|
Neurolimal posted: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. Honestly, I think the biggest difference is that, with practical effects, studios only trusted tentpole movies to a Spielberg or a Zemeckis or whatever. Once you deal with CG costs, they can farm out movies to "worse" directors that have CG farms working for them. You didn't get too many large effect films from sucky directors back in the 80s as compared to now to poison the well among general audiences.
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted: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. Its not inexplicable, 80s thing is an intimately better portrayal of an alien intelligence than ReThing. Special effects don't even come into it, plot has 80s Thing being better
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Its not inexplicable, 80s thing is an intimately better portrayal of an alien intelligence than ReThing. If this wasn't a JW-centric thread, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, since that's the most  thing I've heard in years, period. Since it's not, I'll just leave it at ""
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted: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 05:29
|
|
|
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. Pacific Rim, then- underperformed at home, is getting a sequel specifically because it made tons of money overseas.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted: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". Success is based off of income full stop, whether or not it comes from domestic or international sources is irrelevant and your example movies, as I have explained umpteen times, were not very successful overseas at all. The last twenty years has seen huge growth in overseas markets for Hollywood productions to the point that they now make up most of its income, say what you will about the suits in Hollywood but they generally follow the money, wherever it is, as such foreign markets are taking increasing precedence. Did you actually read any of the articles I linked to you? The Wall Street Journal makes it clear how this phenomenon has impacted movie production, fears that sequels to previously successful movies like Anchorman wouldn't travel well scotched production of a sequel for ages. Overall Movies are now leaning more towards bombastic blockbusters rather than cheaper raunchy comedies or Rom-coms since those sorts of films reliant on dialogue and humor don't do so well abroad even if they do well in America. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted: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. Lmao your dumb ThePlague-Daemon posted: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. Practical effects have lots of workarounds though. Like in Aliens, they shot some of the scenes backwards, so instead of the facehuggers jumping towards Newt they started on her and got pulled away quickly, then editing reversed it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
edit: no, I'm not continuing a derail. If you want to convince me that But-It-Sold-Well-Overseas isn't the modern Well-It-Sold-Well-On-DVD, PM me a link of John Carter getting a sequel.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:edit: no, I'm not continuing a derail. If you want to convince me that But-It-Sold-Well-Overseas isn't the modern Well-It-Sold-Well-On-DVD, PM me a link of John Carter getting a sequel. i am so glad you took it upon yourself to heroically end this line of conversation, stubbornly refusing to read anything anybody is saying, and asking those who wish to change your mind to do so by completing a herculean task.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
John Carter's a bad example anyway since it's "budget" was inflated by hollywood accounting. Also mrbibs is a moron
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I always thought studios appealing to foreign audiences was now a regular thing. A bunch of movies started to try and market to Chinese audiences and I vaguely recall some sites, usually right-wing, getting into a huff about that. I just finished reading Disneywar by James Stewart and it also mentions that a lot of Disney movies pre-2006 made all their profit overseas and how it carried both the live-action and traditional animation departments during slumps.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
There is an interview or commentary where an Asylum writer openly talks about how that yes they have a checklist of things to make sure their product sells well overseas, and they won't actually give a go ahead on any project until a majority of things on that list is checked. For some reason it kinda surprised me even though I knew studios already did this. I guess its kinda easy to forget how they have gotten making lovely movies down to a science.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Red Mundus posted: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).  You need to fix that poo poo right now (RIGHT NOW) or so help me god I will climb through the Internet and cut you.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
effectual posted:Practical effects have lots of workarounds though. Like in Aliens, they shot some of the scenes backwards, so instead of the facehuggers jumping towards Newt they started on her and got pulled away quickly, then editing reversed it. Right, but with something like the animatronic dinosaurs in Jurassic Park it loses a lot of the natural movement to the dinosaurs when they aren't CGI. The movements get a lot more mechanical or puppety. The velociraptor prop that attacks Muldoon would look fake without the foliage covering up the attack and the quick cut when it jumps on him, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
effectual posted:Lmao your dumb At least I didn't make this hilarious loving post you poser quote:That's what chinese tourists do, and it's why I almost never take pics when I go to somewhere cool, I just try to take the experience in with my own eyes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:At least I didn't make this hilarious loving post you poser Just keep being a chode i'm sure it will work out for the best.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
I think it's not so much the CG is inherently bad, it's that special effects firms are run like sweatshops and when directors aren't grounded by limitations, they sometimes have characters doing ridiculous stuff that's physically impossible like Legolas sliding down the trunk of an elephant or like, the entirety of the Star Wars prequels. It's also easy to get wrong. Sometimes the lighting can be off, or living creatures don't move right. When you have a physical puppet, you don't need to worry about lighting it properly and make sure it is composited properly into the frame, because it's literally there. On the flip side, physical puppets can be very limited in terms of movement and can look fake themselves. Ultimately, there is a place for both, and the realism often ultimately depends on the quality of the work done, and if the director is even going for realism. Most Hollywood movies are so insanely over the top that they come across as cartoonish. They really aren't going for realism. Prolonged Priapism posted:Could the big difference here be that cars actually exist? Hm. I really wish you could find that article.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:
This is why we've never had to worry about lighting until 1999.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is why we've never had to worry about lighting until 1999. That's not what I meant and you know it. Proper lighting has always been an important part of not making your shots look like poo poo. That said, with something composited into a frame, there's a chance the lighting will be different from the rest of the frame, making it look off. And this could either be CGI or a puppet. It's just that the puppet is usually there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:That's not what I meant and you know it. Proper lighting has always been an important part of not making your shots look like poo poo. To bring up an example from a few pages back; the Dog Alien design in Alien 3 was a practical animatronic edited into shots (I guess to speed it up and save time on transporting it between sets?) and looks completely off from everything else in the way people tend to assiciate with CGI.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:To bring up an example from a few pages back; the Dog Alien design in Alien 3 was a practical animatronic edited into shots (I guess to speed it up and save time on transporting it between sets?) and looks completely off from everything else in the way people tend to assiciate with CGI. Yep, that's right. The dog alien looks like poo poo. That's a good example of a practical effect done poorly.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Didn't one of the alien movies tried using an actual dog to shoot some of the alien scenes?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Didn't one of the alien movies tried using an actual dog to shoot some of the alien scenes?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:To bring up an example from a few pages back; the Dog Alien design in Alien 3 was a practical animatronic edited into shots (I guess to speed it up and save time on transporting it between sets?) and looks completely off from everything else in the way people tend to assiciate with CGI. EDIT: Thinking more about that; is the color grading that plagues every movie nowadays a way to better blend the lighting/color of practical and CG shots or is that unrelated? david_a fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Didn't one of the alien movies tried using an actual dog to shoot some of the alien scenes? 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
david_a posted:EDIT: Thinking more about that; is the color grading that plagues every movie nowadays a way to better blend the lighting/color of practical and CG shots or is that unrelated? Not really. There are ways of lighting/grading films that will make it easier for CG artists to blend things, yes, but generally, it's more due to directors copying each other a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Digital color grading became more common around the turn of the century (O Brother Where Art Thou was a big breakthrough) and that allows for easier and finer manipulation of the image than earlier chemical color timing approaches.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:edit: no, I'm not continuing a derail. If you want to convince me that But-It-Sold-Well-Overseas isn't the modern Well-It-Sold-Well-On-DVD, PM me a link of John Carter getting a sequel. Here you go For serious John Carter was a flop domestically and a flop over seas. No loving wonder it isn't getting sequels. Pacific Rim was a flop domestically but a hit overseas. Pacific Rim is getting sequels. Geeze I wonder what that says about the importance of oversea sales.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
More often as well colour grading is being used as branding for a film. Jurassic World, for example, it's immediately evident whenever I see a shot because of the metallic blue tint everything has, including the logo.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Itll be a while before someone tries to reboot john carter 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:Itll be a while before someone tries to reboot john carter Just think of every movie that follows that structure a remake.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Here you go He's completely clueless. DVD was a loving cash cow 7-8 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Latest TV spot shows the baby triceratops gets away safely, all is right with the world
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Transformers 4 is the most solid bit of evidence to suggest that studios care all about the overseas income.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Transformers 4 is the most solid bit of evidence to suggest that studios care all about the overseas income.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
It's literally the main reason why those goddamn Resident Evil movies keep getting made.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
A Princess of Mars will probably never really get a good movie that makes money because it's been plundered for a century for OTHER stories/movies, so there's not much way to make it faithful without making it seem derivative. I didn't think the movie we got was bad, I wish we could get a few sequels :\
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:A Princess of Mars will probably never really get a good movie that makes money because it's been plundered for a century for OTHER stories/movies, so there's not much way to make it faithful without making it seem derivative. I didn't think the movie we got was bad, I wish we could get a few sequels :\ They completely missed the point of the character, and the tone of the movie was goddamn everywhere. It was a mess of a movie.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Burkion posted:They completely missed the point of the character, and the tone of the movie was goddamn everywhere. It was a mess of a movie. That's pretty hard to dispute, but you can see how it wouldn't have taken a ton of tweaking to get it to where it needed to be. Visually I think it worked pretty well.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Stunts are looking good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fs2LO9_6rg
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:56
|
|