|
Zamboni_Rodeo posted:You mean you don't? I had to stop. Hordes of beautiful women swarmed me every time I was just trying to enjoy a nice Chianti with my Benz.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Say Nothing posted:panarama-orama. This is just a still from hemlock grove
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
snergle posted:This is just a still from hemlock grove Or, failing that, 'The Thing'. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Oh man. That CG is not so good.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:Yes Americans have kettles, you stupid potato. this
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
FutonForensic posted:Oh man. That CG is not so good. They originally went with practical effects that looked pretty great, then at the last minute the order from up on high was sent to use lovely CGI exclusively. https://vimeo.com/97585925 It's a sad thing, because well-done practical effects don't age half as quickly as CGI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
RillAkBea posted:That just makes me think of a suburban housewife board game. "You find a spot on the bathroom mirror. Miss a turn while you clean the entire bathroom." "The Joneses have bought a new lamp. Lose $200 to buy a slightly fancier one." "You've landed on 'Random Affair'! Roll 1 through 4 for Pool Boy, 5 through 8 for Cable Technician, or 9 through 12 for Pizza Delivery Guy"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:LOOK, I HAVE A JOB TO DO. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY OTHER PLACES ON THE DISC NEED MY SERVICES? THERE IS A PLAGUE IN KLATCH TO WHICH I MUST ATTEND, AS WELL AS AT LEAST ONE GOOD CURRY RESTAURANT. Bless you  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
In this article, there's another pic from his Facebook page of him in the trunk of a different car: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34897404 Also, the video in this article had me cracking up even more because she was pronouncing it just how I'd expect someone with an accent would pronounce "gently caress dat bitch"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Breetai posted:They originally went with practical effects that looked pretty great, then at the last minute the order from up on high was sent to use lovely CGI exclusively. This video is good. Only 5 minutes long, and gives a nice quick overview of why studios use CGI over practical effects, even though most people prefer the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
The Nards Pan posted:I had to stop. Hordes of beautiful women swarmed me every time I was just trying to enjoy a nice Chianti with my Benz. I see what happened here but I will not partake in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Breetai posted:They originally went with practical effects that looked pretty great, then at the last minute the order from up on high was sent to use lovely CGI exclusively. Back when I studied model making in college and read Cinefex and such, most of the stuff that one thought was CG was actually done with practicals (90's). Such as the Pod Race viewer stands in Star Wars Episode 1 being done using colored Q-tips and a fan. We experimented with various ways to mess with chemicals, resins, hardeners, creating our own thermo-forming methods, innovative painting methods, etc. We tried to achieve realism whether it was a prototype product, or a movie model. We would make cell phones that you would believe were real even though they were hand made from raw materials. Then "Everything CG all the time" came along. Now it has become so overused that I'd rather see stop-mo or go-mo than the trash we're seeing. Everything is digital. Even the shows that you watch every day that could have the second unit spend a day and shoot establishing shots. Then you can pretend you're in the location. Instead, they use digital backlots because they're lazy and it's more expensive. Establish. Then shoot on a soundstage. You don't have to CG everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
The little dog on the couch is what makes it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Is that
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Is that Yes, with his wife Megan Mullally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
In the future head loss isn't a big deal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFBvunP4bps
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Ragequit posted:Yes, with his wife Megan Mullally. I think her name is Tammy
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:I think her name is Tammy Tammy 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
mostlygray posted:Now it has become so overused that I'd rather see stop-mo or go-mo than the trash we're seeing. Everything is digital. Even the shows that you watch every day that could have the second unit spend a day and shoot establishing shots. Then you can pretend you're in the location. Instead, they use digital backlots because they're lazy and it's more expensive. Establish. Then shoot on a soundstage. You don't have to CG everything. I think my biggest issue with existing CGI is that it seems so lazy compared to stuff like Terminator 2, Jurassic Park or even the first Matrix. Those movies for the most part put a lot of work into making things look as realistic as possible so things didn't look out of place and blended well. Now whenever I see any movies or previews that mix real with CGI, the CGI stands out like a sore thumb - plenty of movies are guilty (the last 2 Terminator movies, Mummy movies, 2011 Thing) and anything that's supposed to look "human" looks like it was rendered on the Doom 3 game engine, and movement is wonky as hell unless mo-cap is being used extensively. I really do wish the 2011 Thing would have used a combination of both, when I watched their special on the practical effects that were all ruined with terrible CGI, all of the puppetry was way way better and freakier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I'll never let her make me coffee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:I'll never let her make me coffee. It's okay, she's apparently never finished making any.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:I think my biggest issue with existing CGI is that it seems so lazy compared to stuff like Terminator 2, Jurassic Park or even the first Matrix. Those movies for the most part put a lot of work into making things look as realistic as possible so things didn't look out of place and blended well. Now whenever I see any movies or previews that mix real with CGI, the CGI stands out like a sore thumb - plenty of movies are guilty (the last 2 Terminator movies, Mummy movies, 2011 Thing) and anything that's supposed to look "human" looks like it was rendered on the Doom 3 game engine, and movement is wonky as hell unless mo-cap is being used extensively. I really do wish the 2011 Thing would have used a combination of both, when I watched their special on the practical effects that were all ruined with terrible CGI, all of the puppetry was way way better and freakier. That's why Mad Max was so loving good. They used real poo poo as much as possible, and CGI as the finishing touches. And good god, did it pay off handsomely. I think (hope) that in the future more studios take that approach, because the alternative is the uncanny valley dwarves in The Hobbit, and I would rather drown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
porkswordonboard posted:That's why Mad Max was so loving good. They used real poo poo as much as possible, and CGI as the finishing touches. And good god, did it pay off handsomely. In The Hobbit they actually used real scale doubles where possible. 
Paladinus has a new favorite as of 02:04 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
You say that, but they also were originally going to use badass practical effects for the orcs before dropping everything and using CG instead after having a fully working costume for the main one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:You say that, but they also were originally going to use badass practical effects for the orcs before dropping everything and using CG instead after having a fully working costume for the main one. Yeah, that was a shame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
And disappointing considering the time and money sunk into the Hobbit trilogy overall. Guess most of that went towards people using clone stamp in Photoshop - even comparing the original LOTR to the Hobbit series is like night and day. Watching them now, it's like the Hobbit was the first trilogy with hokey "new" effects, and LOTR was after years of CGI and effects development/maturity making visuals better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Benedict Cumberdragon was pretty sweet
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:And disappointing considering the time and money sunk into the Hobbit trilogy overall. Guess most of that went towards people using clone stamp in Photoshop - even comparing the original LOTR to the Hobbit series is like night and day. Watching them now, it's like the Hobbit was the first trilogy with hokey "new" effects, and LOTR was after years of CGI and effects development/maturity making visuals better. There was an article that just came out that explains that the Hobbit was pretty much done overnight without any planning because of Guillermo del Toro dropping out last minute, and Peter Jackson deciding to throw all his previz out. The script wasn't even finished when they started shooting and a lot hadn't been storyboarded, which is a stark contrast to LotR. When you read about the behind the scenes, you realize that any movie where they put years of thought and a lot of money into effects, even CG, will look pretty good and you won't even realize a lot of instances where it's being used. But when it's being used as a quick fill in for a cheaper production, it becomes really lovely and noticeable. This was true when practical effects were the main thing, but they were so expensive and took so much time, that they usually just weren't used. Poor Miserable Gurgi has a new favorite as of 03:27 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
This is the type of relationship to which us mere mortals can only dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Benedict Cumberdragon was pretty sweet Yes, but an army of cartoon goblins chasing a group of cartoon dwarves through a toy model of a cave city was not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:You say that, but they also were originally going to use badass practical effects for the orcs before dropping everything and using CG instead after having a fully working costume for the main one. Sort of like The Thing prequel: they had a lot of practical effects in the can, but they looked like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Sort of like The Thing prequel: they had a lot of practical effects in the can, but they looked like poo poo. They didn't exactly have Stan Winston then did they?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Sort of like The Thing prequel: they had a lot of practical effects in the can, but they looked like poo poo. No they didn't. In fact, almost every shot had a full puppet that was then overlayed in CG to make it look "more videogamey". Phone posting so I don't have the link but there is a 15 behind-the-scenes where the prop makers show their process and talk about control being taken away from them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:No they didn't. In fact, almost every shot had a full puppet that was then overlayed in CG to make it look "more videogamey". I saw it too, and iirc they actually showed bits and pieces of the practical work. Being practical effects, they looked like poo poo for something that, by definition, needs to look like it can be anything at any point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I saw it too, and iirc they actually showed bits and pieces of the practical work. Being practical effects, they looked like poo poo for something that, by definition, needs to look like it can be anything at any point. I must have watched a different video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 06:58
|
|
