|
Literally The Worst posted:So is everyone saying "Ugh this doesn't have the passion or the wit of the original" and making up their minds before they even see the loving thing. No, more like: LeJackal posted:It wouldn't draw as much ire, sure. I doubt its going to be a good movie, though, even ignoring the remake status. It is just all too sterile. Robots fighting robots in the middle of a laboratory clean room fueled by unreal CG does not make for gripping action. Where is the sense of danger, or emotional weight? Keaton is alright, but on what or who does he play off his character?
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
WarLocke posted:No, more like: That post is the exception, not the rule. If you're telling me there hasn't been an excess of "B-b-but it's different!!!" I'd like to know who your dealer is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone older than 15 could miss the satire, especially if they were watching it at the time of it's original release. There are plenty of 80s action movies that no one remembers or talks about. Writing off Robocop as just another 80s action movie is ignoring a whole lot of forgotten poo poo that the new movie seems to have more similiarities with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
What if the sterility is a layer of subtext we just don't recognize yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Gatts posted:What if the sterility is a layer of subtext we just don't recognize yet? Its origin is from laziness with the CG, not a deliberate stylistic choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its origin is from laziness with the CG, not a deliberate stylistic choice. I'm glad you can evaluate this from a combined fifteen minutes of footage. AdmiralViscen posted:I don't know how anyone older than 15 could miss the satire, especially if they were watching it at the time of it's original release. People think Starship Troopers isn't a satire. Don't ever underestimate people's insistence tht poo poo is straight-faced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I'm glad you can evaluate this from a combined fifteen minutes of footage. We're all working from the same source material. Claims to the contrary are based on the same footage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:We're all working from the same source material. Claims to the contrary are based on the same footage. And you're the one making absolute judgment calls on why things are the way they are and straight up calling it lazy, so maybe stop being a chode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:People think Starship Troopers isn't a satire. Don't ever underestimate people's insistence tht poo poo is straight-faced. And there is nothing wrong with that. If there is anything in this world that really pisses me off is the "holier than thou" attitude one gets when it comes to film criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:And you're the one making absolute judgment calls on why things are the way they are and straight up calling it lazy, so maybe stop being a chode. So your argument is basically that the 15 minutes of trailer footage we have seen are not at representative of the movie at large? (Also that I'm a chode.) So in your mind the filmakers and actors and trailer producers sat down and actively deceived us by shooting completely footage completely unlike the movie in design, motion, and writing for unexplained reasons? If drawing conclusions on a film's design, writing, and plot from the trailer the filmakers release is flawed, we might as well shut down the thread until it comes out, as we obviously can't speculate based on anything but the actual film in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:So your argument is basically that the 15 minutes of trailer footage we have seen are not at representative of the movie at large? (Also that I'm a chode.) Flat out dismissal of any possibility of anything good because of theoretical laziness isn't speculating. It's making up your mind based on marketing. ANd you come off like a chode because your whole schtick seems to be that these hacks aren't putting love and passion into it like the original and seriously dude come the gently caress on edit: quote:This is a PG-13 focus-group tested slickified 'safe bet' remake of a popular franchise from the past loaded with nostalgia that pretty much ensures the exclusion of: Are you loving kidding me? This poo poo isn't speculating, it's deciding. BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Flat out dismissal of any possibility of anything good because of theoretical laziness isn't speculating. It's making up your mind based on marketing. Well, my reasons are deeper than 'theoretical laziness' in this instance. As for forming an impression based on 'marketing' well that is the entire point of marketing. To form an impression on people with the hope that they become consumers of the product. Literally The Worst posted:ANd you come off like a chode because your whole schtick seems to be that these hacks aren't putting love and passion into it like the original and seriously dude come the gently caress on I checked my posts, and I mention passion once. Its hardly my schtick - are you confusing me with other posters? Its really odd because you quote an earlier post in an edit, but I'm not sure you've actually read my posts in their entirety.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
quote:I doubt it came from a place of reverence, otherwise he wouldn't be producing the steaming pile of garbage this film appears to be. Just speculating guys I totally haven't already decided beyond a shadow of a doubt or anything why are you calling me a chode for saying chode poo poo like this
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
I posted earlier that after watching all the special features from the new Blu-Ray of the original, I wouldn't be able to appreciate the design of the new one because it didn't look like there had been nearly as much time and thought put into designing this one as the crew and cast of the original did, so Dickeye is probably confusing the two of us 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well, my reasons are deeper than 'theoretical laziness' in this instance. As for forming an impression based on 'marketing' well that is the entire point of marketing. To form an impression on people with the hope that they become consumers of the product. I mean yeah, but they'll also misrepresent said product if they think it will put asses in seats. See: Bridge to Terebithia, Spring Breakers, Girls (not a theatrically released movie but you get my point), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I posted earlier that after watching all the special features from the new Blu-Ray of the original, I wouldn't be able to appreciate the design of the new one because it didn't look like there had been nearly as much time and thought put into designing this one as the crew and cast of the original did, so Dickeye is probably confusing the two of us    'Sup, chode-buddy? I need to get my hands on that for the sweet special features.That is a shame, though, but I get where you are coming from. One of the great features of practical effects is that they are, for lack of a better word, real. They have a sense of weight and thought because they have to actually exist (even if in miniature) and then work in some way or another. The converse with the CGI era is that nobody has to puzzle out something would have to work, so it doesn't - and when we are presented with the blatantly impossible on the screen it trips our disbelief. Like the new versus old gun/holster. In the practical era, they used an actual gun, and an actual 'leg' for the holster - two real objects that had to interact together.  In the new version, the leg/holster and gun are both CGI. Nobody had to actually cram one inside the other, and that is why it has crazy interactions and expansions that defy logic. Where is this magazine expanding from, for example? On a real prop it'd have to come from a non-zero space, but CGI nothing needs to work like it does in the real world and as mentioned, we need some kind of realism to ground the fantastic elements of cyborgs and whatnot.  Edit: Yoshifan823 posted:I mean yeah, but they'll also misrepresent said product if they think it will put asses in seats. See: Bridge to Terebithia, Spring Breakers, Girls (not a theatrically released movie but you get my point), etc. Is that what you feel is happening here? Do we have some source (like the novel for Bridge) or script that points to this movie being radically different than what the trailers are presenting? What about elements that the trailer can't misrepresent, like the action sequences - should we ignore poor design and execution because the trailer is misrepresenting the true genre? This is a pretty weak argument. "Trailers have misrepresented movies in the past, therefore all opinion based on trailers is unfounded." LeJackal fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I mean yeah, but they'll also misrepresent said product if they think it will put asses in seats. See: Bridge to Terebithia, Spring Breakers, Girls (not a theatrically released movie but you get my point), etc. This is what I think might be going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
I don't know if it's an artifact of the compression used to make this gif, but there's like a quarter-second when that gun pops out (before the clip and stock and all magically extrude) that the gun itself appears to have no texturing at all and is simply a dark grey blob. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Duh, it's motion blur for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I don't know if it's an artifact of the compression used to make this gif, but there's like a quarter-second when that gun pops out (before the clip and stock and all magically extrude) that the gun itself appears to have no texturing at all and is simply a dark grey blob. I pulled up a trailer at 720 and turned off compression really quick.  It seems like the receiver on the gun is a vibrating mass of blurred pixels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:That is a shame, though, but I get where you are coming from. One of the great features of practical effects is that they are, for lack of a better word, real. They have a sense of weight and thought because they have to actually exist (even if in miniature) and then work in some way or another. The converse with the CGI era is that nobody has to puzzle out something would have to work, so it doesn't - and when we are presented with the blatantly impossible on the screen it trips our disbelief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MS4sLlBvbE You know what, you're right. When I watch ED-209 in the original film, I am convinced that there is a real 18 inch tall animatronic model right there in front of me
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I pulled up a trailer at 720 and turned off compression really quick. Actually, the more I look at this the more it seems that the pistol actually rotates out - i.e. the (rear)grip and the foregrip(magazine?) are actually parallel to the body when in stowed position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:You know what, you're right. When I watch ED-209 in the original film, I am convinced that there is a real 18 inch tall animatronic model right there in front of me Or when Dick Jones falls out the window, it's a very convincing depiction of a falling man whose arms have somehow doubled in length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MS4sLlBvbE colonel_korn posted:Or when Dick Jones falls out the window, it's a very convincing depiction of a falling man whose arms have somehow doubled in length. But you can tell they're actual physical things even if they look goofy as gently caress, which was the point being made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
 Yes, I agree! They are actual physical things. quote:That is a shame, though, but I get where you are coming from. One of the great features of practical effects is that they are, for lack of a better word, real. They have a sense of weight and thought because they have to actually exist (even if in miniature) and then work in some way or another. The converse with the CGI era is that nobody has to puzzle out something would have to work, so it doesn't - and when we are presented with the blatantly impossible on the screen it trips our disbelief. Yes, someone decided to give this thing weight and thought about it, and it's so much better than CGI because someone figured out a way to make freakishly long arms work in real life Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MS4sLlBvbE This still looks worlds better than most of the poo poo in Iron Man. Fake is still fake, even if it's HD and pretty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:This still looks worlds better than most of the poo poo in Iron Man. Fake is still fake, even if it's HD and pretty. Yes, because a 12 inch tall clay person with 16 inch wide arms is real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
Noxville posted:But you can tell they're actual physical things even if they look goofy as gently caress, which was the point being made. Yes, you can tell that they're actual physical props manipulated by extremely obvious film effects to appear larger than they are and share frame space with things they clearly do not share physical space with. Like, I'll straight up say right now that half the reason I didn't like RoboCop when I was a kid watching it is because most of the effects looked fake as poo poo and I'd already seen it done better in Star Wars. It's a good movie and I know that now but trying to pretend that those effects fooled anyone or somehow look More Real than the CGI on display here is some hilarious revisionist bullshit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
wyoming posted:I mean, for everyone lamenting on how this new movie doesn't look as intelligent or meaningful, as the original, how much are you jerking your chain that you think most people view the original that way? Do you really think most people view the movie with a cyborg driving a Ford Focus as intelligent? That the movie where the main character hides in a warehouse and slowly plods after some stop motion effects as superb action and exquisite art? Hell no, they view it as the goofy robot movie, that's pretty drat fun. It was a Ford Taurus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Yes, someone decided to give this thing weight and thought about it, and it's so much better than CGI because someone figured out a way to make freakishly long arms work in real life It just looks to me like they composited two shots from lenses with very distinctly different amounts of distortion. It's a poorly done effect, I don't know why you need to be so obtuse to pretend not to realise the point was that regardless of how well they're done, practical and CG effects feel completely different in the type of unreality they carry. It's just and excuse to position yourself contrary to Nerds, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
In my mind the greatest sin this new movie can commit is being boring. As long as it isn't that, I'll cut it some slack. Give me a few crazy or inventive scenes, no matter how well executed, and I'll probably have a decent time watching it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
While I prefer the stuff from the first movie because practical effects and stopmotion are just fun as heck and I want there to be more of them in modern movies, the CGI works fine. It reflects the inhumanity of it all, that underneath this corporate-sponsored 'human' is a computerised, horrifying mess of machinery and death. The original does this in a disgustingly practical way - there's something Iron Man-y (no, the Tetsuo one) about having a giant hunk of metal stuffed into where flesh should be. This one is 'cool' in that secretly-quite-scary way, like CGI itself is hiding beneath the facsimile of a human limb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:While I prefer the stuff from the first movie because practical effects and stopmotion are just fun as heck and I want there to be more of them in modern movies, the CGI works fine. It reflects the inhumanity of it all, that underneath this corporate-sponsored 'human' is a computerised, horrifying mess of machinery and death. The original does this in a disgustingly practical way - there's something Iron Man-y (no, the Tetsuo one) about having a giant hunk of metal stuffed into where flesh should be. This one is 'cool' in that secretly-quite-scary way, like CGI itself is hiding beneath the facsimile of a human limb. I do like the implied contrast here that while WellerCop was the ruins of a man trapped inside a machine, the new RoboCop is a machine wearing a human suit to try and fool people.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:This still looks worlds better than most of the poo poo in Iron Man. Fake is still fake, even if it's HD and pretty. Speaking as someone who was born in the 70s and grew up watching Robocop, uh not really. The CGI in Iron Man was much more seamless and didn't look like some B-grade Harryhausen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:I do like the implied contrast here that while WellerCop was the ruins of a man trapped inside a machine, the new RoboCop is a machine wearing a human suit to try and fool people. Yeah. It's gone from how it's an efficient machine, but, like, there's a person? And he's trapped inside, maaan to a corporation explicitly hiding their machinations behind the remaining humanity of the person they've rebuilt. It's playing on modern culture's assumption that there even is a person inside. Or something. I haven't actually seen RoboCop in such a long time, I'm gonna watch it tonight. The other two Verhoeven satires are top notch though. I think Starship Troopers was the first time I realised I was watching something intentionally hilarious that wasn't actually a comedy. Edit: One thing I really wanted in an Iron Man movie, especially 3 since it had a suit with parts that came off and flew around, was a rocket punch. I really wanted one. I liked the CGI in those films but it was a real missed step. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
I love the practical effects from Robocop and I like the CG in the Iron Man movies too. When done well, CG rules. Though I definitely do feel like practical effects make movies feel more real and human. However, if this does end up being what the movie is about mr. stefan posted:I do like the implied contrast here that while WellerCop was the ruins of a man trapped inside a machine, the new RoboCop is a machine wearing a human suit to try and fool people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:
gently caress this movie owns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Yes, because a 12 inch tall clay person with 16 inch wide arms is real. Ok, I try to crit the film on its own merits generally but whatever, were doing comparisons. The old film had some ugly looking moments where my suspension of disbelief is broken, but it largely looks solid and real. From what I've seen of the new film, my suspension of disbelief has not really been activated, because every action scene looks really weightless and stilted and the cg particle effects look kind of bad by current standards. Something about it doesn't look real or appealing to me. And yeah, is just a trailer. Maybe it's fantastic. But the trailers are not doing it for me. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MS4sLlBvbE So when you watch the remake trailer all you see is Micheal Keaton and matrix-esque code flying across the screen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Slim Killington posted:This still looks worlds better than most of the poo poo in Iron Man. Fake is still fake, even if it's HD and pretty. Congrats, this is the worst opinion in the thread. I mean, I love Robocop but let's not be dense here. That stop motion looks like poo poo. It has always looked like poo poo. That's part of the charm. To say it looks better than anything in Iron Man makes you sound incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 23:00
|
|
