|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think it's just that poorly done digital has a specific look, which is different to what, say, crudely shot moves in 16mm used to look like. Unfortunately while bad film photography can sometimes still be interesting (the blotchiness sometimes creates interesting effects), bad video just looks really chintzy and sterile. With few exceptions I find bad movies shot on film more watchable than their video equivalents. Back then, everyone was working their asses off to make special effects work. Lighting, camera, set design, time of day, they're using every thing possible to make a fake rubber doll work. And they employed people who put in thinking caps to figure out solutions. Fast forward and I think the confidence in their creature and cgi work along with cheap "fix it in post" approach may lead to less careful staging to get good basic results. Even in terrible 80s horror, they worked hard as hell to make their effects work.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
There are plenty of old horror films with low effort and/or lovely effects work
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
And I'm not even talking about effects. I'm talking the photography. The default for bad video cinematography tends to be overlit, sterile, sometimes with a thin haze of "we pressed a button in Magic Bullet to make it kinda greenish". The worst film cinematography can also be pretty hideous (Frankenstein Island may be the worst photographed movie of all time), but I think by default it would be more contrasty and the colors more saturated. Of course not helping has been the emergence of the post-Troma "we know this is lovely and we're not gonna try to make it less lovely and that's funny, right?" aesthetic for the cheapest of bad horror flicks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think it's just that poorly done digital has a specific look, which is different to what, say, crudely shot moves in 16mm used to look like. Unfortunately while bad film photography can sometimes still be interesting (the blotchiness sometimes creates interesting effects), bad video just looks really chintzy and sterile. With few exceptions I find bad movies shot on film more watchable than their video equivalents. i feel the same way just because poorly done video just looks phony. it's how i felt watching the void (and holy poo poo was that movie an enormous let down).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:There are plenty of old horror films with low effort and/or lovely effects work I'd contend that there are a surprising number with awful actors and ineffective directing that nonetheless have great effects work and presentation of it. Child's Play is a $20 million dollar movie in today's dollars. It looks great and they splurged to get that to tier Chris Sarandon level talent. But stuff like 976 Evil, The Gate, Motel Hell, are really fun to watch because they rise above their talent level with solid effects. They do also get clever and have fun with their premises of course. Certainly there mounds of trash but you could rent nearly any vhs inn the horror aisle and get a solid melting face or creature effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Even in terrible 80s horror, they worked hard as hell to make their effects work. One of the most perfect examples of this is Friday the 13th part 3D. The movie itself sucks, but the sheer amount of effort that went into making the 3D work is amazing. They had to build a house and barn with exaggerated angles and forced-perspective furniture, as well as props that were in several different sizes, all in order to pull off the effect. And, oddly enough, the 3D looks so much better than something big budget from the same time frame like Jaws 3D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Theres also the fact that FX people and filmmakers usually knew the limits of what they were working with, and didnt try to force the shot if it was going to blow the look. I.e. Fake Arnold Head in Terminator looking very much like a rubber prop, so it's filmed in dark with harsh reds or whatever. Or Yoda being a loving muppet so he's not filmed loving walking everywhere. Now if it looks hosed you can just do a pass in CGI, or model the whole thing in a computer to avoid all the planning a physical effect would entail. Then you get Legolas grinding sick air on a war elephant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Box office update: Thanks to Annabelle: Creation, WB now has two billion-dollar cinematic universes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Box office update: Thanks to Annabelle: Creation, WB now has two billion-dollar cinematic universes. Is the second one DC or HP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Is the second one DC or HP? I guess with Fantastic Beasts now being a series, Harry Potter makes 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Now if it looks hosed you can just do a pass in CGI, or model the whole thing in a computer to avoid all the planning a physical effect would entail. Then you get Legolas grinding sick air on a war elephant. This is a bit of a derail, but I re-watched the LOTR trilogy a few weeks back and holy poo poo, almost every single time Legolas does something just looks awful. I think the worst moment is in Fellowship when he's fighting the Troll. He very obviously and very suddenly turns into a CGI puppet and after flailing about for a bit he jumps in such a way that makes him look like a mannequin slowly floating off the bottom of the screen. The only Legolas moment I can think of that actually looks pretty good is when he's riding the shield during Helms Deep and I think that may have been an actual live-action stunt. The MSJ posted:Box office update: Thanks to Annabelle: Creation, WB now has two billion-dollar cinematic universes. Why the gently caress do people like Annabelle, I'm genuinely curious. Like I'm pretty sure none of The Conjuring films have ever been particularily lauded but they seem to make bank. MechanicalTomPetty fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Aug 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
there is a certain audience that loves garbage horror movies. it's how saw lasted past the first one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Creepy doll movies are cool dumb fun. I dont know the rich mythology of the Conjurverse, but it's possible there's some bullshit Dickensian relationship poo poo going on that makes them watchable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Box office update: Thanks to Annabelle: Creation, WB now has two billion-dollar cinematic universes. Fuckin A, that's crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
The Conjuring is just a movie version of those fun-house horror places. The audience is probably a bigger reason the popularity than anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Box office update: Thanks to Annabelle: Creation, WB now has two billion-dollar cinematic universes. GrandpaPants posted:Is the second one DC or HP? The MSJ posted:I guess with Fantastic Beasts now being a series, Harry Potter makes 3. The Monsterverse is also over a billion worldwide thanks to Kong: Skull Island's success but WB only distribute those, they're produced by Legendary. Sony only has one active billion dollar franchise right now that I can see although it's not a shared universe. See if you can guess what it is before mousing over the spoiler: Resident Evil. (They're currently fighting to keep the rights to the James Bond franchise)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Lionsgate should swoop in and grab the 007 rights. Let James Wan direct a hard-R version of James Bond. I'm talkin' tons of body horror. The kind of body horror that Cronenberg or Lloyd Kaufman would take one look at and determine that it went "too far".
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
If we're gonna have a hard R James Bond, we better finally see it go in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:The Conjuring is just a movie version of those fun-house horror places. The audience is probably a bigger reason the popularity than anything. it;s because horror seems to have more stinkers than any other genre and the conjuring was actually creepy. i got a buddy that never gets scared at movies and the conjuring actually got to him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it;s because horror seems to have more stinkers than any other genre and the conjuring was actually creepy. i got a buddy that never gets scared at movies and the conjuring actually got to him. Are there more bad comedies? There's nothing worse than a bad comedy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Lionsgate should swoop in and grab the 007 rights. Let James Wan direct a hard-R version of James Bond. As long as the Broccolis control the franchise we'll never get anything more than a slightly risky but fairly traditional Bond.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:If we're gonna have a hard R James Bond, we better finally see it go in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV-RBeDt2B0
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Hard R James Bond would be the rapiest movie since Canon Films's heydey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Maybe this time 007 will be the one raped!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
No, the plot will simply hinge upon Moneypenny being raped, like Felix's murder in License to Kill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
The Casino Royale torture scene. But this time you see the impact in slo-mo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Hard R James Bond would be the rapiest movie since Canon Films's heydey. I Spit On Your Goldfinger
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Bond girl spins James into an assassin's bullet during a sexy tango M. Night Shyamalan to direct
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Are there more bad comedies? There's nothing worse than a bad comedy. There's a sea of poorly thought out comedies. Back in the day you could walk into a video store, especially in the mid-00s and there were a slew of direct to video garbage comedies. Comedy and Horror are cheap to produce, which is why there are so many. And The Conjuring movies have made a ton of money because James Wan makes well made horror movies. I couldn't tell you what the Conjuring was about because I forgot about a week after I saw it, but I remember not hating it when I watched it. If anything Wan has improved a ton as a director since Saw and even Dead Silence which looks like Saw vomited all over it. I think part of it is the average audience who goes to see The Conjuring or the Annabelle movies isn't the die hard Horror fans who are scouring the internet for info and hunting down every little release that hits VOD, they're regular rear end folks who want to see a scary movie that won't do anything too crazy. Which is great, horror doing well at the box office means we get more horror movies in the theater, though I couldn't tell you the next horror movie coming to theaters that I actually want to spend money to see. Happy Death Day is probably the only one I can think of that I'm willing to drop money on to see in the theater, because despite the more positive reviews of the new Annabelle, I'm waiting for video so I can comfortably sit on my couch and mock it. If it's actually good, I'll be pleasantly surprised, but just because people said it's better than the original doesn't exactly fill me with hope. That's a really loving low bar to cross considering how utterly boring and awful the original was. At least with Ouija 2, Mike Flanigan's name and the positive reviews have gotten me interested in checking it out compared to the original which I still haven't seen because I've got better things to waste an hour of my life doing than watching a bad studio Horror movie that looked terrible from the trailers. I only saw Annabelle in the theater because I had a free pass and about 2 hours to kill before work. I still wanted my money back. Best part of that movie was when Satan shows up for 5 seconds which was the only part of the movie I was actually kinda excited about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Given Bond's reaction to attempts at sexual assault/torture in Casino Royale and Skyfall, the logical next step for Hard R would basically be the bottom of a BDSM film. Not like it isn't already tradition for him to be subject to all manner of creative bondage completely casually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
The name's Bondage... James Bondage. It's French.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Asnorban posted:The Casino Royale torture scene. But this time you see the impact in slo-mo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Lionsgate should swoop in and grab the 007 rights. Let James Wan direct a hard-R version of James Bond. Nah, don't go body horror. Have Jeremy Saulnier or Refn direct it, and make essentially a reverse slasher movie, where even though Bond is the ostensible protagonist he's just this deranged force of nature doing horrible things in the name of Queen and country. Kinda like The Guest but without the domestic angle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
"the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would have the sweet tang of rape." -Casino Royale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Lionsgate should swoop in and grab the 007 rights. Let James Wan direct a hard-R version of James Bond. James Wan seems like a weird go to guy for this fantasy
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Basically just make Possession or Dead Ringers but the male(s) is James Bond and his car has a gadget in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I want to see Daniel Craig's testicles literally 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
The Saddest Rhino posted:Maybe this time 007 will be the one raped! Xena Onnatop
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:James Wan seems like a weird go to guy for this fantasy Wan either produced or directed all of the Saw movies, and Lionsgate has been involved with stuff like the Saw series, Hostel, Cabin Fever etc;etc, and Wan is a fairly big name these days so I say let him go for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Furious 7.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 20:17
|
|