|
You Are A Elf posted:Man, I cannot stop laughing at this image. Two scenarios play out in my head: The guy looks like Stephen King, which only makes it better.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 20:44
|
|
" like the infamous Italian Spider-Man gif
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
Benne posted:Not sure what you mean by "fuckup", but this is a "giant robots vs. giant monsters" movie and those are full-size adult humans. That should give you an idea as to the scale of this movie. I didn't know it was a giant robot film. I guess I'll look up a film before stupidposting next time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
You Are A Elf posted:2) Dude has just poked his head in on something he thought would be innocent, but turns out to be something hellishly horrific and is all like "HOLY gently caress  It's uncanny!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:FYI, that's a fan poster. Does anybody else feel like this would work ten times better if they had shown Gandalf's back instead of his face?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I hadn't paid any attention to Pacific Rim so I'm pretty pleasantly surprised to find out that it's a Guillermo Del Toro movie about giant robots and isn't about WWII like I assumed. Now I want to see it. Well done movie poster, you have done your job. Oh poo poo he's directing it? Well then now I'm interested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
It involves much of the Earth being destroyed after super-gigantic Lovecraft-esque monsters rise out of the sea; humanity fights back with equally large robot mechs. Directed by Del Toro. I will definitely see this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Also Idris loving Elba. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Also Idris loving Elba. Vanquish: The Movie 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Gonz posted:It involves much of the Earth being destroyed after super-gigantic Lovecraft-esque monsters rise out of the sea; humanity fights back with equally large robot mechs. Also also Charlie Day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Grape Juice Vampire posted:Does anybody else feel like this would work ten times better if they had shown Gandalf's back instead of his face? Yes. It feels a bit off unless it's part of a series. Maybe if it was his back as he was walking towards Bag End.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
matrocious posted:Yes. It feels a bit off unless it's part of a series. Maybe if it was his back as he was walking towards Bag End. Yes. That would be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Silentman0 posted:Also also Charlie Day. I've gone from not even knowing about this film to it being my most highly anticipated movie ever. Even though I know it wont just be Charlie bashing elder god rats with his rat stick in Paddy's basement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Lasher posted:I've gone from not even knowing about this film to it being my most highly anticipated movie ever. Is your extradimensional giant monster making ToooOOooo MUCH NOISE ALL THE TIME?!?! *KAIJU MITTONS*
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Lasher posted:I've gone from not even knowing about this film to it being my most highly anticipated movie ever. same here. I had no idea this existed, but I'm such a huge fanboy of everything and everyone related to this movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Grape Juice Vampire posted:Does anybody else feel like this would work ten times better if they had shown Gandalf's back instead of his face? Are you by any chance familiar with David Wenzel's illustrated adaptation? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
Grape Juice Vampire posted:Does anybody else feel like this would work ten times better if they had shown Gandalf's back instead of his face? Good luck getting the execs to write-off on that. You limit a significant segment of the population by doing that. The casual fan who isn't going to recognize the Shire by vegetation alone. Since those are the people you're trying to convince to see this (because let's face it, anyone who can recognize the Shire or that already knows The Hobbit by name is already at this movie) you have to put your most recognizable face to it. At least, that's how the WB execs think. edit: Also Pacific Rim is the film WB and Del Toro decided to do together when he was forced out/quit/came to a mutual understanding about The Hobbit. kiimo fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Didn't it also have something to do with him not being able to get the funding for At The Mountains of Madness?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Yeah, he got booted off The Hobbit, then developed ATMOM at Universal. Universal loved his proof of concept, but needed him to commit to a PG-13 cut in order to provide his requested budget. The project fell apart on that point. After having spent so many years on two projects that evaporated he just wanted to shoot something, and jumped Pacific Rim with WB. I think they'd been developing it together, sort of on the back burner while Guillermo pursued The Hobbit/ATMOM, for several years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Yeah, he got booted off The Hobbit, then developed ATMOM at Universal. Universal loved his proof of concept, but needed him to commit to a PG-13 cut in order to provide his requested budget. The project fell apart on that point. After having spent so many years on two projects that evaporated he just wanted to shoot something, and jumped Pacific Rim with WB. I think they'd been developing it together, sort of on the back burner while Guillermo pursued The Hobbit/ATMOM, for several years. I really wanted to see Del Toro's take on The Hobbit and was really bummed when the story broke that he was leaving. The stories I've been hearing about the production under Jackson have not been favourable at all. Multiple splinter units with no communication or direction, a number of experienced industry vets have said it's one of the worst on-set experiences they've ever had because of the chaos, and the 48fps footage has all the depth of a Mexican soap opera after a PAL to NTSC standards conversion. Content: gently caress YEAH (huge) 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:I really wanted to see Del Toro's take on The Hobbit and was really bummed when the story broke that he was leaving. The stories I've been hearing about the production under Jackson have not been favourable at all. Multiple splinter units with no communication or direction, a number of experienced industry vets have said it's one of the worst on-set experiences they've ever had because of the chaos, and the 48fps footage has all the depth of a Mexican soap opera after a PAL to NTSC standards conversion. Dude what the hell are you talking about? You should post this on the Hobbit thread and see how quickly it gets shot down. Starting with the 48 FPS which you have the option of seeing or not seeing. And depth isn't the issue, it is how your eye jumps when you scan in real life as opposed to how the 48 FPS doesn't that gives it the soap opera effect. The Hobbit is going to be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Dude what the hell are you talking about? You should post this on the Hobbit thread and see how quickly it gets shot down. I hope so, I love the source material and I think Jackson's great (even if I would rather see Del Toro's take on it). And I know that on-set strife doesn't necessarily always show up in the finished product, but I've heard a couple first-hand accounts of the chaos. I should probably stay out of the Hobbit thread haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Dude what the hell are you talking about? You should post this on the Hobbit thread and see how quickly it gets shot down. I don't know the entire story behind this, but haven't a lot of people who've seen parts of it say it looks like poo poo? Bloody Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I don't the entire story behind this, but haven't a lot of people who've seen parts of it say it looks like poo poo? The 48fps looks...different, but people who are worried need not be. The film will be released in 24fps and will look just fine. Dude who mentioned "chaos": LOTR had splinter units and that turned out just fine. I don't see how it's a problem. Sounds like you know some whiny people who just happen to work on The Hobbit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I don't know the entire story behind this, but haven't a lot of people who've seen parts of it say it looks like poo poo? Yes. I don't like it in fact. I think it reminds me of early 80s era BBC production of King Lear or something. It also makes the sets look a lot like...sets. Some people say you have to get used to it, I don't know if I buy that. But the 48 frames per second that PJ is obsessed with (that is reminiscent of Lucas' obsession with digital projection theaters back in the day) is not going to affect the movie because you don't have to see it that way. You can just see it normally. I'm seeing it three different ways if you count 3D. If you're a true nerd, see it 6 times in 3-D, 2-D and IMAX 3-D, each in both 24-fps and 48-fps. But as far as people complaining about a chaotic set, I'd probably complain too if I had to haul a bunch of production poo poo up a mountain every day. I don't think that is going to ruin the film or anything. Del Toro in my opinion was taking it in a direction that PJ couldn't handle and they amicably parted ways. Jackson I don't think could handle Del Toro's take and immediately said so after seeing this...  That's Del Toro's Smaug. Cool, but not really Lord of the Rings like we've come to know it in my opinion or, apparently, Peter Jackson's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
The 48fps thing just seems like it should have been used on a much smaller film as an experiment, not just used right out of the gate on a $300+ million franchise. I'm very surprised Warner hasn't done something like what "Avatar" and "TRON Legacy" did; showing 15 minutes of footage for free in theaters to gauge audience interest and see what the response to the 48fps element is. Hell, Christopher Nolan decided to change the sound mix of "The Dark Knight Rises" as far as Bane is concerned because people commented about how difficult he was to understand in the prologue.Dillbag posted:Content: gently caress YEAH (huge) EDIT: Idris Elba. He's been in a couple of major movies like "Thor" and "Prometheus", but he's most known for having a major role on "The Wire", and he's loving amazing in it. v v v Robert Denby fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Also Idris loving Elba. Don't get me wrong, he looks like someone I really wouldn't piss off, but who is he? Is he a well-known actor? Never the less, I'll be watching this movie like hell. The premiss sounds badass!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Iacen posted:Don't get me wrong, he looks like someone I really wouldn't piss off, but who is he? Is he a well-known actor? His big work was The Wire and Prometheus. I can't blame you for not watching the latter. (oh, and the guard of the dimension portal thing in Thor) The Anime Liker fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
He's also got a BBC detective show called Luther which is at 2 seasons with a movie on the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:He's also got a BBC detective show called Luther which is at 2 seasons with a movie on the way. Also Ultraviolet which everyone should watch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Iacen posted:Don't get me wrong, he looks like someone I really wouldn't piss off, but who is he? Is he a well-known actor? Hes an up and coming British actor. He had a really great role in The Wire as Stringer Bell, the ship captain in Prometheus, and Heimdall in Thor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
And a brief stint on The Office as perhaps the only person in the whole company who has never put up with either Michael or Jim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Also Ultraviolet which everyone should watch. That's Ultraviolet the UK TV series, not Ultraviolet the bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
kiimo posted:But as far as people complaining about a chaotic set, I'd probably complain too if I had to haul a bunch of production poo poo up a mountain every day. I don't think that is going to ruin the film or anything. No on-set labour is going to make an issue about humping gear or working in a lovely location. Well everyone complains, but it's an expected part of the job. I'm talking about half a dozen shooting units with different directors and no clear direction, actors and crew being shuffled around between units with little organization or planning, and 40 minute long rolling resets* driving the actors crazy (this is rumoured to be why Rob Kazinsky dropped out). But yes, the proof will be in the pudding and I'll hold off on burning the film at the stake until I actually see it in the theatres. It may very well turn out to be a masterpiece. *Back in the days of shooting on film a normal camera roll was around 400 feet, so you could only shoot for 4-ish minutes before having to change mags. This gave the actors and crew time to reset, go over their lines, reapplyt etc. WIth the advent of digital recording to large format hard drives, you can shoot 4k 3D for almost an hour without turning the camera off. It can be very tempting for directors to be lazy and just leave the cameras running and go again and again and again, but it really fucks with your cast. Many actors lose their places, their performances get muddled, and they get burned out very quickly. Content: The international DVD cover for Dolph Lungren's terrible I Come In Peace 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Why would you want to advertise that the film is produced by someone who worked on Righteous Kill and 16 Blocks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
"a producer"? Pff... you're going to need a definite article or plural form if you want to impress me!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:*Back in the days of shooting on film a normal camera roll was around 400 feet, so you could only shoot for 4-ish minutes before having to change mags. This gave the actors and crew time to reset, go over their lines, reapplyt etc. WIth the advent of digital recording to large format hard drives, you can shoot 4k 3D for almost an hour without turning the camera off. It can be very tempting for directors to be lazy and just leave the cameras running and go again and again and again, but it really fucks with your cast. Many actors lose their places, their performances get muddled, and they get burned out very quickly. What? 35mm is available in 1000' rolls, which run ~11 minutes. You can get plenty of takes out of 11 min. The next mag is always ready to go before the previous one has run out and changing mags shouldn't take more than a minute with a gate check if your ACs are at all competent. There are similar very brief delays associated with shooting digital (Running an Epic for hours without stopping? Maybe in theory...). I mean, 400' rolls of 35mm are also available, but 1000' is the standard, and if you're on a student film and the camera crew doesn't know what the gently caress they're doing then maybe changing mags would take more than a minute? But otherwise what are you even talking about? Rolling resets can be rough especially with excessive amounts of takes, but neither of those things are new for PJ and they didn't come from the digital switch. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:What? You're right, I'm mixing up the rolls. Had it in my mind that the 1000 foot reels were for movie projectors, but that's 2000 feet. Regardless, the costs involved in shooting & processing film made lengthy rolling resets fairly rare. Producers would poo poo down your neck for burning film. I'm not saying everyone goes for coffee when the mags are being changed, I'm talking about the brief breather the cast & crew needs between takes to reset, reapply makeup, adjust lighting, get back into a different emotional state, etc. As for running an Epic for almost an hour without stopping, I've seen it happen more than once. I've also seen the problems & rage that 8-10 hours of multicam dailies a day causes editorial on both low budget MOWs & high budget features. Anyhoo, sorry for the derail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:You're right, I'm mixing up the rolls. Had it in my mind that the 1000 foot reels were for movie projectors, but that's 2000 feet. Regardless, the costs involved in shooting & processing film made lengthy rolling resets fairly rare. Producers would poo poo down your neck for burning film. For some reason I initially read "almost an hour" as "several hours." Yeah, the former does happen and it sucks. And I'd totally hate to be in editorial these days, for sure. I do think your overestimating the effect changing mags had on the pace of production, but whatever. The point you were making is that an hour of rolling resets sucks, and that's certainly true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
kiimo posted:
That really looks like something out of Monster Hunter. It even has the same style of horns with their shape and placement of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 20:24
|
|