|
Didn't someone do some referencing of what they've shown of the T-Rex and figure out from the scars she's probsbly the Rex from the first movie? If they are putting that level of fan service in there's no way they are killing her off.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
quote:Which movie (or both) is this intended as an insult to? (I didn't see the Hobbit.) Probably this: http://imgur.com/gallery/HXQ42mI
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Didn't someone do some referencing of what they've shown of the T-Rex and figure out from the scars she's probsbly the Rex from the first movie? If they are putting that level of fan service in there's no way they are killing her off. There could be more than one. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
If they go back to original island I hope they end up in the ruins of the visitor center, and someone finds the mummified remains of the raptor in the freezer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Ape Has Killed Ape posted:If they go back to original island I hope they end up in the ruins of the visitor center, and someone finds the mummified remains of the raptor in the freezer. It got out of the freezer didn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It got out of the freezer didn't it? No, one was trapped in the freezer - the other two, including the big one, were killed by the Rex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Vaall posted:This movie is going to have more CGI than the hobbit. Just because the dinosaurs have a good union is no reason to be upset at the level of CGI needed to work around their negotiated work hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Vaall posted:This movie is going to have more CGI than the hobbit. Goddamn CGI. Hopefully it's minimal and they build full robot flying pterodactyls. The raptors better be marionettes. Stop motion clay t-rexes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Someday CGI is going to be 100% photorealistic and people will still complain about it, because it just doesn't have the same feel as practical, maaaaaaaaan. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Someday CGI is going to be 100% photorealistic and people will still complain about it, because it just doesn't have the same feel as practical, maaaaaaaaan. Most CGI people see is actually unnoticeable. We're already there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most CGI people see is actually unnoticeable. We're already there. A lot of people were surprised to find out the new Star Wars Droid (the rolling ball) was a practical effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
And on the other end of the spectrum, a lot of people didn't realize the latest Godzilla was actually a high-quality suit and not CGI (the MUTOs were though)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Goddamn CGI. Hopefully it's minimal and they build full robot flying pterodactyls. The raptors better be marionettes. Stop motion clay t-rexes. I can't wait for lovely plasticy looking CGI to completely dominate film-making, especially in series know for balancing that with great practical works. I will bathe in Ian McKellen's miserable tears.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:A lot of people were surprised to find out the new Star Wars Droid (the rolling ball) was a practical effect. I suspect this isn't the entire story. My guess is that either the ball part is practical and they add the little bouncing head on top, or they created a RC version for actors to react to on set, but it will be CGId over later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most CGI people see is actually unnoticeable. We're already there. I don't think we'll be there until it actually fools all of the people all of the time. There's a lot of seamless CGI these days, but there's also a lot of it that you can still tell is CGI, even if it's good enough for most people to suspend their disbelief. When it comes to hard surfaces and rigid objects CGI is pretty much photorealistic I think, an example being Gravity. Organic creature effects are and have been very good for a long time, and despite claims to the contrary they're always getting better, but they're still at least a few levels shy of being 100%. This is all my opinion based on what I see, of course. I have pretty much no technical knowledge in this area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I don't think we'll be there until it actually fools all of the people all of the time. There's a lot of seamless CGI these days, but there's also a lot of it that you can still tell is CGI, even if it's good enough for most people to suspend their disbelief. We won't "be there" ever because any point that makes someone say "that can't actually happen" it will be discarded, no matter how good it might look. What's really funny though is some people's insistence that things looked better in the good old days. In Temple of Doom you had obvious green screening and stock footage so obvious it puts modern CGI to shame, but no one ever mentions that. The fact of the matter is, in an action film you're going to have unrealistic scenarios and they're going to use some sort of effect that won't look accurate*. *ie, "what you expect". Obviously (for example) explosions in real life don't look like the movie versions but we've been conditioned to think that's how they look. Ditto for gunshots, etc. computer parts fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
I think a lot of the issue isn't CGI itself but how it's used. It feels like a lot of directors don't compose shots in such a way that CGI can be integrated easily, and the environment doesn't react properly to the CGI unless the whole seen in computer generated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
You see the thing that irritates me about talk about 'inevitable flawless CGI' is that it removes the artistic elements of CGI and concentrates on the idea that its merely a technical barrier before people can't tell the difference between CGI and reality. Especially when you get to animating living things it doesn't matter how convincing the rain flowing off its eyebrows are, if its not moving or behaving like a living thing then the alarm bells are going off . Knowing how your giant dinosaur or whatever should move based on observations of animals, knowledge of anatomy, basic physics and stuff like that is what sets good animation apart, and honestly I've quite seen a bunch movies where things just feel 'off' with some very obvious animal CGI like in Skyfall and the Hobbit where I was thinking why did couldn't have used a real animal instead. There are also reasons that the CGI has been getting better that have little to do with technology but a lot to do with pouring increasingly insane amounts of money and work hours in such a way that's probably not sustainable, healthy or very conductive to a creative environment. Special effects companies tend to be short lived. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/las-visual-effects-community-fears-421201 https://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/VFX_Crossroads-1/1
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:You see the thing that irritates me about talk about 'inevitable flawless CGI' is that it removes the artistic elements of CGI and concentrates on the idea that its merely a technical barrier before people can't tell the difference between CGI and reality. Especially when you get to animating living things it doesn't matter how convincing the rain flowing off its eyebrows are, if its not moving or behaving like a living thing then the alarm bells are going off . Knowing how your giant dinosaur or whatever should move based on observations of animals, knowledge of anatomy, basic physics and stuff like that is what sets good animation apart, and honestly I've quite seen a bunch movies where things just feel 'off' with some very obvious animal CGI like in Skyfall and the Hobbit where I was thinking why did couldn't have used a real animal instead. That sounds like an industry problem and if true things should probably change. Obviously if you can't do something within your budget without exploiting workers, you shouldn't do it. But is it really true that CGI technology itself hasn't actually gotten substantially better over the past say twenty years? edit: And there are a lot of obvious reasons why they might not have wanted to use real animals in those situations. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Vaall posted:Holy gently caress this is beyond idiotic. Frame this loving post, lmao.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
These new CGI modules are incredible. A few more years' development and we won't even need to film anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Vaall posted:Holy gently caress this is There we go! Someone should photoshop some cool shades on Pratt + Raptor Bro (Brolociraptor?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Kaiju Cage Match posted:There we go! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:That sounds like an industry problem and if true things should probably change. Obviously if you can't do something within your budget without exploiting workers, you shouldn't do it. I don't disagree that CGI hasn't gotten better over twenty years, but I think we've pretty much reached the point where realism is less to do with the tools and more to do with artists. Also the thing in the hobbit I was thinking was literally this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWt2UdsOsWA It confused me that they made this CGI, you can see a thrush do this fairly regularly anywhere in northern Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:
Yeah but how do you expect them to orchestrate capturing one doing that on film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:But is it really true that CGI technology itself hasn't actually gotten substantially better over the past say twenty years? It's true - but the problem has become an over-reliance on CG over Practical. The best example for this is the new Thing movie. While some of the stop motion effects are a little out of date on the whole - the Carpenter's is better. This is also why Tremors has aged quite well. The human eye isn't stupid. It knows when we're tricked into seeing something that isn't there- and we get a reaction of  Jurassic Park did an amazing job of BLENDING CG and Practical - but everyone just assumes "the CG looks so good". Clever editing made that possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:It's true - but the problem has become an over-reliance on CG over Practical. The best example for this is the new Thing movie. While some of the stop motion effects are a little out of date on the whole - the Carpenter's is better. This is also why Tremors has aged quite well. Cracked and all but here's a really interesting article about attempting to work with practical effects in the modern industry with a particular focus on the thing 2011. Its quite depressing. http://www.cracked.com/article_22000_5-surprising-things-you-learn-designing-movie-monsters.html According to the designers there was extensive practical work done for the film but this was all thrown out by hollywood suits because seeing practical effects in 2011 was such an insult to audience members that a massive riot broke out among the test audience and a large part of downtown Los Angeles was destroyed with hundreds of deaths. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:It's true - but the problem has become an over-reliance on CG over Practical. The best example for this is the new Thing movie. While some of the stop motion effects are a little out of date on the whole - the Carpenter's is better. This is also why Tremors has aged quite well. I have to wonder how much of that is a generational gap. For example, people watch (eg) Transformers, and they know that the giant robots aren't there ...but they still feel it looks amazing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:It's true - but the problem has become an over-reliance on CG over Practical. The best example for this is the new Thing movie. While some of the stop motion effects are a little out of date on the whole - the Carpenter's is better. This is also why Tremors has aged quite well. On the other hand I know there's a little model figure there that's being posed and reposed every little bit of film.  computer parts posted:I have to wonder how much of that is a generational gap. For example, people watch (eg) Transformers, and they know that the giant robots aren't there ...but they still feel it looks amazing anyway. Right, even if they formed a documentary film crew "5th unit" to go hunt down and film a dozen thrushes against two dozen rocks or whatever the gently caress, they're gonna have to come back and put it back in the movie and by then they'll have to tweak composition and lighting using CGI and then ... what? What did they gain? What did we gain? VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I have to wonder how much of that is a generational gap. For example, people watch (eg) Transformers, and they know that the giant robots aren't there ...but they still feel it looks amazing anyway. I dunno, I've spent all my life in this hyper digital age and if anything it makes me more attuned to bad CGI, which can make things pretty jarring. A lot of my friends feel the same way. Added to that its getting really, really hard to 'wow' people with CGI these days, after all whats not been done? In that context practical stuff can be almost more impressive to people who've grown up over the early 2000s since they're often seen as riskier and more grounded , do you remember all the fascination over the use of practical effects in movies like Inception, the Bourne movies or Skyfall?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I dunno, I've spent all my life in this hyper digital age and if anything it makes me more attuned to bad CGI, which can make things pretty jarring. A lot of my friends feel the same way. Added to that its getting really, really hard to 'wow' people with CGI these days, after all whats not been done? In that context practical stuff can be almost more impressive to people who've grown up over the early 2000s since they're often seen as riskier and more grounded , do you remember all the fascination over the use of practical effects in movies like Inception, the Bourne movies or Skyfall? I honestly don't, but what I do remember is the fascination of the Chitari coming out of the portal during Avengers. I think the fact that you're seeing movies grossing for record amounts of money (even with inflation & 3D factored in) shows that there's a large amount of fascination still. Plus, practical effects can look worse than CGI - having a camera strapped to a model ship in Interstellar was annoying, while everything that happened in the Black Hole was at least visually mesmerizing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Plus, practical effects can look worse than CGI - having a camera strapped to a model ship in Interstellar was annoying, while everything that happened in the Black Hole was at least visually mesmerizing. For a moment I thought you meant Disney's Black Hole and I was going to readily agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
CG effects jump out at me, but realistic animation helps a lot. Gollum was near-flawless in The Hobbit. Most jarring to me are bad greenscreens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
I think the issue is that many people don't seem to have the concept of "pretty good" CG. Everything has to either be mindblowing or it's "they should have gone practical instead." I do find bad practical effects more charming than bad CG effects overall but the number of movies where the effects (CG or not) completely sell the concept of the movie is so small. But because a lot of those classic examples of incredible make up and such like Star Wars, RoboCop, Blade Runner, The Thing have stood the test of time we instinctively think of them as a baseline for practical effects quality when they're among the absolute cream of the crop. The one effect that never works for me is when someone falls off a building fully on screen, didn't they basically do it the way the flying was done in Superman 1 til very recently?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I honestly don't, but what I do remember is the fascination of the Chitari coming out of the portal during Avengers. I think the fact that you're seeing movies grossing for record amounts of money (even with inflation & 3D factored in) shows that there's a large amount of fascination still. They're grossing massive amounts of money for more reasons than fancy CGI particularly: -First and foremost a huge growth in overseas markets that goes along with a general increase in the amount of disposable income people have to spend on non-essentials like entertainment, especially in countries like China. Add to that an increasing population and you have more people to buy the tickets. -Concurrent growth in marketing budgets to promote these films as much as possible, especially internationally. -Bankable characters and Franchises, Hollywood has turned creating sequels and spin-offs of successful films into a fine art compared to even ten years ago. -Increasing Movie budgets overall mean more flash, CGI or not. Box Office Mojo tells me that amount of tickets sold in the United States was highest around 2002 but ticket prices have been rising, even then box office revenues seem to have taken a thump this year. I'm surprised you didn't hear about the hype surrounding stuff like the car chases from the Bourne films or train chase from Skyfall, the whole 'Real cars, real stunts, little CGI' thing always seemed to be made known, in Inception I remember articles and talk about the complex rotating set they built for one of the dream sequence fights usually accompanied with 'Can you believe this isn't CGI?!?!'. Evidently this sort of thing really does make a difference for a lot of people, not least the actual filmmakers. I don't recall a whole lot of fuss about the Avengers ultimate action scene in comparison that was to do with the effects specifically. People seemed to been pretty used to that sort of thing where I was but then we could trade anecdotes all day... But I haven't tried to argue that CGI is always bad, I completely agree CGI will look far better than models or Stop-motion or guys in suits in almost all situations. I think I give films kudos for good use of CGI when I see it, the recent planet of the apes films come to mind (fabulously animated and acted) as well as Godzilla (when I saw the way the water was displaced by his movements and the groaning waves that resulted crashing around the place as it rose from the water, that was a CGI masterpiece there) but that doesn't mean that good practical effects aren't an better option in a lot of other situations and shouldn't be phased out in favour of all CG all the time, like CaptainHollywood said, using both well gets the best results. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:I'm sold. Mike Stoklasa, is that you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:It's true - but the problem has become an over-reliance on CG over Practical. The best example for this is the new Thing movie. While some of the stop motion effects are a little out of date on the whole - the Carpenter's is better. This is also why Tremors has aged quite well. I think most people are also pretty reasonable when something looks good "for its time" and are willing to overlook some of the spottier effects in Jurassic Park because there's actual care and craftmanship to the shots that were used. I read somewhere that the dinosaurs were onscreen for all of 17 minutes out of a 127-minute movie, and to me that's how even an effects-heavy movie should be. Now when I'm sitting in front of a TV screen watching Spider-Man 2 or Captain America the Video Game the Movie, knowing he's using a computer-generated shield to take down two computer-generated Terran Firebats producing computer-generated fire, my mind and my intelligence feels insulted. There's no actual artistry there, it's just "how much mindless entertainment can we stuff down people's throats" in the most cynical way possible. A little mindless entertainment is fine every now and again, but Marvel releases five movies a year of this dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:practical effects can look worse than CGI - having a camera strapped to a model ship in Interstellar was annoying, while everything that happened in the Black Hole was at least visually mesmerizing. CGI can't fix bad filmmaking, and it won't really make a good film worse. People are big sooky babies about Thing 2011 when the practical effects were directly painted-over and so look pretty much identical to what they were 'supposed to be'. The lighting is exactly the same, the shot compositions are the same, etc. CGI is different, because it's a different medium, but people aren't complaining about a philosophical difference of that sort. To claim that the removal of the practical effects is the sole deciding factor is to claim that all other aspects of the film were essentially perfect. The good qualities folks attribute to Thing 1982 have little to do with the type of effects used, and everything to do with it being a completely different story told by a completely different director. But John Carpenter's specific talents are hard to elucidate, so (lack of) CGI is a nice, tangible detail to glom onto. It makes a dumb opinion 'objective': movies from the 1950s absolutely, objectively, did not have CGI, so they are objectively different. So, you can praise them thoughtlessly. I could claim, for example, that every movie ever released in 3D is bad because 3D is always bad. You can't question that claim, because I've created a simple tautology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I think most people are also pretty reasonable when something looks good "for its time" and are willing to overlook some of the spottier effects in Jurassic Park because there's actual care and craftmanship to the shots that were used. I read somewhere that the dinosaurs were onscreen for all of 17 minutes out of a 127-minute movie, and to me that's how even an effects-heavy movie should be. Now when I'm sitting in front of a TV screen watching Spider-Man 2 or Captain America the Video Game the Movie, knowing he's using a computer-generated shield to take down two computer-generated Terran Firebats producing computer-generated fire, my mind and my intelligence feels insulted. There's no actual artistry there, it's just "how much mindless entertainment can we stuff down people's throats" in the most cynical way possible. A little mindless entertainment is fine every now and again, but Marvel releases five movies a year of this dumb poo poo. The notion that CGI doesn't involve "care and craftsmanship" and isn't "actual artistry" is what's really insulting here. Would it be any better if a two hour effects wank was all practical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I think most people are also pretty reasonable when something looks good "for its time" and are willing to overlook some of the spottier effects in Jurassic Park because there's actual care and craftmanship to the shots that were used. I read somewhere that the dinosaurs were onscreen for all of 17 minutes out of a 127-minute movie, and to me that's how even an effects-heavy movie should be. Now when I'm sitting in front of a TV screen watching Spider-Man 2 or Captain America the Video Game the Movie, knowing he's using a computer-generated shield to take down two computer-generated Terran Firebats producing computer-generated fire, my mind and my intelligence feels insulted. There's no actual artistry there, it's just "how much mindless entertainment can we stuff down people's throats" in the most cynical way possible. A little mindless entertainment is fine every now and again, but Marvel releases five movies a year of this dumb poo poo. So how do you feel about Pixar movies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 12:13
|
|
