don't get this modern fear of computers and believe that if a computer is used in any way in the making of a movie the film maker is evil and needs to be burned alive in the street.  My favorite films are from the 40 and and 70s and I have no problem with computers,they are just a tool.  They are not the devil and a movie using CGI doesn't mean that it is a bad movie.  At first all model shots looked fake and colour meant using huge bulky cameras that couldn't move easily and the lighting had to be less dynamic. Early colour films looked faker then gblack and white films made at the same time,so I guess any film maker who uses colour is just drunk on his own ego and every film ever shot with colour is garbage.

Computers have done so much good for film making it's not even funny(I mean for one Babylon 5 just could not have been done without them) but so many people seem to view them as a tool of the devil that needs to be destroyed.  let me tell you something as someone who has seen CGI done in person,it takes just as much work and skill to make a good CGi effect,the hardworking people who make them are not demons from the pit of hell and this idea that every movie made without computers is perfect and every movie made with them is worthless is just fear.  I guess it's human nature to hate and fear everything new and to attack anyone who tries to do anything new so i can't complain since there is no changing that. Reason and logic have nothing to do with human nature.

Oh and I think the Hobbit films are the best looking 3D films out there because they don't have the lighting problems and they are some of the few never to give me a headache.  It does work it just takes a new set of skills.

Oh and one big reason they went with CGI was so the actors could take the masks off because those masks that looked so good also didn't allowed the actors to see and they got so hot that they would pass out after ten or fifteen minutes. So after several actors were hurt and they fell days behind shooting Jackson choose to use CGI and mo cap some of the actors so they could take the heads off because of health and safety concerns,but don't let that stop your personal crusade against the devil that is Peter Jackson.  Clearly he should have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of actors if it meant keeping the evil computers away from the movie because the only reason to ever use a computer is if you hate movies and want to ruin them for all time. Jackson is clearly part of an evil plot to ruin movies with his Devil boxes and needs to be burned alive in the town square for using computers in his movies.

I mean clearly that is the only way to stop this devil's work since people who hate CGI don't have the option of choosing not to watch movies with CGI in them.  Clearly the only option is to personally attack anyone who uses CGI in a movie since free will doesn't exist and you have to watch every movie that gets released.

Good night.  After that I am surprised death would go anywhere near him,he seems to have beaten it over the head with a led pipe at least once.  Good for him.

I need it to stop being humid but not hot so I can sleep at night.  Right now it is really humid but it doesn't get hot enough for the AC to come on so I end up sticky and unable to sleep.  I need it to stay above 78 so the Ac will come on.

I Will say this for the movie I could tell which robot was which and who was hitting who in the action scenes and Micheal Bay makes some of the best use of 3D I have seen. It really looks like you are looking through a window into another world and there is a real depth to things,but that is where the good stuff pretty much ends.

Oh and I have to say I was just playing Mass Effect 2 before I went to see this movie and it was really strange hearing Grunt's voice coming out of another character's mouth.

Ryan McAvoy said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Transformers 4.

I will go into more detail in the morning but I just got back from this and I will just say I feel like my brain was raped by a 18 wheeler full of stupid and badly written action scenes and this movies is well over an hour too long.  Looking at the screen gave me a splitting headache and I had to walk out for five minutes.  I think this is worse then Transformers 2.  Yes you read that right.  There wasn't a single character I liked and it was just an uneven mess.  There were the seeds of a good story in this movie but sadly they were never allowed to grow into anything.  it's just a mess and the worst of the series.

 That deserves a poster...

 Wow!  Love it!:)

I am in the middle of season three and loving it!  The Paintball episode may be my favorite so far.

Yeah NBC seemed to have that same problem with News Radio too.  They had a good show with a strong fan base but they kept changing the time slot and the marketing so that it was never able to build to anything.  ABC had the same problem with Better off Ted.  in a way the internet is a god sent to shows of this type because they can be marketed to the people who want to see them and don't have to be paired with other shows or find a time slot.  Hopefully in the future this means fewer good shows getting canceled.

Oh and yeah this is sweet.  I have already listened to the first five episodes of THG2G today.

Transformers 4.

I will go into more detail in the morning but I just got back from this and I will just say I feel like my brain was raped by a 18 wheeler full of stupid and badly written action scenes and this movies is well over an hour too long.  Looking at the screen gave me a splitting headache and I had to walk out for five minutes.  I think this is worse then Transformers 2.  Yes you read that right.  There wasn't a single character I liked and it was just an uneven mess.  There were the seeds of a good story in this movie but sadly they were never allowed to grow into anything.  it's just a mess and the worst of the series.

I have seen that version and while the added scenes are nice they are not needed for the plot to make sense and all the character moments are still there and some of them are just stuff like Spock and Kirk climbing a ladder.

Sorry I don't think that making a movie longer makes it a better movie.  if that were true then Wild Hogs would be a better film then everything Charlie Chaplin produced.

SilverWook said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

DominicCobb said:

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.

 That is one thing I liked about the last Mummy movie(Which I am going to get around to giving my thoughts on at some point)and Sky Captain,they were both under two hours long.  We need more light adventure fair like that.  Some times less is more.

 If a movie is really really good, you often don't notice the running time. A bad ninety minute flick can seem like years. ;)

Interesting how the tendency of studios putting scissors to a movie to shorten it's running time, so theaters can cram in more showings per day, seems to have reversed in recent years.

 It always amazes me that the first three Star Wars films are all around two hours long when it feels like more happens in then then most modern films.  The same thing happens with the B5 episode Severed Dreams,for some reason I always remember that episode as a two parter because so must happens in it.  It just goes to show you that a good story teller can do a lot in a short amount of time. 

I have seen some 90 minute or less movies that feel really long because they are so bad but I do think a lot of today's movies could be shorter and not lose anything.  I mean a lot of them have very simple stories and if action scenes were not dragged out longer then they needed to be then the movie could come in at around the 90 minute mark and tell the same story.

I mean WOK managed to tell the same story as ITD in about half the time and do it better and leave it feeling more complete.  That is how much film making has changed in the past couple of decades.

Yeah that makes me sad too.  it was like a movie made up of all the things I love. it was done in a style that I can't get enough of and it references to all sort of things i grew up loving from old comic books to shorts to old Superman cartoons.

If I were a billionair I would buy the rights and produce an animated series of Sky Captain on the internet sort of in the style of BTAS,that would be a cartoon I would be unable to get enough of.

I may be the only person on earth who cheered in the theater when Dex turned up on screen in Avatar,even if he was a villain.  I own the movie on DvD,HDDvD,VHS,and BluRay.  That is how much i love Sky Captain.

DominicCobb said:

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.

 That is one thing I liked about the last Mummy movie(Which I am going to get around to giving my thoughts on at some point)and Sky Captain,they were both under two hours long.  We need more light adventure fair like that.  Some times less is more.

Well I'll be weighing tomorrow morning.  it can't be as bad as the other movies..right???

I didn't even know they had a video service before reading this story so it paid off for them there.

I don't get NBC so i am working my way through the show on DvD right now,this is great news since I was so sad when I read it was canceled.

How can shows like Community get canceled but garbage like two and a half men keeps running for over a decade?

At least now between the internet and cable good shows stand a chance of making a decent number of episodes.

Well i already paid for a ticket and some friends are coming so it's too late to back out.  God help me.  I'll take a suicide pill with me in case this movie is as bad as the other three.

Well based on Tobor's review I am going to give the new Transformers movie a try tonight.  here is hoping it is the best of the bunch.