|
Strange Matter posted:Having recently just rewatched the first two Matrix movies this prospect would fill me with both excitement and terror; the latter for how bad the sequels are, but the former because the Matrix still stands up today as a freaking amazing film. It's jarring how a film with an economy of writing on par with Back to the Future could turn into the swollen messes of its own sequels. There is very little chance that Matrix prequels (which is what they've said the plan is) made by directors who'd rather be doing something else would be any good. Slate Action fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 27, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Having recently just rewatched the first two Matrix movies this prospect would fill me with both excitement and terror; the latter for how bad the sequels are, but the former because the Matrix still stands up today as a freaking amazing film. It's jarring how a film with an economy of writing on par with Back to the Future could turn into the swollen messes of its own sequels. I rewatched it recently too (with a person my age who had somehow never seen it), and was surprised with how well it held up. That being said, the pre-9/11 mindset it has is probably one of the most fascinating aspects of it. Those guys in the lobby shootout were literally just cops having donuts and reading the paper before getting gunned down. I'm all for ACAB, but drat, that certainly wouldn't fly today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
gently caress post-9/11, that came out a month before Columbine. I remember specific clips of it showing up everywhere on the news for a year or more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
This is obviously a topic for a different thread, but it feels like the Matrix sequels fall into the same category as the Star Wars prequels, in that the overall story is actually good and intriguing, but the execution takes the films from dull to excruciating over the course of both sequels. The idea of Destiny being another means of control is a great way to take the series after the end of the first movie; I just wish they were as entertaining to watch as the first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:I read that they put multiple days into this scene and then decided to axe it entirely because it disrupted the flow of the movie or something. No wonder they decided to release it ahead of time instead to promote the movie. Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:This is pretty good and I'm pretty drat excited for this movie if this scene somehow wasn't good enough to make the cut. Disharmony posted:Kill Em All, literally Doesn't fit with the movie at all, and yes Raid 2 is exhausting but its phenomenal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:19
|
|
Not sure if that's good or bad, The Raid was pretty exhausting at nearly an hour shorter.
|
bows1 posted:Doesn't fit with the movie at all, and yes Raid 2 is exhausting but its phenomenal. Hooray! Just what I was wanting to hear. I was concerned after watching the behind the scene footage that they were trying to make a movie that was a bit too... unsuitably big? Considering the confined shooting/setting of the first film. But if it's still good/wince-inducing/exhausting to watch, then I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1wOobOGa4w Phantasm V: raVager teaser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Alehkhs posted:Second trailer for the Wachowskis' Jupiter Ascending: Edit: After this one, TMNT2014 and a bunch of other trailers you can really spot this trend: action > whooooompppppp > slowdown > whoooooomp > action Zedd fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Teaser Trailer for Into the Storm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_kj8EKhV3w NATURE SMASH
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:Teaser Trailer for Into the Storm Oh cool, a Twister for the Reed Timmer generation
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
lomzus posted:Full Turtles Trailer Looks pretty good! Speaking as a casual TMNT fan. schwenz posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1wOobOGa4w Looks kind of cobbled together from terrible material. The effects work looks almost in line with the orginal Phantasm movies. I've only seen them in recent years, so I'm not sure what a fan of this series is expecting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:Teaser Trailer for Into the Storm Since when do Syfy Originals get trailers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I don't know how the Wachowskis' keep getting to make whatever the gently caress they want but it's amazing and I love it. It seems like Warner Brothers tries to maintain strong relationships with 'their' directors. Zedd posted:Edit: After this one, TMNT2014 and a bunch of other trailers you can really spot this trend: The TMNT trailer's one of the most boilerplate things I've seen in a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Nature, you bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
schwenz posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1wOobOGa4w Nice. That reminds me that I should watch Phantasm 2-4 one of these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Nice. That reminds me that I should watch Phantasm 2-4 one of these days. Phantasm 3 is interesting because it uses a lot of footage cut from the first movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
The Purge: Anarchy trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzFCDqKE4yA I kinda hated the first movie, and most of the shots in this one looks a little lifeless. I do like that burning bus shot though. That being said: I love Frank Grillo and Zack Gilford, so I'm at least slightly intrigued. I also think the idea of rich people literally buying poor people to kill is some on-the-nose, Mad Magazine style satire and I kinda love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
TV spot of Dawn of The Planet of The Apes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkycgrscWVM
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Damned dirty APES.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
CG just isn't there yet. Look at the way the ape's mouth moves right before it cuts away. Same kind of weird over-smooth, over-exaggerated motion that made Jar Jar Binks look bad 15 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
We really should stop using CG till they can get it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
The CGI in Rise of the Planet of the Apes was terrific, and I assume this one will be as good or better. The makeup in the 1968 original wasn't 100 percent convincing as talking monkey people but it was still an incredible achievement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:TV spot of Dawn of The Planet of The Apes. I caught this yesterday on TV and it blew me away- I can't loving wait!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
f#a# posted:I rewatched it recently too (with a person my age who had somehow never seen it), and was surprised with how well it held up. That being said, the pre-9/11 mindset it has is probably one of the most fascinating aspects of it. Those guys in the lobby shootout were literally just cops having donuts and reading the paper before getting gunned down. I'm all for ACAB, but drat, that certainly wouldn't fly today. I haven't seen The Matrix in a while, but do they ever specifically say that the cops are human beings? I sort of figured that they (also the SWAT team that arrives later) were just programs like the Agents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
morestuff posted:The CGI in Rise of the Planet of the Apes was terrific, and I assume this one will be as good or better. The makeup in the 1968 original wasn't 100 percent convincing as talking monkey people but it was still an incredible achievement. Yeah, the first film had some great looking apes. The CGI wasn't perfect by any means and actually looked goofy at first but they animated and acted the chimps so well that by 15 minutes in you really did not care and bought it completely. Little imperfections like "The jaw moves a little too smoothly, waaaah" are just people getting too picky about a small glimpse with no context for them to care yet. If the movie is as good as the first one, you aren't going to be staring at these tiny imperfections that can be found everywhere in everything, you'll be more invested in what is happening. Like holy poo poo that ape just signaled to attack, fuuuuuuuccccck Febreeze fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:CG just isn't there yet. Look at the way the ape's mouth moves right before it cuts away. Same kind of weird over-smooth, over-exaggerated motion that made Jar Jar Binks look bad 15 years ago. Rise of the Planet of the Apes had perfect CGI. But let's pass judgement on a low bitrate flash video and compare it to 15 year old movie. You are cool bro. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
schwenz posted:We really should stop using CG till they can get it right. We can get it right, but the realism of any given effect is logarithmically proportional to how much effort is dumped into it. Consider, for example, that the only thing stopping this evolution of a shot from Ice Age from going on with greater detail in each refinement is budget and the poor artist's sanity. I mean, 95% of the moviegoing audience won't even realize that something is off, so why dump another $5 mil into getting the jaw to look just right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:I haven't seen The Matrix in a while, but do they ever specifically say that the cops are human beings? I sort of figured that they (also the SWAT team that arrives later) were just programs like the Agents. The cops are people, yeah. Morpheus explains earlier that because people can be possessed by Agents at any time, everyone whose mind isn't freed is a potential enemy. Hence, kill a shitload of cops, it's coo'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Alehkhs posted:Second trailer for the Wachowskis' Jupiter Ascending: If nothing else, they really nailed the heavy metal aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
f#a# posted:We can get it right, but the realism of any given effect is logarithmically proportional to how much effort is dumped into it. Consider, for example, that the only thing stopping this evolution of a shot from Ice Age from going on with greater detail in each refinement is budget and the poor artist's sanity. It's not just the jaw, everything looks 5% off. ROTPOTA and Weta in general do CGI well, but I've never been able to effortlessly accept a CG character as easily and viscerally as something like the orcs' make-up. As much as CGI has progressed in the last couple decades, so have practical effects, despite their no longer being the draw of spectacle films. I wish I could see the alternate universe where make-up and animatronics companies were as well funded, and where computer animation augmented and elevated those effects rather than replace them. I also can't be the only person to think CGI hasn't overall improved in the last few years, can I? I thought the industry was in a pretty hosed up place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
CGI might be a tad more common than you think.
coffeetable fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:CGI might be a tad more common than you think. My favorite example of this is Zodiac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sZS8OVyVr4
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:CGI might be a tad more common than you think. It's amazing seeing what they did for Boardwalk Empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Okay, I mean CGI as shorthand for "overt CGI characters and effects as the focal-point of an effects film" (though there are CGI environments that look poor and obvious, too.) Likewise when I say practical effects I'm referring to stuff like Audrey II, not the apple boxes Tom Cruise stands on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:It's not just the jaw, everything looks 5% off. ROTPOTA and Weta in general do CGI well, but I've never been able to effortlessly accept a CG character as easily and viscerally as something like the orcs' make-up. I agree with you, but I'm basically saying that the fact you know what Weta is probably has something to do with your inability to accept a CG character as real. No production company is going to hold up deadlines or potentially double their effects budget to satisfy the alarmingly small percentage of the population who would notice this. As Febreeze put it, what counts are the people saying "holy poo poo that ape signaled to attack!" CGI is so prevalent specifically because of its effect on costs. You don't have to reset or reshoot complex effects setups, you can blow up whatever you want, and you have an unprecedented--arguably infinite--amount of control over the composition. But you're right in that the industry is pretty hosed, as most digital studios barely turn a profit on any given movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Frankly while the Apes in that trailer do indeed look just a tad off, I'm watching a trailer. I feel like trailers cause people to overanalyze. I saw it happen in the Godilla thread, people started wondering how much of the effects weren't finished on certain shots. Someone rightfully pointed out that the shots more than likely were finished, and that when we see it in a theater, with context, as part of a story, we don't notice it. But when it's in a trailer and we are trying like hell to figure out what we can from the tease, you notice things looking off easier. The Apes from the first movie looked a little uncanny valley for a bit, a little too smooth, but by Cesear's 3rd or so scene I just simply accepted it, because it was so well acted and delivered well enough in context for me to not care. No one is going to get dragged out of the movie for half a second of smooth lip unless lots of things about the movie already suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Oftentimes a trailer's VFX are hustled to get finished before anything else is. You shouldn't judge a future movie on the effects of a trailer. I mean sure it could be just as bad but often the finished effects don't even exist yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:Okay, I mean CGI as shorthand for "overt CGI characters and effects as the focal-point of an effects film" (though there are CGI environments that look poor and obvious, too.) Likewise when I say practical effects I'm referring to stuff like Audrey II, not the apple boxes Tom Cruise stands on. What's the difference? It's all illusion on a screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:What's the difference? It's all illusion on a screen. I dunno, there's a pretty big difference between background stuff and what's basically puppetry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
morestuff posted:I dunno, there's a pretty big difference between background stuff and what's basically puppetry. Check out Japanese horror flick Hausu for a movie where there's little to no difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:56
|
|