|
The Snark posted:Or alternatively I can yield that the genius has in fact divined that high and low art is utterly meaningless to me, which is objectively false. Perhaps they are not my reasons for being and certainly they have minimal relevance to my self-worth but I think 'It's all just bad' is something of a gross and self-serving simplification of my opinion there, SMG. You are entirely free to prove me wrong. But, currently, you have not written anything about any film. You are only making a great display of non-communication. A spectacle of inaction. Writing about a film is a feat that I have accomplished without effort, and I am not a genius. I do not even actually exist.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Red posted:Iron Man 3 is the worst. ???
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
cinema sins has an account on here?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Iron Man 2 is at the very least worse than the other Iron Man films because it starts the whole "Tony Stark (and family) is not at fault at all and any flaws are due to other people" that continues on into Age of Ultron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Iron Man 2 is the model - ineffectual villains with their motivations edited out of the script and film, cameos galore, seamless advertisement for the next film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
At least Iron Man 2 had Sam Rockwell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You are entirely free to prove me wrong. Agreed for the most part Sir and/or Madam Puff of Existential Mystery. That said, I dare say you have put in the effort. You're not lazy on this point- and in all fairness do a far better job of writing fiction than many of the films you have shot at or inflated with hot air. It's just I highly doubt you recognize it as fiction. Lord Hydronium posted:Iron Man 3 is great, but I'm not sure what it has to do with Star Wars. I am very unhelpful. If you can't find any examples here, I can't help you. But to get back to the topic of the thread- has anyone determined the profound meaning of Supreme Leader Snoke in The Force Awakens? Was there a reason they had to have a name that sounds like it was stolen from a passive-aggressive English bureaucrat and the aesthetic of a retired Grendel from the animated Beowulf? Because let's be fair- it would have been absolute magic had it been Jar Jar revealed as Palpatine's ol' Master instead. Though, naturally, content to shed the insufferable voice now there is no need for ruses. No one should suffer that again. The Snark fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Iron Man 2 is the model - ineffectual villains with their motivations edited out of the script and film, cameos galore, seamless advertisement for the next film. Excellent transition back to the topic of Force Awakens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Snoke is a very big man in a very big chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Snoke uses a very awkward telephone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Iron Man 3 is the best. It's like a weird sequel to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Also, TMP has very good effects. Best in the whole prequels. That isn't a diss. Those effects look great and hold up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
[Mimicking Mike & the 'Bots, when Snoke appears] Oh no! It's General Thade!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Iron Man 3 is the best. It's like a weird sequel to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Every movie he's made since has been like a weird sequel to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. That's the movie where he really nailed the RDJ persona, then he did it again for Zodiac and that's when someone realized it was perfect for Stark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Also, TMP has very good effects. Best in the whole prequels. That isn't a diss. Those effects look great and hold up. Why are you talking about Star Trek: The Motion Picture here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
I don't really agree. Harry Lockheart is a ineffectual idiot who completely fails at everything. He's also insecure as gently caress. Tony Stark is a cocky, confident rear end in a top hat who actually can do poo poo but chooses not too (at first) because money is good.cargohills posted:Why are you talking about Star Trek: The Motion Picture here?  um, i'm talking about Star Wars the Menaced Phantom. idiottt!! CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Also, TMP has very good effects. Best in the whole prequels. That isn't a diss. Those effects look great and hold up. To be fair, there are some janky ones. For example, the battle droids in the opening fights in the corridors of the Trade Federation ship don't really appear to be attached to the floor. The CGI effects in later prequels fixed those technical issues, even if you feel that their overall style is not as seamless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Snoke uses a very awkward telephone. "HELLO? KYLO? IT'S GRANDPA SNOKE. THE SIZE BUTTON ON MY HOLO-PHONE IS STUCK CAN YOU COME FIX IT?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:"HELLO? KYLO? IT'S GRANDPA SNOKE. THE SIZE BUTTON ON MY HOLO-PHONE IS STUCK CAN YOU COME FIX IT?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I don't have Spartacus and I'm not sure where my copy of Phantom Menace is so sorry about the image quality, but here's some screenshots. For future reference, get your Star Wars screencaps here: https://screencaps.us/category/starwars/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Oh, nice. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Snoke's ship must be like 4 star destroyers stacked on top of each other with an awkward hole cut out in the middle so he can walk around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Datacron Sith makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
In regards to the discussion over the last few pages about CinemaSins style criticism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acYl2lpq1YI
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:"HELLO? KYLO? IT'S GRANDPA SNOKE. THE SIZE BUTTON ON MY HOLO-PHONE IS STUCK CAN YOU COME FIX IT?" "WHAT'S THAT? YOU FOUND A GIRL? THAT'S NICE KYLO DID YOU TAKE HER SOMEWHERE NICE YET?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Zoran posted:To be fair, there are some janky ones. For example, the battle droids in the opening fights in the corridors of the Trade Federation ship don't really appear to be attached to the floor. The CGI effects in later prequels fixed those technical issues, even if you feel that their overall style is not as seamless. I wouldn't even call that particular shot bad. It was an ambitious decision to composite the CG characters onto footage of a set with a semi-reflective floor, and it's pretty much fine. The floaty effect is due to, I think, the contrast on the shadows beneath the feet being slightly off. What's funny, rewatching Phantom Menace for the first time in several years, is that the CG battle droids look far better than the practical rod-puppet effect used to create C3PO (though, of course, the point is that C3PO is a shambling mess). In the scene where they first confront the Jedi, many of the battle droids are visibly trembling, having trouble holding their guns steady. When you have a better eye for practical effects - especially miniature effects - the number of them employed in the pod race scene is downright shocking. I think people just generally don't understand what CGI is. It's easy to comprehend a hand-puppet, but when you talk about CG you get all these weird ideas. Like people see the endless green hills and, instead of assuming that it's a stylistic choice to create an alien landscape, assume that 'CGI' has somehow failed to render a generic mountainside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I wouldn't even call that particular shot bad. It was an ambitious decision to composite the CG characters onto footage of a set with a semi-reflective floor, and it's pretty much fine. The floaty effect is due to, I think, the contrast on the shadows beneath the feet being slightly off. CGI chat is the most boring thing imaginable. No one's ever going to change their mind. We've seen it in this thread dozens of times. Show someone that a "janky-looking CGI effect" was actually 100% practical, and they'll just immediately pivot to "Well it still OBJECTIVELY looks like complete and total poo poo/literal N64 video game graphics (literally) and therefore it is still the movie's problem and not mine."
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
The problem with CG vs practical effects is that with practical the reaction is, "WOHA! How did they do that?" Or slightly more advanced, "That combination of petroleum jelly, plaster of paris, and foam latex looks almost like a real thing!" Whereas with CG it's, "Oh yeah they did it on a computer. Computers can do anything. It's probably not even that hard."
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
porfiria posted:The problem with CG vs practical effects is that with practical the reaction is, "WOHA! How did they do that?" Or slightly more advanced, "That combination of petroleum jelly, plaster of paris, and foam latex looks almost like a real thing!" Whereas with CG it's, "Oh yeah they did it on a computer. Computers can do anything. It's probably not even that hard." Which is actually really funny if you have some sense of how computer graphics work, because there are many effects you can pull off practically that are ludicrously difficult to make with computers. There's a reason why television-grade computer animation almost never has billowing capes or loose, wavy hair. For me, Fox McCloud's character model in Star Fox Adventures on the GameCube was one of those "WHOA! How did they do that?" things. 
Zoran fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Which is actually really funny if you have some sense of how computer graphics work, because there are many effects you can pull off practically that are ludicrously difficult to make with computers. There's a reason why television-grade computer animation almost never has billowing capes or loose, wavy hair. Speaking of video games, hell, didn't that one Castlevania fighting game for the Wii from a couple years back totally change one of the characters' designs because properly animating her hair was way too labor- and resource-intensive?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:CGI chat is the most boring thing imaginable. No one's ever going to change their mind. We've seen it in this thread dozens of times. Show someone that a "janky-looking CGI effect" was actually 100% practical, and they'll just immediately pivot to "Well it still OBJECTIVELY looks like complete and total poo poo/literal N64 video game graphics (literally) and therefore it is still the movie's problem and not mine." I fully encourage CGI-chat! It's either an interesting look at how designs are implemented through special effects, or it's a fascinating look into people's misconceptions, akin to T****r's astonishing misuse of the 'rule of thirds'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I fully encourage CGI-chat! It's either an interesting look at how designs are implemented through special effects, or it's a fascinating look into people's misconceptions, akin to T****r's astonishing misuse of the 'rule of thirds'. I cycled through Tumblr and Twitter before I figured out what that meant. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Show someone that a "janky-looking CGI effect" was actually 100% practical, and they'll just immediately pivot to "Well it still OBJECTIVELY looks like complete and total poo poo/literal N64 video game graphics (literally) and therefore it is still the movie's problem and not mine." Correcting someone on how an effect was created doesn't change how it happens to look. Which in the prequels, is usually "badly".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
porfiria posted:The problem with CG vs practical effects is that with practical the reaction is, "WOHA! How did they do that?" Or slightly more advanced, "That combination of petroleum jelly, plaster of paris, and foam latex looks almost like a real thing!" Whereas with CG it's, "Oh yeah they did it on a computer. Computers can do anything. It's probably not even that hard." Yeah, but that's just simple ignorance. Besides, I don't think that's a reflection of the way the average person processes a given special effect. RBA Starblade posted:Correcting someone on how an effect was created doesn't change how it happens to look. Which in the prequels, is usually "badly". Something can't look "badly." Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I fully encourage CGI-chat! It's either an interesting look at how designs are implemented through special effects, or it's a fascinating look into people's misconceptions, akin to T****r's astonishing misuse of the 'rule of thirds'. My favorite is that the skin texture of the Kaminoans was taken from one of the animators themselves but drained of color.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
http://dovahcaine.tumblr.com/post/127731583716/darth-mail   
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yeah, but that's just simple ignorance. I think the average reaction these days is probably mild indifference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Something can't look "badly." Sorry I should have said crappy, I lost track of my sentence structure. In any case, they're assuming the reason it looks bad is because it's cgi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Correcting someone on how an effect was created doesn't change how it happens to look. Which in the prequels, is usually "badly". You need to be far more specific. Definitions of 'bad' have so far ranged from "critical of Hera-worship" to "the wrong kind of grass".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You need to be far more specific. The prequels were definitely insufficiently reverant to Hera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
 Give Hera some space yo
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:30
|
|