• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    Timmer wrote

    What was mind boggling then looks dated now, in the daylight scenes the dinos look "blancmangey" with too much "glide". Stan Winston's hardware was remarkable and gives the dinos their well deserved weight.


    The daytime scenes need a bit of work sure, but in my opinion, 1990s to early 2000s CGI was better than today's because it wasn't too detailed. The apes in WAR are so finely textured they look disturbingly fake, (like 60 fps movies). Compare a picture of Caesar in the movie to a picture of a real ape. You can see every individual hair in Caesar, whereas a real picture simply looks real, with whatever amount of detail that entails.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    The daytime scenes need a bit of work sure, but in my opinion, 1990s to early 2000s CGI was better than today's because it wasn't too detailed.


    Are you high? The CGI effects today are MUCH better than they were then. One might argue their usage or overusage, but hardly the leap in technology.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    Thor wrote

    Are you high? The CGI effects today are MUCH better than they were then. One might argue their usage or overusage, but hardly the leap in technology.


    Think of the Hobbit CGI compared to Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings used CGI seamlessly to augment beautiful locations and sets, and it still holds up, whereas the Hobbit looks fake. The technology has certainly gotten more detailed but I don't think it looks any more realistic.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  1. Plastic space ship models looked fake too. Very few films in which they didn't. 2001 comes to mind, that Star Wars chase opening ...

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    Thor wrote

    Are you high? The CGI effects today are MUCH better than they were then. One might argue their usage or overusage, but hardly the leap in technology.


    Think of the Hobbit CGI compared to Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings used CGI seamlessly to augment beautiful locations and sets, and it still holds up, whereas the Hobbit looks fake. The technology has certainly gotten more detailed but I don't think it looks any more realistic.


    That really has nothing to do with it. LOTR looks better because of the grainy photography and its reliance on physical effects in addition to the CGI. THE HOBBIT over-uses it, and has a much cleaner digital look. Again, it really says nothing about the development of CGI, but rather the way it is being used.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    For once I'm 100% with Thor on this. That's some strange-ass logic you're using, Aida.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017 edited
    Thor wrote

    That really has nothing to do with it. LOTR looks better because of the grainy photography and its reliance on physical effects in addition to the CGI. THE HOBBIT over-uses it, and has a much cleaner digital look. Again, it really says nothing about the development of CGI, but rather the way it is being used.


    if CGI getting 'better' means getting more detailed and elaborate, then I suppose CGI is getting better, but I would judge it on its ability to make the audience think what they are seeing is real. I can't think of any CGI in the last few years that convinced me what I was seeing was real. Take a look at the Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok, the explosions in Wonder Woman, the dragon in the Hobbit, Tarkin in Rogue One... big and impressive? Sort of. Realistic? Not at all. as CGI has accrued more and more fine detail, it's lost realism, at least for me.

    For a more dramatic comparison, try comparing the robots in 2007's transformers to the transformers in Age of Extinction. At times I can't tell if the 2007 Transformers are real or not, they are just at the perfect cusp of detail, not too much, not too little. They look real. The Age of Extinction transformers look hyper-detailed and clearly fake.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    If you want CGI to display "realness", looking for it in superhero films and big fantasy/sci fi blockbusters is probably not the ideal arena. You'd be better off looking in films where it's integrated more organically. Like, say, the new BLADE RUNNER.

    The argument you seem to make, which I find bizarre, is that CGI technology has deteriorated in the last two decades. The contrary is obviously true. But whether that technology is being put to good use in the circumstances you cite, is another debate altogether.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    Thor wrote
    The argument you seem to make, which I find bizarre, is that CGI technology has deteriorated in the last two decades. The contrary is obviously true. But whether that technology is being put to good use in the circumstances you cite, is another debate altogether.


    Not that it has deteriorated, but that it has grown so detailed it no longer looks real.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017 edited
    Hmmm...well, detail is good in and of itself. Of course, you'd need to wrap it in some original photography or other means to not let it be completely 'uncanny valley', at least as far as humans are concerned.

    I rarely look at a high cost, high profile film these days and say "wow, that's really bad CGI". But I'm often critical of its amount, its use, the way it meshes (or not) with the photo etc.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017 edited
    Aida, don’t you here refer to the more subconscious level at which you perceive the CGI? I.e, if it looks like something that could be done as a robot, it might also be a robot, but the level of rotating detail on the robot can clearly not be done as an animatronic, thus it must be CGI, thus it looks fake?

    I can relate to a certain extent of it, in the way that I much would’ve preferred a less detailed animatronic over a detailed CGI rendered character, but detail in and of itself wouldn’t have anything to do with the tangibleness of the character.
  2. Skimmed a Canadian film called "Lost in the Barrens".

    I'm sure it's probably watchable, but I found it boring and had to skim it. Even then I gave up less than halfway in.

    The score is by somebody named Randolph Peters. It's a pleasant enough, though unremarkable, orchestral score with some light synth work here and there.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
  3. Another Canadian film (just a coincidence), the 1977 "Who Has Seen the Wind".

    A slow-moving film with a brooding little boy. Pass.

    The score is by somebody named Eldon Rathburn. It's another unremarkable orchestral work, with some flavor thrown in like a harmonica.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
  4. A 1989 Canadian film about Indians, called "Where the Spirit Lives". Again, just a coincidence in the country of origin -- I'm not out hunting Canadian films.

    The tagline, according to IMDb, is: "A moving tribute to a young girl's courage and indomitable spirit..."

    The plot is listed as:

    A young Native Canadian (First Nations person) fights to keep her culture and identity when she is abducted to a residential school.


    It looks worth checking out. I might have to watch this later.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nDJPq__vc


    The score is by one-time composer (at least according to IMDb) and real Indian, Buffy Sainte-Marie.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
  5. A 2000 film called "Escape to Grizzly Mountain""

    Stars Dan Haggerty. The opening credits features a message specifically stating it is not related to the movies or TV series about Grizzly Adams, yet Haggerty plays the same character, even though not called Adams.

    This is medium grade cheese. Skip it.

    The score, which sounds mostly a synth work mimicking orchestra, with some real orchestra, is by Amotz Plessner. It's inoffensive, but bland.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017
    BobdH wrote
    Aida, don’t you here refer to the more subconscious level at which you perceive the CGI? I.e, if it looks like something that could be done as a robot, it might also be a robot, but the level of rotating detail on the robot can clearly not be done as an animatronic, thus it must be CGI, thus it looks fake?

    I can relate to a certain extent of it, in the way that I much would’ve preferred a less detailed animatronic over a detailed CGI rendered character, but detail in and of itself wouldn’t have anything to do with the tangibleness of the character.


    maybe there's a subconscious element, but what I mean is if you compare an ape from
    War for the Planet of the Apes: https://cdn.movieweb.com/img.news.tops/ … Legacy.jpg
    to a real ape: https://i2.wp.com/www.un-grasp.org/wp-c … brain1.jpg

    its not just that the CGI ape has a more human expression, its that there's a level of detail and precision in its design and rendering that just doesn't exist in the real world. It looks hyper-real, like 60fps movies.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2017 edited
    OK, I clearly don’t agree with you there. If anything, there’s still a significant amount more detail in that real ape picture, which makes it tangible in ways the CGI is not (yet), which shows CGI still has a way to go if it really wants to compete with reality.
  6. Wasn't it exactly the goal of the designers to give the changed apes a somewhat more human appearance? I think the result s marvellous.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2017 edited
    I think a lot of it is psychological too. In an age where CGI is used even to make a quick fix - when 20 years ago it might have taken painstaking physical work - most movie-goers are simply used to everything being created that way. CGI-fatigue, if you like. And when you know something must be CGI, it instantly renders it unbelievable. At least that's the case with me.

    Still, I love directors who employ that sort of 'invisible' computer augmentation. Zemeckis, Fincher, even Spielberg, were always good at that. The amount of CGI in Cast Away, for instance, is mind-blowing. But you wouldn't spot the majority of it.

    I still lament the demise of the miniature. At least that shit still exists when the production is wrapped up. This, for instance, is just gorgeous:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVdXX0xM3t4
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2017
    LSH wrote
    I think a lot of it is psychological too. In an age where CGI is used even to make a quick fix - when 20 years ago it might have taken painstaking physical work - most movie-goers are simply used to everything being created that way. CGI-fatigue, if you like. And when you know something must be CGI, it instantly renders it unbelievable. At least that's the case with me.


    that's an excellent explanation as well.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  7. I agree to some extend. It's not possible any longer to get as exited as we have come to expect that everything is possible. Yet I tend to think that there is nothing quick about well done CGI and that the painstaking physical work has transformed into painstaking programming.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  8. Valerian and the Lost Planet of Pandora (2017)

    Meh in all aspects but the terrific score by Alexandre Desplat. I wish they had relied entirely on the score and skipped the songs.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2017
    Die Hard

    Is anyone else really bothered by that weird moment at the end when the blonde henchman abruptly returns and the cop shoots him? Feels really clumsy.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime7 days ago
    Murder on the Orient Express

    Branagh has a tough task here; how can he maintain visual interest on a train? He pulls out every trick in the book and ends up with an entertaining movie. I came in with low expectations and loved every minute. Highly recommended!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  9. The film was received lukewarm here in Germany. I love the 1974 Lumet film. I'll try tu judge the new film for it's own merrits though.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  10. "The Great Niagara"

    A 1974 TV movie about ... who cares. This was boring, really boring, some bad writing, mediocre to poor acting and it's a hundred and forty-two minutes long.


    The score is by somebody named Peter Link. It's orchestral and bland; sometimes it's inappropriate and overly melodramatic. There's one okay enough Goldsmith-like piece about the 38:00 minute mark:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__iKczbLQuA


    Lots of skimming was required for this.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
  11. Speaking of inappropriate scoring...


    "The Swiss Conspiracy" (1976 movie)

    Just listen to the opening credits, after reading the plot description and seeing some of the movie:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKx3x2MKfHc


    The composer is Klaus Doldinger.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime4 days ago edited
    Don't see what's so inappropriate about it. Sounds like disco/funky-ish music -- typical for a 70s B caper movie, I would assume. I like it.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime1 day ago
    These types of posts are usually rather useless given the pointlessness of obsessing over personal taste, not to mention the fact that I didn't see very many movies this year...

    but the two best movies I saw this year were

    A Ghost Story - The very best movie I saw this year.
    Baby Driver - Also excellent, but not as good as the above movie

    the two worst

    War for the Planet of the Apes - Dull sludge
    Logan - Dull sludge

    anybody else?
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime1 day ago
    I saw both A GHOST STORY and BABY DRIVER last week. They both have undisputed qualities, but there are also elements that annoyed me a bit. So middle-of-the-road movies.

    WAR is also a middle-of-the-road movie, but a step down from the previous two.

    LOGAN I absolutely adored. The best superhero movie I've seen (arguably), and one of the best films of the whole year.

    I'll post my own list in a while, as we're a bit closer to the end of the year.
    I am extremely serious.