|
Obama?
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 01:13 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:21 |
|
Bad special effects?
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 01:17 |
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Also, if you know a person and they transform into a wolf and you start rubbing their head, how is that not weird? Do you rub their head when they're human? In wolf form. does he get to sniff your crotch? That wolf was dating her at the time, because he 'imprinted' on her. Of course, he actually imprinted on an egg in her ovary which later became her daughter so he then becomes betrothed to the baby. Don't worry about it being creepy though, because she ages quickly and will become an adult when she is 7 oh wait it's still pretty creepy. Anyway, that baby was CGI in the movie. They did use a pratical effects prop baby at first, but it looked like this: Don't worry Rosalie, you are in the good company of another viscious killer. Ak Gara posted:I just don't understand. Willow... Time Bandits... Tom Cruise... Why did they stop hiring those kinda guys.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 01:33 |
|
The MSJ posted:That wolf was dating her at the time, because he 'imprinted' on her. Of course, he actually imprinted on an egg in her ovary which later became her daughter so he then becomes betrothed to the baby. Don't worry about it being creepy though, because she ages quickly and will become an adult when she is 7 oh wait it's still pretty creepy. Aww as soon as I saw the first 2 stills, I was going to post Bradley Cooper making a fake babby's hand wiggle
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 01:36 |
|
The MSJ posted:They did use a pratical effects prop baby at first, but it looked like this: Has anyone involved in making that drat thing ever seen a baby?
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 01:44 |
|
Slime posted:Has anyone involved in making that drat thing ever seen a baby? Have you ever seen a magic baby? No? Maybe that is what magic babies look like.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 01:56 |
|
Paladinus posted:They actually used body doubles in Hobbit, too. What the hell? Just use those guys. They look awesome as dwarves.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 02:06 |
|
Angela Christine posted:Have you ever seen a magic baby? No? Maybe that is what magic babies look like. Now I see why people burned witches way back in the old days.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 02:17 |
|
The MSJ posted:The Tarsem Singh Snow White movie with Julia Roberts as the queen actually did that. That movie was much less lovely than the other one. Amazing costumes, and the actors playing the dwarves were really good actors (in addition to having dwarfism or whatever).
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 03:55 |
|
Bored posted:Here's the practical effects that they replaced with lovely CGI (I think all of them) for the Thing prequel: It woulda worked if they had put boots on the dog. He woulda walked really creepy.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:00 |
|
Never skip leg day
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:23 |
|
Pre CGI Hobbit Orc:
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:23 |
|
Jamesman posted:It woulda worked if they had put boots on the dog. He woulda walked really creepy. Special effects have improved further.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:27 |
The MSJ posted:Special effects have improved further. Making kick-proof robots will be humanity's downfall. Mark my words
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:35 |
|
Bored posted:Here's the practical effects that they replaced with lovely CGI (I think all of them) for the Thing prequel: In my dreams, there's a "practical effects edition" release of the film with the footage from before the CGI paintjob restored.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:37 |
|
Drone_Fragger posted: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!!". Except when you can see the glass plate they stuck the pen to. And some of the sets in the dawn of time segments are really obvious. And the color altered landscapes in the beyond the infinite sequence. Really, there's a lot of 2001 doesn't look that great in terms of effects. Some of the obvious things have been cleaned up in the more recent releases (the pen shot, for example, has the visible portions of the glass removed), but they were pushing the edge for 1968 and some things worked and others didn't.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:48 |
|
The MSJ posted:Special effects have improved further. Every time I see one of those robots, someone kicks it really hard! Why do people hate them so much? Be nice
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:50 |
|
Random Stranger posted:Except when you can see the glass plate they stuck the pen to. And some of the sets in the dawn of time segments are really obvious. And the color altered landscapes in the beyond the infinite sequence. They used a similar glass plate method for 2010, and there's a funny outake where Roy Scheider tries over and over to get the pen to stay in place. When it finally does he's so surprised he forgets to speak his line. EDIT: Here it is! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ghd3wkf_g It starts at 8:27 Dick Trauma has a new favorite as of 04:56 on Feb 12, 2015 |
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:53 |
|
The MSJ posted:That wolf was dating her at the time, because he 'imprinted' on her. Of course, he actually imprinted on an egg in her ovary which later became her daughter so he then becomes betrothed to the baby. Don't worry about it being creepy though, because she ages quickly and will become an adult when she is 7 oh wait it's still pretty creepy. Joining the long line of fake movie and tv show babies
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 04:55 |
|
Haruharuharuko posted:Joining the long line of fake movie and tv show babies Haha, where is that from? Look, now it's not just movies.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 06:32 |
|
The MSJ posted:Haha, where is that from? Bruces anguish! ..... as he goes to get starbucks the next day
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 06:38 |
|
The MSJ posted:Haha, where is that from? Torchwood Miracle Day. It's even better in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh1uwWULF_g Baby gives no shits.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 07:09 |
The MSJ posted:Haha, where is that from? She's given birth to the Muad'Dib.
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 07:19 |
I was the the Palms the other day, and some dude was walking his tiny, booty-footed, rat-dog through the casino. It was an odd sight.
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 07:37 |
|
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 09:20 |
|
Chrpno posted:Every time I see one of those robots, someone kicks it really hard! Why do people hate them so much? Be nice This is how the robot uprising begins
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 11:46 |
|
Choco1980 posted:In my dreams, there's a "practical effects edition" release of the film with the footage from before the CGI paintjob restored. I think I heard they were taking all the practical effects and animatronics from this, tweaking them, and then they're filming an entire new movie with them. Just the effects studio I mean, I think it was a Kickstarter.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 11:48 |
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 11:58 |
|
Here, token funny image stolen from imgur so that I can continue the sfx/cgi/etc derail: Okay, so, you can't use forced perspective in the normal way when shooting 3D, because the actor who is farther away will just look... farther away, right? But what if you had a 3D camera that filmed things through four lenses at once, instead of just two? Use the inner pair for the closer actor, and the outer pair for the farther actor, and they'll look like they're the same distance away. You'd have to do some digital blending of the scene but it would at least allow for the actors to interact with each other normally.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 12:07 |
|
The MSJ posted:That wolf was dating her at the time, because he 'imprinted' on her. Of course, he actually imprinted on an egg in her ovary which later became her daughter so he then becomes betrothed to the baby. Don't worry about it being creepy though, because she ages quickly and will become an adult when she is 7 oh wait it's still pretty creepy. Stephanie Meyer posted:I've heard you say that you think Breaking Dawn should be two movies. Why? Also, that it might be impossible to film. What does that mean? Worth a read for her complete lack of understanding on how boners work.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 12:50 |
. On second thought, never mind
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 14:02 |
|
Len posted:http://stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq.html J.K. Rowling had the monster in Harry's chest.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 14:10 |
|
ol qwerty bastard posted:Okay, so, you can't use forced perspective in the normal way when shooting 3D, because the actor who is farther away will just look... farther away, right? But what if you had a 3D camera that filmed things through four lenses at once, instead of just two? Use the inner pair for the closer actor, and the outer pair for the farther actor, and they'll look like they're the same distance away. You'd have to do some digital blending of the scene but it would at least allow for the actors to interact with each other normally. I have a better idea: just use one camera and stop making 3d movies.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 14:29 |
Krowley posted:I have a better idea: just use one camera and stop making 3d movies. You mad fool, it's so crazy it just might work.
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 14:58 |
|
As someone without depth perception, I can't wait for the 3D fad to die down.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 15:03 |
|
Kajeesus posted:As someone without depth perception, I can't wait for the 3D fad to die down. A guy who had no depth perception inexplicably got it back after watching a 3D movie. Why a guy with no depth perception was watching a 3D movie in the first place is anyone's guess. I just googled it and it's even better than that: He's a neuroscientist.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 15:24 |
|
3D has been around for a while but the "new" 3D trend more or less started with Avatar in 2009 that was 6 years ago, i dont think this fad is goin away anytime soon
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 15:32 |
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I think I heard they were taking all the practical effects and animatronics from this, tweaking them, and then they're filming an entire new movie with them. Just the effects studio I mean, I think it was a Kickstarter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbinger_Down I think that's it. It'll probably suck like a sci-fi channel film, but at least the effects will be neato.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 15:36 |
|
Zzulu posted:3D has been around for a while but the "new" 3D trend more or less started with Avatar in 2009 It allows them to charge you an additional fee for movie. In a time of declining audiences and falling profits, it will never go away.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 15:40 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:21 |
|
e X posted:It allows them to charge you an additional fee for movie. In a time of declining audiences and falling profits, it will never go away. A better solution might be to make good movies.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2015 15:46 |