|
This probably would have been a lot easier if they just turned the truck on.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Riggers of the Lost TaTa
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
I like how that statement is accurate regardless of how charged his phone is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Kids movie for kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
This is the pro-est of clicks… freaking inspiring e: autocorrect
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Alexandra Petri has you covered Bit late for this year's Thanksgiving but Archive.Today is often great for avoiding paywalls: https://archive.ph/1JevE
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
Kith posted:Hard disagree. Practical effects are timeless and employ more people. I'm assuming that was a joke since Terminator 2 came out 4 years before Toy Story and it was still bleeding edge CGI just to do things like paint out the cables holding up Arnold's motorcycle or turn a chrome guy into a puddle (and back). Then again, some people are idiots so maybe I'm the real idiot by giving goons the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
Doubting yourself is something arnie would warn you from. Trust your gut. Assume everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
If t2 was made today with bleeding edge cgi it would not be half as good as it is with 1990’s practical effects
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
Yeah, can you even imagine today's filmmakers melting a guy into the floor and then reversing the footage to pull off that effect so perfectly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
Hell, even most of the CGI in Terminator 2 looks better than what shows up in modern CGI-fests. There are maybe a couple of notable exceptions, but stuff like the T-1000 walking through bars holds up even today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Hell, even most of the CGI in Terminator 2 looks better than what shows up in modern CGI-fests. There are maybe a couple of notable exceptions, but stuff like the T-1000 walking through bars holds up even today. Wait, Robert Patrick couldn't walk through bars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 08:26
|
|
|
Messadiah posted:Wait, Robert Patrick couldn't walk through bars? He can, he just refused to do it during filming, so they were forced to fake it using CGI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:He can, he just refused to do it during filming, so they were forced to fake it using CGI. It was against union regulations at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 08:30
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Hell, even most of the CGI in Terminator 2 looks better than what shows up in modern CGI-fests. There are maybe a couple of notable exceptions, but stuff like the T-1000 walking through bars holds up even today. This is because the number of VFX shots in film have increased dramatically since then, so the amount of time and money that goes into each shot has had to go down in accordance. Terminator 2 had 150 effects shots. Marvel Infinity War had ~2,700. Basically, much of cinema is basically CG animated nowadays
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
"Heh, looks like someone's doing a live action version of the truck scene from Terminator 2. I wonder if this is Russia, China or Australia? Wait...  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 09:06
|
|
|
Vakal posted:All the work makes me tried just looking at it. CGing the whole thing would have been easier and just as good. Get out of here George Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:This is because the number of VFX shots in film have increased dramatically since then, so the amount of time and money that goes into each shot has had to go down in accordance. It's tangential, but maybe you'd be able to shed some light on this. I was watching the LotR trilogy the other night and thinking about how the Hobbit movies are, comparatively, a steaming pile of dogshit that I'll never sit down through, and generally received similarly by critics and most everyone I know. It seems this was in part due to a heavy over-reliance on CG, 3D technology and (I think?) shooting at 60fps. Whether the effects in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy withstand the test of time is one discussion - I think it's about half and half, some of the CG still looks great and other things seem a bit rushed. Then again there's practical stuff in the LotR trilogy that looks dated these days - they didn't even have drones back then for the wide flyover shots. What I'm getting at, is that you see how the film industry is sometimes its own testing ground for new and innovative technology, in all phases of production. You mentioned that the Marvel films are basically all CG now, and the integration of CG elements is getting better and more seamless - we even have video-wall background screens that change perspective with the camera (and make actors nauseous). Some of it works but regularly you still get critics and audiences laughing at a stupid effect or CG that looks like it's from six years ago. What I'm REALLY curious about is who is driving that testing and innovation? Are guys like Jackson and Waititi and Villeneuve reading technical journals all the time and checking out experimental technologies, like true gear nerds? Or is it the studios pushing them to shoot in 3D 60fps (for example)? I seem to remember something about The Hobbit in particular that suggested the latter and that Jackson didn't want to use all this ridiculous sophomoric and cheap-looking tech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 09:28
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:This is because the number of VFX shots in film have increased dramatically since then, so the amount of time and money that goes into each shot has had to go down in accordance. The number may have increased, but I'd be interested if there's been an associated decrease in render times and overall computing costs. I really have no insight into that industry beyond the odd documentary I saw. I remember seeing some documentary on ILM (maybe?). And Jurassic Park was talked about and why it still looks so good, specifically the CGI. It was mentioned that it and films like it (T2 for instance) looked so good is that they were literally breaking ground and developing new technologies for the VFX at ILM. And as such concentrated their most talented and brilliant people toward that one project. Mister Speaker posted:What I'm REALLY curious about is who is driving that testing and innovation? Are guys like Jackson and Waititi and Villeneuve reading technical journals all the time and checking out experimental technologies, like true gear nerds? Or is it the studios pushing them to shoot in 3D 60fps (for example)? I seem to remember something about The Hobbit in particular that suggested the latter and that Jackson didn't want to use all this ridiculous sophomoric and cheap-looking tech. That's an interesting question. I think in some cases, like Lucas or Spielberg it's a case of "here's some money, here's what I want, make it happen". Some are full on nerds like Cameron. I remember reading he put off pushing for Avatar to get done until he was confident the technology available could accommodate his vision. And even then I think some poo poo was developed (like the 3D cameras) specifically for Avatar. Proteus Jones fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 10:38
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/Z2k6gFO.mp4
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 10:56
|
|
|
https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_rltm62JacB1s1ddrj_720.mp4
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 11:04
|
|
|
I am curious about the tingle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
if you want to see more like this, just google 'male docking'
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 11:27
|
|
|
axolotl farmer posted:if you want to see more like this, just google 'male docking' 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
The courtship ritual of the car mechanic
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
I believe they call this move the Miles "Tails" Prower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
The Management posted:If t2 was made today with bleeding edge cgi it would not be half as good as it is with 1990’s practical effects Depends on how it's made. Fury Road has more CGI in it than T2 but they both use it to compliment practical effects so it works. It's not that CGI is bad, it's just easier to use as a crutch. The movies that have crummy CGI in them would just have crummy practical effects instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
I didn't know they were doing a remake of Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo. Edit: Fitcarhaulbros.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Depends on how it's made. Fury Road has more CGI in it than T2 but they both use it to compliment practical effects so it works. It's not that CGI is bad, it's just easier to use as a crutch. The movies that have crummy CGI in them would just have crummy practical effects instead. I caught a glimps of Cameron's Avatar when the kid was watching it. The CGI was expensive, but drat it has aged poorly. It looks like they blue guys were rendered in the Morrowind engine or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Avatar's CGI is on the same par as modern day. Which is the big problem with rewatching it and making a franchise: every big studio is of the same quality now. What used to be revolutionary is now the norm, and James Cameron has to rely on something else that he might not have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:It's tangential, but maybe you'd be able to shed some light on this. I was watching the LotR trilogy the other night and thinking about how the Hobbit movies are, comparatively, a steaming pile of dogshit that I'll never sit down through, and generally received similarly by critics and most everyone I know. It seems this was in part due to a heavy over-reliance on CG, 3D technology and (I think?) shooting at 60fps. It's the visual effects studios themselves. The movie production studios and directors don't give a white hot gently caress what work and effort goes into CGI. They'll demand revisions of entire scenes without any extra budget to account for basically having to do it all from base again all while trying to pay the VFx studios as little as possible and giving them zero credit if the effects carry the movie. edit: this does a real good job of explaining how bad it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eALwDyS7rB0
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
hazardousmouse posted:It's the visual effects studios themselves. The movie production studios and directors don't give a white hot gently caress what work and effort goes into CGI. They'll demand revisions of entire scenes without any extra budget to account for basically having to do it all from base again all while trying to pay the VFx studios as little as possible and giving them zero credit if the effects carry the movie. Sorry for not making it clear, I was more wondering about the use of new technology like 3D or 60fps, or that expression-tracking stuff that's been used since Avatar. I'm curious if the studios are so eager to jump on new trends like that, that they strongarm directors into using their own movies as testing grounds for the stuff. Again I thought I read somewhere that Peter Jackson wasn't even too keen on having all of that poo poo in his movies, but I could be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Sorry for not making it clear, I was more wondering about the use of new technology like 3D or 60fps, or that expression-tracking stuff that's been used since Avatar. I'm curious if the studios are so eager to jump on new trends like that, that they strongarm directors into using their own movies as testing grounds for the stuff. Again I thought I read somewhere that Peter Jackson wasn't even too keen on having all of that poo poo in his movies, but I could be misremembering. The problem with the hobbit movies is that there's three of them. CGI vs practical effects and 60fps are basically incidental.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:The problem with the hobbit movies is that there's three of them. CGI vs practical effects and 60fps are basically incidental. Nah, those are both problems. The CGI was extremely unrealistic, making it look more like a Marvel superhero comic book movie rather than something to be taken seriously. The battle scenes were particularly silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Effective-Disorder posted:Wait, if it's an AC transmission line, is that actually static electricity? I don't think it is, technically. I believe how it works is that EM field of the transmission lines ionize the air and that makes it a good enough conductor that when you touch something that is touching the ground you can get a shock. When I was a kid we had a cool set of bike trails that were under some lines and we'd regularly get shocks by touching our bike frames.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Dad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
axolotl farmer posted:I caught a glimps of Cameron's Avatar when the kid was watching it. The CGI was expensive, but drat it has aged poorly. It looks like they blue guys were rendered in the Morrowind engine or something. At the cinema, in 3d, when it was released, it looked really impressive It looks bad on TVs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
dudes rock
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
EoinCannon posted:At the cinema, in 3d, when it was released, it looked really impressive I haven't seen it outside of the theater, but I'm not surprised. It was a legitimately impressive tech demo for the use of 3D space in film design, but pretty much everything else about it felt so meh that it instantly departed from my brainspace forever except for the occasional times I'm reminded to complain about it online.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 19:54
|
|