|
paid money to post posted:Besides Stallone saying the line, the only thing I remember from the 90's Judge Dredd is this close up underneath a character's face. And he has this huge booger rattling around his nose while he talks. Every time I think I remember something good about Stallone's Judge Dredd I realize I'm actually thinking of Demolition Man, which fuckin rules
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Demolition Man is really good. Just a fun action sci-fi movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Somehow I totally missed this thread. You're definitely Spunkmeyer now. Also with my Aliens rewatch I realized Hicks is shouting "Wierzbowski???!" And not "Where's Bowski???"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:Every time I think I remember something good about Stallone's Judge Dredd I realize I'm actually thinking of Demolition Man, which fuckin rules Be well, purple death ray.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Demolition Man is really good. Just a fun action sci-fi movie. Stallone banging his daughter is canon in that movie right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Riatsala posted:I read somewhere that action sequences that don't advance the plot or contribute to character development are fundamentally useless. These sorts of action sequences are all over the place in modern movies. That combined with bad shaky cam and terrible conveyance of scene geography make for some truly boring action flicks nowadays. IMO - CGI enabled directors and producers to get really really lazy with their storytelling. George Lucas once said something to the effect that special effects are secondary to the plot/storyline and I believe him. (This was, of course, before episodes I-III). It is why Star Wars, Alien/Aliens, Terminator, Mad Max/Road Warrior, Die Hard are such great action movies, and Rise of the Machines, Fury Road, Skyscraper, and Resurrection suck. The former movies have tight screenwriting and, because effects were not cheap, any effects were deliberate and mindfully added to the story. Add relatively inexpensive CGI to your film and you vomit all kinds of poo poo all over the screen, completely diluting any dramatic tension through the sheer volume of poo poo going on. Do we need to count how many action movies have an object bouncing off the windscreen? Armageddon has a spaceman from an entirely different space shuttle, Fury Road has a guy spinning off a windscreen during a sandstorm, Twister has a cow. Why are these shots necessary? With good storytelling, tension exists. Without it no amount of poo poo flying around will create it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:It is why Star Wars, Alien/Aliens, Terminator, Mad Max/Road Warrior, Die Hard are such great action movies, and Rise of the Machines, Fury Road, Skyscraper, and Resurrection suck. MODS e: they repeatedly blew up the namib desert filming and used a shitload of practical effects; iirc the cgi in Fury Road was a necessity to jump on the 3D movie bandwagon as per studio mandate ElectricSheep fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Fury Road is a goddamn treasure and it's a miracle it got made in this era of "do a soft reboot directed in a computer by a studio controlled android."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Fury road had such potential. But the sandstorm and the excessive use of filters pushed me near the edge and the weird “bulletin town” “milk town” thing got me closer, and then the butter filled with water sealed the deal for me. But this is not about Fury Road it is about how CGI enables lazy storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
They have ridden into Valhalla.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:CGI enables lazy storytelling. It doesn't. It's a tool like any other, and can become a crutch like any other. There's nothing special about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:Fury road had such potential. But the sandstorm and the excessive use of filters pushed me near the edge and the weird “bulletin town” “milk town” thing got me closer, and then the butter filled with water sealed the deal for me. I dont know if you saw Fury Road
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:It doesn't. It's a tool like any other, and can become a crutch like any other. There's nothing special about it. I think it's just that it HAS become such a huge crutch was his point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
SilvergunSuperman posted:I think it's just that it HAS become such a huge crutch was his point. I agree in some circumstances. Obviously it can be used well but nothing beats practical effects.  Agrikk posted:(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)  I'm not a huge fan of Fury Road but it doesn't have to do with the effects. I love Tom Hardy though. There's soooo much good in that movie and I can't put my finger on why I don't absolutely love it. I should watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:They have ridden into Valhalla. By banning the clever trolls really awful ones have taken their place, I can watch self-owning all day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
SilvergunSuperman posted:I think it's just that it HAS become such a huge crutch was his point. Ok, sure, but he could have made the same point about optical compositing or motion control cameras. When those technologies were new they got plenty flak for enabling "empty" visuals at the expense of story. And I haven't seen specific examples but I'm pretty sure there were people whining about how talkies were enabling all sorts of lazy shortcuts compared to more considered and creative silent films. fake edit: I did a half hearted search and found this right away: silent film star Clara Bow posted:"I hate talkies," she told Motion Picture Classic magazine in 1930, "they're stiff and limiting. You lose a lot of your cuteness, because there's no chance for action, and action is the most important thing to me. [But] I can't buck progress. I have to do the best I can." Talkies had to have perfectly quiet sets, and early microphones meant actors' movements had to be stiff and slow. Great physical or comic actors that had accents or speech problems were suddenly useless. Meaningful art is possible with any set of tools or limitations. Removing limitations (as CGI does in some cases) always introduces other complications and compromises. Any tool or technique can become a crutch. Welcome to attempting to make anything, ever. Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
They're coming out of the goddamn walls!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:They're coming out of the goddamn walls! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:Meaningful art is possible with any set of tools or limitations. Removing limitations (as CGI does in some cases) always introduces other complications and compromises. Any tool or technique can become a crutch. Welcome to attempting to make anything, ever. I completely understand that this is just how progress works. The thing I have an issue with is that CGI isn't real. You can't touch it. Adding voices to film is just adding another element from reality. Now I'm not saying that any advance in film making is bad. Camera tech, steady cam stuff, whatever. That's just ridiculous. It's just CGI specifically that I still have a problem with. The tech will 100% get to the point where it looks completely photo realistic but we're not there yet. I don't even have a huge problem with CGI when it's used in certain circumstances. Like the Marvel superhero movies. I love them (shut up all of you). They're like 50% CGI. It works because it's a crazy world and the setting is super futuristic looking. But using CGI for every day stuff is just weird and you can tell that something is "off" which takes you out of the film briefly. That's my CGI rant. I like it but I also don't like it. And progress is progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
That strawman had no chance, you loving destroyed it dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Lmao, I thought about it for another second and quoting someone being against talkies to make your point about some not loving CG is such a galactic brain take I'm not worthy to be in your presence. Gentlemen, the thread has been a pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Pennywise the Frown posted:I don't even have a huge problem with CGI when it's used in certain circumstances. Like the Marvel superhero movies. I love them (shut up all of you). They're like 50% CGI. It works because it's a crazy world and the setting is super futuristic looking. But using CGI for every day stuff is just weird and you can tell that something is "off" which takes you out of the film briefly. You're only bringing up the more obvious examples of CGI. Most CGI that's used for "everyday stuff" you will never notice: go watch Zodiac and tell me what shots are CGI in that movie, because you'll be surprised watching the "making-of" featurette. The hint is that any film made within the last 10-15 years or so about a real place in a time period more than 20 years ago will have used CGI to conform to landscape, architecture, environment of that era. There's an aerial flyover of a big crowd protest in Atomic Blonde that had to have been made with CGI because they couldn't get a million Berliners out onto the streets and rebuild a section of the Berlin Wall and other architecture of 1989 for no matter how much money. Most non-sci-fi, non-superhero movies and TV will use CGI or other visual effects in a way that is imperceptible to most viewers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
That's cool. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
There's a big difference between "poorly conceived" and "imperfectly executed," and 95% of the time people's gripes with CGI fall in to the former category (and I'm with you). Which, to me, means that the issue is with the director making a bad choice, not the technique that happens to facilitate that choice ending up in the final film. And like Young Freud pointed out, most CGI doesn't even register as an effect. I guess the argument is that "cheap and easy" CGI allows for more noticeably poor decisions to be made, but again that's more about exposing the artist and the deficiencies in their taste or standards. If they were forced to use models and miniatures or stop motion to execute their vision it wouldn't end up looking better – see the thousands of bad films with lazy effects that came out before CGI existed. James Cameron is a perfect example: His films are only barely possible on the very cutting edge, but he has such high standards that it works out and (at least) looks great, no matter the techniques used (or invented) to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
SilvergunSuperman posted:I think it's just that it HAS become such a huge crutch was his point. I suppose the talky equivalent would be the concept of show don't tell suddenly becoming far less important. It's obviously better that films have sound and voices in them now, but there's a lot less editing pressure on determining what dialogue is absolutely necessary when it's not interrupting the film, and there's less incentive to think of alternate ways to show a character's goals and motivations when you can just have them villain monologue during the denouement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
The thing remake has some bad and obvious cgi, but also there is some I didn't notice at all (the autopsy scene, the thing internals are largely cgi). I feel bad for probating someone for not liking fury road, going to probe myself as penance. Still a great film (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:The thing remake has some bad and obvious cgi, but also there is some I didn't notice at all (the autopsy scene, the thing internals are largely cgi). MEDIOCRE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Probating someone with a sick fury road gif is a blessing upon their rap sheet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
I love Aliens but I have a couple of problems with it, all having to do with how it relates to Alien. A recent and maybe kind of unfair one has to do with the alien queen and a deleted scene from Alien. I'm talking about the scene where Ripley finds Dallas and Brett before leaving the ship. Now I had not actually seen this scene until last year and before going in I kind of expected it to be bad or something, but honestly it's one of the creepiest things I've seen and the implications of it that the alien must have injected them with 'something' to essentially turn their entire body into a womb for a facehugger fetus is just utterly horrifying. But the existence of the queen means that this scene cannot be canon even though it makes the aliens much more horrifying and effective than having to rely on a queen variant to reproduce. e: I wonder why they removed that scene. Maybe because it isn't completely necessary (though I do believe that it enhances the horror element) and it kind of messed with the pacing at the end? Maybe that and someone thinking it was just a bit too upsetting and that it was best left to the audience's imagination? Anyway, goddamn that scene is creepy. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Mar 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I love Aliens but I have a couple of problems with it, all having to do with how it relates to Alien. like people have been saying it seems most likely that they don't actually need a queen to produce more facehuggers, but more like bees irl a single alien is selected to become a "queen" once a colony reaches a certain size, when the beings would get more specialized. so there's nothing really contradicting that scene or anything the first alien does. he pretty obviously gets to work making more aliens which would maybe have eventually produced a huge colony with a queen if there had been enough people on the Nostromo. Canon's a fake idea anyway e: like if that's how they work then the plot of Aliens would hinge on that particular egg that got Newt's dad just miraculously being the queen. it's way more likely that it was just a normal xeno that got the ball rolling purple death ray fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:like people have been saying it seems most likely that they don't actually need a queen to produce more facehuggers, but more like bees irl a single alien is selected to become a "queen" once a colony reaches a certain size, when the beings would get more specialized. so there's nothing really contradicting that scene or anything the first alien does. he pretty obviously gets to work making more aliens which would maybe have eventually produced a huge colony with a queen if there had been enough people on the Nostromo. Cool. I'll take that with me. Now I'm going to watch Aliens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Fun Fact: Jonesy the cat is the last living survivor of the Nostromo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
My puzzle for xenomorphs is that, if the facehugger is the sole method of reproduction, then there's a great deal of lifeforms that are basically immune to it, either due to size or the fact they have no lungs for the 'hugger to lay the embryo in. Like, how would a facehugger implant a chestburster into a gilled animal like a fish? Or how would a facehugger handle a whale or a dolphin, whose blowhole isn't anywhere near it's face*? And speaking of xeno reproduction, we know that they can adapt using the DNA of their hosts becoming "the perfect organism", but could that mean hosts that would be suboptimal? Like a facehugger manages to impregnate a slug or worm, it would just end up as a limbless xenomorph. Or, lets say it runs into a mutant human that, thanks to haploid fuckery, never developed working legs (but got cyborg legs). Would that mean if this unfortunate mutant host produce an equally unfortunate legless xeno? Also, I recall one of the comics mentioning someone surviving a chestburst but having a lung replacement, but, since there's some DNA stuff going on, would there be other changes for a survivor? *yes, I know, it would attach via it's blowhole, but aquatic mammals can hold their breath for long periods, whales in particular. It's also not readily apparent it breathes through the blowhole, so I'm imagining some alien race of sentient, bipedal dolphins delighting in pranking facehuggers into impregnating their embryos directly into their stomachs, where they're digested normally. Also, the occasional 'hugger managing to get one implanted ends up producing an xenomorph with it's mouth on the back of it's head but it's sensory organs facing forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:like people have been saying it seems most likely that they don't actually need a queen to produce more facehuggers, but more like bees irl a single alien is selected to become a "queen" once a colony reaches a certain size, when the beings would get more specialized. so there's nothing really contradicting that scene or anything the first alien does. he pretty obviously gets to work making more aliens which would maybe have eventually produced a huge colony with a queen if there had been enough people on the Nostromo. It's probably impossible to create a flawless universe, as plot devices shift and change between various forms of media when it comes to telling a story that was originally started 40 years ago to fit the visions of the director, the will of the studio, the influence of the writers, etc etc That said, the most recent AvP game (2010 I think?) ended the Alien campaign by having Number 6 molt and become a queen when the Marine campaign killed the original queen alien
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
ElectricSheep posted:That said, the most recent AvP game (2010 I think?) ended the Alien campaign by having Number 6 molt and become a queen when the Marine campaign killed the original queen alien I started playing it again maybe last week. I just made it to the Alien campaign but I don't know when I'll play it again. Still not a bad game. And if you can get your hands on a smart gun then you're good for a little while at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:My puzzle for xenomorphs is that, if the facehugger is the sole method of reproduction, then there's a great deal of lifeforms that are basically immune to it, either due to size or the fact they have no lungs for the 'hugger to lay the embryo in. Like, how would a facehugger implant a chestburster into a gilled animal like a fish? Or how would a facehugger handle a whale or a dolphin, whose blowhole isn't anywhere near it's face*? Don't work David will just engineer another alien so that it's life cycle fits more types of creatures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:My puzzle for xenomorphs is that, if the facehugger is the sole method of reproduction, then there's a great deal of lifeforms that are basically immune to it, either due to size or the fact they have no lungs for the 'hugger to lay the embryo in. Like, how would a facehugger implant a chestburster into a gilled animal like a fish? Or how would a facehugger handle a whale or a dolphin, whose blowhole isn't anywhere near it's face*? Worth pointing out that the Alien doesn't lay the embryo in the lungs (especially since the lungs are just spongy tissue - they aren't "hollow" like, say, a stomach). The common chain of thought is that the Alien is more like a biological virus, and that the facehugger pumps some kind of matter into the host which then suppresses/overcomes their immune system and causes an Alien embryo to spontaneously grow inside the chest cavity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/filmstoriespod/status/1107239158752382978?s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
The question of how one-to-one the transference of factors from the host to the resulting alien is is a bit murky. Alien 3 gave us the "dog alien" and there were obviously a bunch of toys that combined aliens with every animal under the sun, but it doesn't really make sense from a biological perspective. Like, the hive structure and behavior of the aliens themselves means that having something that varies too much from the body plan we've seen is a bad idea. It would be dumb to take - for example - the body plan of a large herbivore when your whole thing is about being nimble creepy-crawly predators. So there must be some kind of a break point where they either don't take on the features of their host or don't utilize a particular organism for a host. Same goes for size - there must be an animal small enough that it's either not possible or not productive to use them as hosts. Also, with the "why can they spin people into eggs is there's a queen" question, it actually kind of makes sense. The queen is the most efficient way to pump up your numbers, because you get one alien for every human and there's something pumping out endless eggs which are themselves a very low amount of investment for what you're getting (especially since the eggs can remain dormant for basically like forever). But a single drone turning into a queen without some small number of aliens around to protect it is hugely risky. You might end up just losing that drone and your entire foothold on wherever you are. So even though spinning people into eggs that then turn other people into aliens is super inefficient compared to having a queen pop out some eggs, it's a remarkably resourceful way of dealing with the issue of having an unprotected queen. For an organism that is designed to colonize far flung and isolated areas, having a modified breeding behavior like that is pretty smart. A lot of the "Aliens vs Predator" stuff talks about badass royal guard aliens called praetorians, which seem to maybe be the final life cycle stage for warriors. Making a couple drones the inefficient way could be a way to kickstart the formation of the guard caste. praetorian: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
First time I saw Aliens special edition with the sentry gun scene, I instantly felt a lot of the tension disappear. They had just killed a shitload of aliens, and right or not, I thought, "things are going to be easier for them now that they have only a few aliens left to deal with". It's a cool scene, but if you're watching for the first time I can see it being a bit of a tension deflater. Maybe Cameron picked up on that with test audiences? Or maybe I'm an outlier with my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 16:00
|
|
