|
The Hellraiser reboot is looking pretty good. Hellraisining: The beginining
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
This is why he became an actor though. SO people wouldn't have to see his weird looking mug
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Dude has a weird face. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
To Gandalfs credit, I had no idea that's how they did it until I saw that behind the scenes thing, it looked and felt like he was there. The way they did shoot it was pretty kickin' rad from a technical standpoint. They had one set with all the dwarves and bilbog, and the separate green set for Gandalf, and shot each set simultaneously with two camera rigs parented together so any movement they did on the dwarves camera reflected on the green room camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Dude has a weird face. how the grinch stole star trek
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
ddiddles posted:To Gandalfs credit, I had no idea that's how they did it until I saw that behind the scenes thing, it looked and felt like he was there. Bil bog tryna get a hand inveezy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
ddiddles posted:To Gandalfs credit, I had no idea that's how they did it until I saw that behind the scenes thing, it looked and felt like he was there. Yeah but in Fellowship of the Ring they did the same thing by having Frodo just be further away from the camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
rodbeard posted:Yeah but in Fellowship of the Ring they did the same thing by having Frodo just be further away from the camera. Obviously they couldn't do that this time because the 3D would give away the depth. Hence pretty much every scene had to be greenscreen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Obviously they couldn't do that this time because the 3D would give away the depth. Hence pretty much every scene had to be greenscreen. Also that only works sitting across from eachother. Not with drawers running around blunting knives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
It's just really sad when you can spend days watching all the extras for the LotR trilogy, watching all these passionate people working on all the extensive details to bring those movies to life, and then here's the Hobbit movies made by people who didn't even want to be there going "gently caress it, just greenscreen that poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Why not just hire small people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Why not just hire small people? Danny DeVito would have made a great Thorin Oakenshield.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
I just don't understand. Willow... Time Bandits... Tom Cruise... Why did they stop hiring those kinda guys. Real Dwarves gotta make a living.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Why not just hire small people? I know this isn't what you meant, but I had no idea that LOTR had body doubles in hobbit size.  AHHHH 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
mng posted:I know this isn't what you meant, but I had no idea that LOTR had body doubles in hobbit size. They pulled every loving trick in the book out for the LotR trilogy, and even invented new ones. Absolutely none of that was used for the Hobbit movies, deciding to just rely on greenscreens and CGI action. The Hobbit movies ended up costing significantly more to make while doing significantly less work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:They pulled every loving trick in the book out for the LotR trilogy, and even invented new ones. Absolutely none of that was used for the Hobbit movies, deciding to just rely on greenscreens and CGI action. And being significantly less good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:I just don't understand. Willow... Time Bandits... Tom Cruise... Why did they stop hiring those kinda guys. Last time I was flipping through the channels and the snow white movie with thor and that pothead from twilight was on. The dwarves really wierded me out because I could tell who the actors were and knew that they were in fact normal sized people with their head cgi'd on to short fat bodies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:They pulled every loving trick in the book out for the LotR trilogy, and even invented new ones. Absolutely none of that was used for the Hobbit movies, deciding to just rely on greenscreens and CGI action. See also: Star Wars. It really is amazing how practical effects and visual trickery turn out to be cheaper and better looking after all these years. CGI is obviously necessary for a lot of things but having a real set and real actors and props to base it around is always a better result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
The Hobbit dwarves for the most part looked way too, well, human. I'm probably biased because I saw John-Rhys Davies portrayal first, but he definitely looked like the sort of dwarf that I imagined from the books. Stocky and muscular. As hard as I tried, I couldn't think of Thorin's actor as a dwarf at all while watching the movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
And then you have that abominably fat gently caress who looks like he's one wafer-thin mint away from exploding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Lotish posted:And then you have that abominably fat gently caress who looks like he's one wafer-thin mint away from exploding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnhBDRUujVk
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:They pulled every loving trick in the book out for the LotR trilogy, and even invented new ones. Absolutely none of that was used for the Hobbit movies, deciding to just rely on greenscreens and CGI action. I remember reading that it was another thing to put at the studio's feet. For LoTR they had like 3 years of preproduction to perfect and implement all this stuff. For the Hobbit they had under 18 months.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:They pulled every loving trick in the book out for the LotR trilogy, and even invented new ones. Absolutely none of that was used for the Hobbit movies, deciding to just rely on greenscreens and CGI action. The rule of thumb for film making is that you have three options: you can make something inexpensive, you can make something quickly, and you can make something good, but you can only do two of them at once. Don't know why they only choose one of the options for The Hobbit, but that's not the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Pleads posted:See also: Star Wars. I always find the best examples of practical instead of CGI is either The Thing or Jurassic Park. The newest hobbit looked offensively bad in some parts, such as when Dain shows up and his character is quite obviously CG, it's noticeable and totally interrupts the film. I had read the actor was ill and unable to shoot in person or some such but it looked truly awful in respect to even the LotR films. Secondly, we have Azog who is CG rather than using practical effects which again, total visual interruption. All three hobbit films have already aged poorly because the heavy reliance on CG and that sucks because it's my favourite book. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
I just kept thinking about this dude when I saw that dwarf. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
mng posted:I know this isn't what you meant, but I had no idea that LOTR had body doubles in hobbit size. Well drat. That guy looks more like frodo then the main actor ever did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Darth Freddy posted:Well drat. That guy looks more like frodo then the main actor ever did. That's Kiran Shah in whiteface.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
A truly gifted and talented actor 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Toriori posted:I always find the best examples of practical instead of CGI is either The Thing or Jurassic Park. The newest hobbit looked offensively bad in some parts, such as when Dain shows up and his character is quite obviously CG, it's noticeable and totally interrupts the film. I had read the actor was ill and unable to shoot in person or some such but it looked truly awful in respect to even the LotR films. Secondly, we have Azog who is CG rather than using practical effects which again, total visual interruption. All three hobbit films have already aged poorly because the heavy reliance on CG and that sucks because it's my favourite book. Both Azog and Bolg were shot as LotR-style prosthetic orcs, but were re-shot in post as CG characters because PJ wanted to change the designs. Conan Stevens left Game of Thrones (he played The Mountain) to star in The Hobbit as prosthetic Bolg, but his entire performance was painted over in post with a CG Bolg played by someone else entirely. I always wondered how he felt about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Dude has a weird face. Dude has become his own caricature. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Re CGI / Good effects: Stanley Kubricks 2001 a Space Odyssey has some of the best model, miniature and general film trickery ever made and I seriously suggest you watch it. There is nowhere in the film, despite being made in 1968 where you go "oh this looks SUPER fake!!". Stuff like the space station they even did by having slightly curved sets built and then getting people to lean forwards or backwards as they enterered/exited the shot to look like they were curving with the station. It's absurd. Good effects and stagework will always beat good CGI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Pleads posted:See also: Star Wars. Here's the practical effects that they replaced with lovely CGI (I think all of them) for the Thing prequel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU And here's an explanation short version: http://vimeo.com/97585925 long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU Uh, funny image?  The practical effect didn't work out so well here.  Bored has a new favorite as of 00:51 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
he looks like a really bizarre urinal
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
I think CGI's great for, say, replacing parts of a wide shot like in Wolf of Wall Street or something, but the closer you get to something the more practical it needs to be. If you're going to zoom in on the loving Dwarf in Five Armies, try and have an actual actor for his face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:Re CGI / Good effects: except for the monkeys
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:They pulled every loving trick in the book out for the LotR trilogy, and even invented new ones. Absolutely none of that was used for the Hobbit movies, deciding to just rely on greenscreens and CGI action. They actually used body doubles in Hobbit, too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:It's absurd. Good effects and stagework will always beat good CGI. While I entirely agree with your sentiment, good CGI is CGI you don't even know is there. Like animals way back on the hillside in Brokeback Mountain. Not even something your brain has to think about. But when you replace the ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT with it, yeah, it becomes not a good thing. I believe the issue is using CGI for something our brains have seen in the real world. When you see a digitally-created version of a thing like that, your brain knows something is hosed up about it. It might not be glaring, but it's there. But when ILM makes a dinosaur, that's something you've never seen in person and your brain accepts however it looks on the screen. When a man made out of liquid metal gets all hosed up with a shotgun, you don't even question how legitimately real it looks. Good CGI is just trickery that you don't realize is there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Bored posted:Here's the practical effects that they replaced with lovely CGI (I think all of them) for the Thing prequel: Usually seeing the "behind the scenes" of a lot of gore/effects makes me less squeamish about them but watching this I got more squeamish. So amazing. Those people have the best jobs in the world.  My face watching gory movies 
Ramaroot has a new favorite as of 01:14 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 01:06
|
|