• Categories

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

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorDreamTheater
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2009 edited
    My two cents: CGI overload or not, 3D gimmickry or not, I don't give a flying F, I'm going to see this because it's a Cameron, it's been 12 years since we've seen a spectacle of this size that had his name on it. smile
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNautilus
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2009
    Return of the KIng was realeased 12 years ago???
  1. Read that last line again. wink
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
  2. Timmer wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Snow covered mountains are cool. cool

    wink


    Real ones are! cool beer

    They are indeed.

    But that alone doesn´t qualify them to look like an ALIEN PLANET LANDSCAPE, don´t you think?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2009
    Not alone, no, but there's no reason an alien planet wouldn't look like that. I've never had a problem with it myself.

    I'm in general agreement with the points made above - when done well, CGI can seriously benefit a film (like Jurassic Park). But like any other filmmaking tool, it IS only a tool - and with some films I don't think the makers have remembered that. For things like landscapes, enhancing "real" things etc (indeed, pretty much the same list Ralph gave above) it can be a wonderful boon; but when I'm watching some action film and I am expected to care about a CGI recreation of an actor set against a CGI backdrop fighting a CGI enemy - well, I don't care, and never will. Perhaps it's a generational thing and today's youngsters have no problem with that, but you can take all the CGI you want and you'll never be able to produce a stunt like the car over the bridge in The Man with the Golden Gun which is so impressive because you know it's real. And I wonder whether the artistry is there to ever use CGI to create something as iconic as that opening shot in the first Star Wars? Of course it's possible in theory but I haven't seen anything approaching that level in the world of CGI.
  3. Yeah, to use CGI to prevent actors or stuntmen from dying certainly is a bad way to use the technology. wink

    But I see your point and agree about the believability aspect. There are some actions shots out there which are truly ridiculous and unbelievable to the point where you just laugh about it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2009 edited
    Southall wrote
    And I wonder whether the artistry is there to ever use CGI to create something as iconic as that opening shot in the first Star Wars? Of course it's possible in theory but I haven't seen anything approaching that level in the world of CGI.


    Jurassic Park came quite close, but I imagine that shot is arguably the greatest visual effect shot in history. (Or perhaps something from 2001... I dunno.)

    To create something as iconic as that shot in this day and age of special effects desensitized audiences is almost impossible... almost.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Yeah, to use CGI to prevent actors or stuntmen from dying certainly is a bad way to use the technology. wink

    But I see your point and agree about the believability aspect. There are some actions shots out there which are truly ridiculous and unbelievable to the point where you just laugh about it.


    Do you realize that the impression and effect those cgi-heavy scenes of today leave on us is more and more descreasing 'cause in the conscious (or even the subconsious some times too) you know that all the things you're watching are fake and a product of a computer? Plus the freely available nature of technology in cinemas have brought film-making to irrelevant, totally untalented fanboys, a place it should never go in the first place. Everyone can make a movie these days, people who don't necessarily have the cultivation and background of using those tools for just what they are and pay attention on focusing on the truly cinematic material instead......very few to almost none, can make a GOOD movie.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Steven wrote
    Southall wrote
    And I wonder whether the artistry is there to ever use CGI to create something as iconic as that opening shot in the first Star Wars? Of course it's possible in theory but I haven't seen anything approaching that level in the world of CGI.


    Jurassic Park came quite close, but I imagine that shot is arguably the greatest visual effect shot in history. (Or perhaps something from 2001... I dunno.)

    To create something as iconic as that shot in this day and age of special effects desensitized audiences is almost impossible... almost.


    Perhaps a good idea for a thread of it's own, great special effects and why they work for you personally?

    The T-Rex breakout sequence from JP is still, for me, one of the most jaw dropping and greatest effects sequences I have ever seen, the perfect blend of cgi and animatronics.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Timmer wrote
    The T-Rex breakout sequence from JP is still, for me, one of the most jaw dropping and greatest effects sequences I have ever seen, the perfect blend of cgi and animatronics.


    Indeed! punk

    -Erik-
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
  4. Martijn wrote
    Unless there's some new procedure, this is not a happy development for me.

    Me neither. I've never been completely satisfied with the 3-D experience in the cinema.

    And all this hype doesn't help me when it comes to liking the movie - even before I've seen in (if I see it.)
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Timmer wrote
    Steven wrote
    Southall wrote
    And I wonder whether the artistry is there to ever use CGI to create something as iconic as that opening shot in the first Star Wars? Of course it's possible in theory but I haven't seen anything approaching that level in the world of CGI.


    Jurassic Park came quite close, but I imagine that shot is arguably the greatest visual effect shot in history. (Or perhaps something from 2001... I dunno.)

    To create something as iconic as that shot in this day and age of special effects desensitized audiences is almost impossible... almost.


    Perhaps a good idea for a thread of it's own, great special effects and why they work for you personally?


    ...and why they don't, too. A lot of the special effects in Lord of the Rings don't work for me, as I'm sure many will be shocked to hear.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    And I agree with you Steven ( and not shocked at all ), as I said, I think it's worth it's own thread.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Plus the freely available nature of technology in cinemas have brought film-making to irrelevant, totally untalented fanboys, a place it should never go in the first place. Everyone can make a movie these days, people who don't necessarily have the cultivation and background of using those tools for just what they are and pay attention on focusing on the truly cinematic material instead......very few to almost none, can make a GOOD movie.


    You realise how horribly elitist that sounds? I see where you're coming from, but it's akin to saying only great artists are allowed to pick up a paint brush, and everyone else should be forbidden. Ask any filmmaker and I'm sure they will be happy that it's easier for more people to make films with today's technology - it allows people to show a talent that they otherwise might not have explored (and yes, it also means it allows the less talented people to show their non-talents... but I'm happy to have bad films made if good ones are made too).
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Timmer wrote
    And I agree with you Steven ( and not shocked at all ), as I said, I think it's worth it's own thread.


    Yeah, somebody should totally start that....

    ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Plus the freely available nature of technology in cinemas have brought film-making to irrelevant, totally untalented fanboys, a place it should never go in the first place. Everyone can make a movie these days, people who don't necessarily have the cultivation and background of using those tools for just what they are and pay attention on focusing on the truly cinematic material instead......very few to almost none, can make a GOOD movie.


    You realise how horribly elitist that sounds? I see where you're coming from, but it's akin to saying only great artists are allowed to pick up a paint brush, and everyone else should be forbidden. Ask any filmmaker and I'm sure they will be happy that it's easier for more people to make films with today's technology - it allows people to show a talent that they otherwise might not have explored (and yes, it also means it allows the less talented people to show their non-talents... but I'm happy to have bad films made if good ones are made too).


    I am not a filmmaker Steven, i don't have interests in the film. But can somebody disagree that the freely available nature of those technologies have brought the greatest amount of crap in the cinema? You know, the hand-held "cool" teenage-aimed shallow flicks that nobody remembers afterwards, for one?
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    D., a lot of people found Blair Witch Project extremely memorable, if that´s the kind of movie you´re talking about. Beyond that, you´ve now reached the point where you just seem to be annoyed and disappointed by anything that´s released these days, and while this is certainly a sad thing for you personally, it is hardly based on what´s really happening out there, but on your own perception of things. Sometimes it just seems that you´re suffering from sensory overload. Nothing you see excites you anymore, and that´s something you shouldn´t necessarily drop on the stuff that´s out there. The more movies we get, the chance for originality and real invention lessens. We have seen just everything now, and every possible storyline has been explored in hundreds of variations. There is new stuff out there, of course, but I wouldn´t call the trash to be responsible that it´s so less than what we were used to get each year during our childhood. But weren´t we so impressed by everything because everything was new for us? Those years are gone, and what we call classics is the stuff that our kids groan about. They have their own cool stuff they will remember twenty years from now as the height of creativity. For us, these times are over, Demetris, and just feeling sick about everything that changes will just make your life more and more miserable. Get used to the fact that things change. Maybe that will help a bit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Plus the freely available nature of technology in cinemas have brought film-making to irrelevant, totally untalented fanboys, a place it should never go in the first place. Everyone can make a movie these days, people who don't necessarily have the cultivation and background of using those tools for just what they are and pay attention on focusing on the truly cinematic material instead......very few to almost none, can make a GOOD movie.


    You realise how horribly elitist that sounds? I see where you're coming from, but it's akin to saying only great artists are allowed to pick up a paint brush, and everyone else should be forbidden. Ask any filmmaker and I'm sure they will be happy that it's easier for more people to make films with today's technology - it allows people to show a talent that they otherwise might not have explored (and yes, it also means it allows the less talented people to show their non-talents... but I'm happy to have bad films made if good ones are made too).


    I am not a filmmaker Steven, i don't have interests in the film. But can somebody disagree that the freely available nature of those technologies have brought the greatest amount of crap in the cinema? You know, the hand-held "cool" teenage-aimed shallow flicks that nobody remembers afterwards, for one?


    Yeah, but then why should I care? I never watch those kinds of films. But if other people do, and enjoy them, then I don't see the problem? Just because bad films are made, it doesn't mean it effects the good ones. Again, it just sounds very elitist.

    That's like complaining that the freely available nature of music these days is the reason that they suffer in quality (which is another matter altogether, the 'decline in film music' being one that I'm not so sure I agree with quite as much as others). Technology should be available to everyone, even if that means we have to 'suffer' bad movies of which we are not obliged to watch in the first place.
  5. I mean, it´s not that I don´t see the problem. There will always be bright people, dumb people, and people caught in between. Unfortunately, the majority is dumb. The masses will always love stuff that´s easy on the brain, stuff that will entertain them and keep them from worrying too much about their lot in life. That´s the truth, and I don´t care how that sounds.

    Of course we would be in a better place if governments suddenly started to put more money into education, cultural life, and getting people to enjoy "heavier" stuff. But since this is not happening, with every generation, there will be a further degradation of knowledge, wisdom, and taste.

    The question is, what are we to do about that? Nothing. We´re lucky enough to be born where we can at least get the education we get; where we have a choice what we read and see; where we´re able to earn enough money for our living expenses. But we are not in the position to change what´s happening around us, unless one of us makes it to the top three or four people who rule the world. Our voice doesn´t count anywhere where it´s possible to change stuff. We won´t stop teens from loving Twilight or listening to the kind of stuff they like. The stations are out there - if people would like it better, they would listen to classic radio all day. But they don´t. It´s not the fault of the stuff that it is liked better by the majority.

    Change the people. Then the level of entertainment will rise all by itself.

    But since we´re not even close to being in a position to do that, all we can do is live with it and ignore it, or rant about it all day. It´s not that there is no good stuff out there. You just have to look hard to find it. You better do that. Don´t waste your time ranting about the bad stuff. Concentrate on the stuff you like.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    We won´t stop teens from loving Twilight or listening to the kind of stuff they like.


    We could kill them.
    All of them.


    (What? Too radical?)
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    D., a lot of people found Blair Witch Project extremely memorable, if that´s the kind of movie you´re talking about. Beyond that, you´ve now reached the point where you just seem to be annoyed and disappointed by anything that´s released these days, and while this is certainly a sad thing for you personally, it is hardly based on what´s really happening out there, but on your own perception of things. Sometimes it just seems that you´re suffering from sensory overload. Nothing you see excites you anymore, and that´s something you shouldn´t necessarily drop on the stuff that´s out there. The more movies we get, the chance for originality and real invention lessens. We have seen just everything now, and every possible storyline has been explored in hundreds of variations. There is new stuff out there, of course, but I wouldn´t call the trash to be responsible that it´s so less than what we were used to get each year during our childhood. But weren´t we so impressed by everything because everything was new for us? Those years are gone, and what we call classics is the stuff that our kids groan about. They have their own cool stuff they will remember twenty years from now as the height of creativity. For us, these times are over, Demetris, and just feeling sick about everything that changes will just make your life more and more miserable. Get used to the fact that things change. Maybe that will help a bit.


    BS Ralph, you probably don't follow my recent viewing posts and now playing posts too, or you don't read or you ignore or something, if you assume that i am disappointed by everything that gets out these days. wink Just make the trouble to read what i write about the new stuff i love ( i even adored 2012 for God's sake) or scroll back into the recent viewing thread before jumping into conclusions and labeling someone simply because they don't agree with you.

    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Plus the freely available nature of technology in cinemas have brought film-making to irrelevant, totally untalented fanboys, a place it should never go in the first place. Everyone can make a movie these days, people who don't necessarily have the cultivation and background of using those tools for just what they are and pay attention on focusing on the truly cinematic material instead......very few to almost none, can make a GOOD movie.


    You realise how horribly elitist that sounds? I see where you're coming from, but it's akin to saying only great artists are allowed to pick up a paint brush, and everyone else should be forbidden. Ask any filmmaker and I'm sure they will be happy that it's easier for more people to make films with today's technology - it allows people to show a talent that they otherwise might not have explored (and yes, it also means it allows the less talented people to show their non-talents... but I'm happy to have bad films made if good ones are made too).


    I am not a filmmaker Steven, i don't have interests in the film. But can somebody disagree that the freely available nature of those technologies have brought the greatest amount of crap in the cinema? You know, the hand-held "cool" teenage-aimed shallow flicks that nobody remembers afterwards, for one?


    Yeah, but then why should I care? I never watch those kinds of films. But if other people do, and enjoy them, then I don't see the problem? Just because bad films are made, it doesn't mean it effects the good ones. Again, it just sounds very elitist.

    That's like complaining that the freely available nature of music these days is the reason that they suffer in quality (which is another matter altogether, the 'decline in film music' being one that I'm not so sure I agree with quite as much as others). Technology should be available to everyone, even if that means we have to 'suffer' bad movies of which we are not obliged to watch in the first place.



    Most people will rush to ignore it as "elitist" but since pc's can easily and freely make music at their homes with a click of a button, the ratio of crap vs actually good musical works has risen extremely towards "crap" no matter how elitist that sounds to you. Yes, there are good works being made today as well but they're either lost amidst the larger proportions of crap or very hard to find in the way.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Martijn wrote
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    We won´t stop teens from loving Twilight or listening to the kind of stuff they like.


    We could kill them.
    All of them.


    (What? Too radical?)


    I totally agree! We must combuine forces and make a mechanical menace that destroys all tone deaf cretins the world over.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Timmer wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    We won´t stop teens from loving Twilight or listening to the kind of stuff they like.


    We could kill them.
    All of them.


    (What? Too radical?)


    I totally agree! We must combuine forces and make a mechanical menace that destroys all tone deaf cretins the world over.


    Oh; absolutely.

    Seriously though, i am strongly against apathy as a way to live your life, talking in general terms.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    It'll be like the holocaust but used for the good of mankind.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Seriously though, i am strongly against apathy as a way to live your life, talking in general terms.


    Yeah. Well. Maybe. I don't know. I don't really care, honestly.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Timmer wrote
    It'll be like the holocaust but used for the good of mankind.


    Of course!
    They must realize it's all done out of love and for a greater good.
    (Well, they don't have to realize a sodding thing. It's not like I actually give a shit about the unwashed chavs.).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Martijn wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Seriously though, i am strongly against apathy as a way to live your life, talking in general terms.


    Yeah. Well. Maybe. I don't know. I don't really care, honestly.


    biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote

    Most people will rush to ignore it as "elitist" but since pc's can easily and freely make music at their homes with a click of a button, the ratio of crap vs actually good musical works has risen extremely towards "crap" no matter how elitist that sounds to you.


    That's not what you originally said though. You're changing your point of argument! dizzy (And I was using music as an analogous example.)

    Originally, you effectively stated only people that you deem worthy to use such technology should be allowed to use it for films - a purely subjective matter at that. And as I said, I see where you're coming from, but it's still a rather elitist statement to make. The technology should be available to everyone, even if that means we get more 'crap'.

    Yes, there are good works being made today as well but they're either lost amidst the larger proportions of crap or very hard to find in the way.


    Bullcrap. Read reviews, listen to people's opinions... I'm sure it's not that hard to go straight for the good and miss out the bad! You make it sound like a far more dire situation that it actually is!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
    Steven, you understand stuff as you want it. What i said it's exactly the same point above, but made in more general terms, outside music too: since technology is available to everyone, quality has gone down the toilet. You are free not to agree with me but don't put words in my mouth.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009 edited
    Musicwise I would agre with D.: everyone with a PC and some musical aspirations is now a producer, and the (mainly electronic, house, urban and hip-hop) markets are flooded by wannabes on a level unprecedented in history, simply because in this day and age everyone can get his product out for all to hear.

    Statistically that simply means there is way more crap to wade through than ever before, before finding a diamond in the rough. (That said, there are of course also benefits with artists being discovered through the webz that would have died an anonymous death thirty years ago due to lack of funds and exposure).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn