|
MisterBibs posted:Nobody cares about worldwide, though. Even if it did, it still says that something like "Fury Road has the same amount of folks willing to see it as Pitch Perfect 2". Hollywood 100% cares about Worldwide. It's a huge loving market and movies are going out of their way to cater to them.
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Hollywood 100% cares about Worldwide. I'm not seeing that. I've seen "But it made its money back in the foreign markets" being the new "But it made its money back on DVD" to soften the blow a bit, but that's it. Especially when we're discussing a film that barely beat out a movie that's been in the theaters for three weeks now. edit: jesus wept I forgot this is the JP thread. Mea culpa.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I heard PP2 isnt that good compared to the first which I thought was surprisingly decent. I'll have to see for myself I guess.... when you can rent it as it doesnt seem like a "theater movie". It's actually really loving good. I went to it twice over the weekend and I'm not bothering to go to Mad Max until $5 Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
This image that was posted a couple of pages ago is really interesting to me. http://i.imgur.com/4D2K82Y.png By any objective standards, the modern CGI is far superior (at least in that static shot). The materials are better, the shading is much more lifelike. The Jurassic World dino looks like a real object, to the point where you could probably convince people it's actually a stop motion shot, or even a photograph of a life size statue. However those aspects of the shot being better don't neccesarily make it any more believable than the Jurassic Park version. All aspects of the CGI are understandably much more primitive, yet it's just as believable as being a real dinosaur. I think that's because CGI is entirely unnatural so when we see it our brain goes "oh, maybe it's a poorly exposed photo, or just blurry, or it's been over-processed" and makes excuses for the flaws. When presented with a much more realistic rendering those excuses vanish so we're left with "Hmm, doesn't quite look like a living animal".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Also the big issue I'm noticing is that it's not so much the cgi is bad. It's the animations. Everything looks good but in movement it's atrocious at times. Mo-cap can eliminate at lost of stress but if that isn't available to you then I can't imagine how much of a pain it would be. It's why Gollum looked to good. The cgi was well-made but Andy Serkis mo-capped everything and it shows.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not seeing that. I've seen "But it made its money back in the foreign markets" being the new "But it made its money back on DVD" to soften the blow a bit, but that's it. Especially when we're discussing a film that barely beat out a movie that's been in the theaters for three weeks now.  Here these might help you: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130620-is-china-hollywoods-future http://www.businessinsider.com/overseas-audiences-helping-us-box-office-2013-3?IR=T http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704913304575371394036766312 Have you not noticed that Blockbusters have taken on a more 'International' flair as of recent? Its particularly noticeable with studios jostling to get some of their movies accepted for entry into the Titanic Chinese market, huge budget American movies now regularly include extensive scenes set in China (Skyfall, Pacific rim, Transformers etc) or Asian, and usually Chinese, side characters that are regularly absurdly awesome, heck Iron Man 3 got a whole new scene just for the Chinese cut.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:
Or again, it's biases set in place during childhood. See also: the "warm" sound of Vinyl.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I enjoy music created on tape decks, but these modern tape decks don't sound as good man
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:http://www.businessinsider.com/overseas-audiences-helping-us-box-office-2013-3?IR=T I'm confused. Are you saying that I shouldn't equate MMFR with new Total Recall, Jack Reacher, John Carter, Rise of the Guardians, and Battleship? Because if I wasn't before, I am now. Hint: nobody is champing at the bit to make another Rise of the Guardians movie, foreign markets be damned. computer parts posted:Or again, it's biases set in place during childhood. See also: the "warm" sound of Vinyl. This, in a nutshell. See also: people who think The Thing from the 80s better depicts an alien that can be anything than the new one.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
See: Mad Max Fury Road which uses 90% practical effects and owns versus the garbage shrek like dinosaurs in Jurassic Parks and Rec
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Or again, it's biases set in place during childhood. See also: the "warm" sound of Vinyl. Well... ...vinyl has to be mastered differently than digital since it can't, for layman's terms, get as high with the high indexes as digital can. So, digital mastery often cuts things as close to high as they can go on channels while vinyl has to be mastered more carefully, and more in an analog fashion. The difference being that a) vinyl often has more careful mastery of various channels, meaning that you can often hear more, whereas, a lot of times, digital pushes things so high as to provide a different listening experience, and b) some engineers are lazier with digital as compared to vinyl for that reason. Also, since vinyl gradually degrades, every single time you listen to a vinyl album, it's different, and gradually degrades, even if it's digital quality the first time you hear it.  (In other words, there are often instances where a vinyl will be balanced better than the digital version and that, at least, is not entirely imagination)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:See: Mad Max Fury Road which uses 90% practical effects and owns versus the garbage shrek like dinosaurs in Jurassic Parks and Rec you are just that obnoxious mix right of trying too hard yet still being lazy either be completely lazy like me or just lean in the try hard thing
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:This image that was posted a couple of pages ago is really interesting to me. I totes agree with this WRT animations; a lot of CGI shots can look pretty close to a real thing in stills (the dino in that image even looks pretty close to a practical animatronic around the head area), but once it starts moving then it begins stumbling over the hurdles inherent in animating and integrating things that Aren't Actually There. This isn't to say that it's impossible to lessen (ex. Jurassic Park, GotG, Gollum in LotR), but it's a part of why most big CGI creatures and action sequences lack the kind of weight you want in big creatures or big action sequences. The apes in the recent _____ Of The Apes movies work largely in part due to the fact that the similarities between humans and simians makes the mocaps (and general concept) more believable, to the extent that I'd say the _____ Of The Apes movies have been the closest an unobscured CGI mobile creature has gotten to really making me think "wow, this technology has really progressed and been put to good use". I'm also incredibly perplexed by people attributing CGI hate to the technology no longer being new, as if this is a discussion trump card. Most people would consider being able to critique something without succumbing to hype as A Good Thing. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:This, in a nutshell. See also: people who think The Thing from the 80s better depicts an alien that can be anything than the new one. See, I'm more than happy to admit that the CGI is better in this movie than in Jurassic Park- but it was the blending of CGI and practical effects that helped make the original look as timeless as it does. That movie should look as dated as Lake Placid, even with Spielberg behind the camera. It doesn't. But this? This is straight up wrong. Like, absolute worst comparison. I don't speak from bias either- I didn't see the original Thing until a few months before I saw the remake/prequel/whateverthefuck. Mind, ReThing isn't a bad movie, but if there's anything that lets it down...well OK it's more than just one thing, but if there's a huge thing you can compare, it's how much less convincing and scary the effects in the ReThing are compared to the 80s Thing. There are awkward moments in the 80s Thing of course, and the best version of the Thing would use a blend of the two- but pound for pound, the 80s Thing had more convincing shots across the board than the New Thing. It's like CGI gore and wounds VS practical effects, when it comes to slasher movies. We just have not gotten to the point with CGI where it can reliably be faked, especially at the budget those kinds of movies tend to sport.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I'm one of the 3 people on the planet that has never seen a JP film. Part of it was that as a kid I grew up in a lower income and was constantly moving with family so I never really go to see other movies in the 90's that had cgi as well (even alien I've never saw). With that said I still think the cgi in recent movies has been getting a little rough. It's all anecdotal but lots of people in my social circle are saying the same. I work in social services and when 20 or so clients and staff went to see the Hobbit quite a few thought the cgi looked off in places. (We all loved Smaug though, including me!) Having friends that used to work in the industry years back kind of helped shape my opinion that cgi is getting pushed at an alarming rate and it's affecting the quality. But I have no evidence to that other than anecdotal so it's all opinion. I'm still not sure nostalgia contributes all that much to current perceptions despite it usually being the opposite.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
The gallimimus shot in the original is awesome because it's the first time they ever did a handheld camera and composited it with CGI. They pinned tennis balls in a grid on the ground to recalculate the motion of the camera. It's still great. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Mind, ReThing isn't a bad movie, but if there's anything that lets it down...well OK it's more than just one thing, but if there's a huge thing you can compare, it's how much less convincing and scary the effects in the ReThing are compared to the 80s Thing I cited people who inexplicably think 80sThing was somehow more convincing as an Alien That Can Literally Be Anything compared to NewThing, I didn't need for you to demonstrate it.
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 04:24 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Darko posted:Well... That's not what people refer to when they say "warm sound" though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Re: Thing's problem was NOT the quality of the CG. I went into this in the actual Thing thread way back when, but it's that the director didn't bother to have the environment react to the Thing in the sequel much at all. If you look at the original Thing, every form but the final sprays everywhere. Carpenter, etc. made The Thing constantly spray liquid everywhere, which provides a real, tangible effect that interacts with the environment, even subconsciously. Nu-Thing is entirely sterile. It's just an effect on screen, that is lit and animates well, but doesn't have any excess action going outside of itself (see water and REAL flames bouncing off of it, spraying actual liquids that impact, etc.), that makes it seem "not there." In those cases, it's not "CG quality" at all, but the director/effects people not understanding to bounce reality off of their effects as opposed to just placing them in their environment. A large issue with a lot of cg shots in general, when Spielberg/Cameron aren't doing them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not what people refer to when they say "warm sound" though. It often his, though, because the high channels aren't as high, and the basses are low, but but not at the absolute peaks before breaking the reds. Remember, people are terrible at explaining what they feel because only we Internet nerds bother to research much of this stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:E: For actual content, I'm fine with CGI where it's hilariously impractical/impossible to do the same thing as practical effects (see: Transformers), but I feel like CGI is never going to reach the level of realism practical effects can achieve (at this point in time, esp. when every CGI company is closing or racing to the bottom in terms of profits). CGI is an incredibly useful tool for filmmakers and static CGI is typically seamless and unnoticable (huge sections of outside shots in the show Monk, for example, used green screens due to how expensive shutting down a city street to film something for television can be). In a budget-for-budget, time-for-time comparison, I'd take Practical effects any day of the week. With creature effects I feel like there's two competing problems. Practical effects look more like they're actually there, but CGI has more potential for animation, where a prop might be more stiff. You can see it in Jurassic Park, where the CGI raptors have a much more fluid and realistic motions than the physical props even though they look like CGI. When you're dealing with something like stop motion or spaceships like in Star Wars, you're still having to composite the images together, and you still run into similar problems that CGI runs into. I don't think practical effects in that situation necessarily look more realistic, just differently unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
The Yellow Ant posted:The gallimimus shot in the original is awesome because it's the first time they ever did a handheld camera and composited it with CGI. They pinned tennis balls in a grid on the ground to recalculate the motion of the camera. It's still great. See, if we're going to talk about the impact of hype and general chat consensus regarding CGI without being about specific CGI, I'd like to point to stuff like this as an example of how practical effects end up generating more interest than CGI. This little tidbit is actually really interesting and makes me appreciate the scene itself more, and these are the kind of tidbits you hear about constantly with regards to practical effects. The most recent one was during an interview with Nicholas Hoult on Top Gear about starring in Mad Max: Fury Road, where he was talking about all the crazy dust clouds from the army of cars driving in a certain scene, and the loud explosions and noise effects, and how he genuinely feared for his life because of how hectic it all was compared to most modern film shootings, and that anecdote immediately changed my apathetic "probably another beloved-franchise-cash-in" opinion to "I should actually check this out, that sounds genuinely exciting". Meanwhile, outside of your tidbit, most of the time CGI stories/clips boil down to a guy in green spandex, or an old man crying next to paper cutouts of smiling dwarfs.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:This thread is getting kinda heated, I think people need to chillax and hug a dinosaur or something. >Cinema Discusso > Jurassic World - Open the Door, Get on the Floor, Everybody wants to Hug a Dinosaur
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:See, if we're going to talk about the impact of hype and general chat consensus regarding CGI without being about specific CGI, I'd like to point to stuff like this as an example of how practical effects end up generating more interest than CGI. This little tidbit is actually really interesting and makes me appreciate the scene itself more, and these are the kind of tidbits you hear about constantly with regards to practical effects. The most recent one was during an interview with Nicholas Hoult on Top Gear about starring in Mad Max: Fury Road, where he was talking about all the crazy dust clouds from the army of cars driving in a certain scene, and the loud explosions and noise effects, and how he genuinely feared for his life because of how hectic it all was compared to most modern film shootings, and that anecdote immediately changed my apathetic "probably another beloved-franchise-cash-in" opinion to "I should actually check this out, that sounds genuinely exciting". Which sucks, because CG is just as creative and time intensive as practical. People just relate computer with easy, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Here's a cracked article discussing cgi in both JW and other movies. Like most cracked articles most is fluff with some kernal of interesting ideas. Particularly #3. That's one thing that bugs me a bit about some cgi action scenes. Camera angles can be in odd or impossible locations and it always looks off to me. I might be in the minority though. Also agree with the gravity bit. The terminator: Genesys gif is just pathetic looking.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Red Mundus posted:Here's a cracked article discussing cgi in both JW and other movies. Like most cracked articles most is fluff with some kernal of interesting ideas. Gravity is often worse in practical. See any Godzilla movie or wuxia movies, ie. Crouching Tiger.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Meanwhile, outside of your tidbit, most of the time CGI stories/clips boil down to a guy in green spandex, or an old man crying next to paper cutouts of smiling dwarfs. This is a really absurd thing to say, there's tons of artistry, cobbled together fixes, breakthroughs that happen during production, etc with anything digital. Are Pixar films the result of studio execs just hitting a "render" button and waiting three years?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm confused. Are you saying that I shouldn't equate MMFR with new Total Recall, Jack Reacher, John Carter, Rise of the Guardians, and Battleship? Because if I wasn't before, I am now. Those are pretty darn stupid examples because they didn't set the foreign markets alight by the standards that Hollywood sets for success these days either, though they made much more money there than they did domestically! Lets compare and contrast, Wikipedia tells me that john Carter made $73 million in the United States and $211 million worldwide more than a month after release, with a budget of $263 million that's completely unacceptable by Blocklbuster standards. Battleship made $65 million domestic and $237 international, with a budget of $263 million that sucked too. Total Recall raked in $58 million domestically, $139 million international, on a budget of $125 million, crap. Jack Reacher made $80 million in North America and a pitiful $136 million abroad, though it had a lower budget than others at $60 million, still not a blockbuster success. On the other hand Avatar made $750 million Domestically, impressive stuff! But it also made $2 billion in the international market, loving blowing North America out of the water. Look at other recent hits, Skyfall made $1.1 billion of which 'only' $304 million was in North America. Iron Man 3 made $400 million in America versus $800 million abroad. Basically proportionately flops do about the same or worse abroad, but the Megabucks are now found outside America. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 04:38 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Darko posted:Gravity is often worse in practical. See any Godzilla movie or wuxia movies, ie. Crouching Tiger. See, I'll grant you most Godzilla movies, if only because the vast majority don't give a gently caress about them- But saying that the gravity is a problem in a wuxia movie is like saying that it's a problem that Superman and Thor are flying around punching dudes in the sky. That's not a problem that's the goddamn point. That's the literal point. That's the style of the movie. That's why it's wire fu. They're meant to be floaty as all hell. With CGI, most often, things are floaty and have zero weight because they just are. Not because of any style choices or reasons, just that it's easier than taking the time and effort and making them have the weight and impact they need.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Red Mundus posted:Particularly #3. That's one thing that bugs me a bit about some cgi action scenes. Camera angles can be in odd or impossible locations and it always looks off to me. I might be in the minority though. This used to bother me too, but then I realized that not every film is trying for naturalism. Sometimes you want your camera to dance impossibly through a scene. With CG it's now an option, and like anything is used to good effect (The Matrix) and bad.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Those are pretty darn stupid examples because they didn't set the foreign markets alight by the standards that Hollywood sets for success these days either, though they made much more money there than they did domestically! It's almost as if the whole "Nobody cares about the foreign markets" thing you disagreed with was ultimately correct. John Carter's 211 million worldwide doesn't matter when it only makes 73 domestically. Battleship's 65 domestic matters more than 237 international. Same goes for the positive examples you cite. To try and keep this on the topic of JP/JW, the domestic market is going to be the one that determines what people will look at JW, not how well it does in foreign markets. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 04:52 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Burkion posted:See, I'll grant you most Godzilla movies, if only because the vast majority don't give a gently caress about them- You are misunderstanding what he means about gravity. Yeah its suppose to be floaty as hell, but there are always bits where actual gravity weighs down on costuming or hair or other stuff when doing wire fu stuff that kinda makes it look weird.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:This is a really absurd thing to say, there's tons of artistry, cobbled together fixes, breakthroughs that happen during production, etc with anything digital. Are Pixar films the result of studio execs just hitting a "render" button and waiting three years? You're feigning offense at the wrong target. I was explaining one of the few reasons why people tend to have a favorable opinion of generic (irregardless of film or director) practical effects over generic CGI effects. I do believe that there are plenty of interesting CGI stories hidden away within the six remaining computer farm sweatshops, but the only ones you see tend to be marketing-approved "TEN JILLION POLYGONS IN KING KONG'S NUTHAIRS!" lines. You hear very few stories/very few stories seem to circulate regarding interesting problems involved in computer-generated imagery.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Regardless of my feeling about cgi and whatever apparent defects I may notice in JW kids hugging dinos warms the cockles of my heart and I'll be there day 1 regardless. Then feel sad when dinos start murdering everyone but circle of life, c'est la vie, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's almost as if the whole "Nobody cares about the foreign markets" thing you disagreed with was ultimately correct. John Carter's 211 million worldwide doesn't matter when it only makes 73 domestically. Battleship's 65 domestic matters more than 237 international. Same goes for the positive examples you cite. Why is it so difficult to beat it into you that's completely untrue? Newsflash, I just explained to you that those movies you listed were flops by any standard and sucked balls in the international market as well as the American one, a film that cost 250 million to make and barely scratches 300 million across the entire world is not a success under the current system that exists in Hollywood. The numbers could be reversed between the domestic and foreign markets and it would be the exact same situation, re: a flop. But across every example one thing is absolutely clear, Hollywood makes way more money outside of America and yet you're still trying to push this idea that nobody cares about foreign markets? khwarezm fucked around with this message at 05:03 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Red Mundus posted:Regardless of my feeling about cgi and whatever apparent defects I may notice in JW kids hugging dinos warms the cockles of my heart and I'll be there day 1 regardless. That's the kind of stuff I'd rather they focused on (at least during this marketing campaign) over the generic "here's crazy huge CGI dino's rampaging! These raptors are running alongside this dude on a motorcycle!". That little .gif both has more impact for me (in part because people are actually interacting with the CGI creatures) and feels more like Jurassic Park (in the "Dino's are awesome! sense) than either of those scenes. If nothing else, no matter how bad the movie turns out, at least it gave us a gif of a kid hugging a scared baby brontosaurus 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Burkion posted:See, I'll grant you most Godzilla movies, if only because the vast majority don't give a gently caress about them- Part of this was already replied to you - but, also, every single movement of every single body part in CG is poured over, possibly even more than in practical. "Gravity" often is more realistic in CG than anything possibly comparable to the same types of scenes done practical. It's just that people take CG for granted, because, "computers," probably, as compared to practical, where they can better understand the work from a layman's POV.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Darko posted:Part of this was already replied to you - but, also, every single movement of every single body part in CG is poured over, possibly even more than in practical. "Gravity" often is more realistic in CG than anything possibly comparable to the same types of scenes done practical. It's just that people take CG for granted, because, "computers," probably, as compared to practical, where they can better understand the work from a layman's POV. I'm sure the work of the underpaid dudes is as flawless as six months of work can be. I think when people complain about the "gravity" of a CGI creature they're more talking about how none of the practical aspects of a scene seem to be affected by the "weight" of the CGI creation. You acknowledged this yourself when you talked about lazy/uncaring directors ignoring this stuff in a "the eggheads will code this doohickey right" mentality. The directors can be just as lazy with regards to practical effects teams as well, but a metal arm covered in fur hitting a rock is going to cause plenty of noise, upturned dust, and general damage even if the director is holding the megaphone backwards.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:You're feigning offense at the wrong target. I was explaining one of the few reasons why people tend to have a favorable opinion of generic (irregardless of film or director) practical effects over generic CGI effects. I do believe that there are plenty of interesting CGI stories hidden away within the six remaining computer farm sweatshops, but the only ones you see tend to be marketing-approved "TEN JILLION POLYGONS IN KING KONG'S NUTHAIRS!" lines. You hear very few stories/very few stories seem to circulate regarding interesting problems involved in computer-generated imagery. You find what you're looking for. Nobody aside from movie buffs knows anything about the production of any effect, practical or otherwise. Off the top of my head there was a lot of press about how Interstellar's light-bending black hole simulation not only gave a cool visual, but actually (slightly) moved the actual science forward too - nobody had bothered to try such a detailed sim before, and the results were surprising. ILM rewrote their fluid simulation software to do Battleship (so it wouldn't take 6 years to do). Pixar spent a long time simulating snow blowing in to fur so that Sully, in Monster's Inc, could be believably encrusted after falling through a portal to a snow world and lying stunned on the ground. This stuff is all over if you care to look. Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 05:11 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
khwarezm posted:But across every example one thing is absolutely clear, Hollywood makes way more money outside of America and yet you're still trying to push this idea that nobody cares about foreign markets? When the success (or lack thereof) is based on the domestic income, yes. As I said earlier, people mentioning "But it sold well in foreign markets" is as important as "But it sold well on DVD".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:10
|
|