Say Nothing posted:

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?

EDIT: looking closer at that gif, it looks like the wolf actually is taking a deep sniff of her bits.

Ak Gara posted:

I just don't understand. Willow... Time Bandits... Tom Cruise... Why did they stop hiring those kinda guys.

Real Dwarves gotta make a living.

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.

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.

The MSJ posted:

They did use a pratical effects prop baby at first, but it looked like this:

Slime posted:

Has anyone involved in making that drat thing ever seen a baby?

Paladinus posted:

They actually used body doubles in Hobbit, too.

Angela Christine posted:

Have you ever seen a magic baby? No? Maybe that is what magic babies look like.

The MSJ posted:

The Tarsem Singh Snow White movie with Julia Roberts as the queen actually did that.

Bored posted:

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.

Say Nothing posted:

Jamesman posted:

It woulda worked if they had put boots on the dog. He woulda walked really creepy.

The MSJ posted:

Special effects have improved further.

Bored posted:

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

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!!".

The MSJ posted:

Special effects have improved further.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Haruharuharuko posted:

Joining the long line of fake movie and tv show babies

The MSJ posted:

Haha, where is that from?

Look, now it's not just movies.

The MSJ posted:

Haha, where is that from?

The MSJ posted:

Haha, where is that from?

Look, now it's not just movies.

Jamesman posted:

The MSJ posted:

Chrpno posted:

Every time I see one of those robots, someone kicks it really hard! Why do people hate them so much? Be nice

Choco1980 posted:

In my dreams, there's a "practical effects edition" release of the film with the footage from before the CGI paintjob restored.

The MSJ posted:

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.

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.


The Tarsem Singh Snow White movie with Julia Roberts as the queen actually did that.

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?

If Breaking Dawn were ever made into a movie, it's hard to imagine it fitting into ninety minutes. The book is just so long! I can't imagine how to distill it—if I could, the book would be shorter. But maybe a screenwriter can see a way to do it and still cover the crucial plot points.
When I said that Breaking Dawn might be impossible to film, it's because of Renesmee. You can do almost anything with CGI these days—realistic dragons and dinosaurs and endless amounts of nonexistent creatures that blend right in with the real elements. Some of them look so real you forget they're not. However, the one thing that I've never seen is a CGI human being who truly looks real. An actress can't play Renesmee, at least not when she's a few days old; she's the size of a baby, but her expressions are totally controlled and aware. She would have to be a construct, and CGI isn't quite there yet. Of course, they develop amazing new technologies everyday, and we've got a little time left.

Len posted:

http://stepheniemeyer.com/bd_faq.html

Worth a read for her complete lack of understanding on how boners work.

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.

Krowley posted:

I have a better idea: just use one camera and stop making 3d movies.

Kajeesus posted:

As someone without depth perception, I can't wait for the 3D fad to die down.

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.

Zzulu posted:

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

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.