|
When you CGI real things with real things its going to look good, but CGI a transformer in there and that is not going to look right how hard you try. Also Tom Cruise movie actually had some pretty good cgi, the aliens didn't look too good but everything else was pretty great. Liked that movie.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
I thought the aliens were good because they seemed designed to try and circumvent the limitations of CGI. They were just bundles of nerves and lights the skittered and rolled everywhere so even though they were fake-looking they still came across as unearthly and dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I thought the aliens were good because they seemed designed to try and circumvent the limitations of CGI. They were just bundles of nerves and lights the skittered and rolled everywhere so even though they were fake-looking they still came across as unearthly and dangerous. Yeah the design and behavior were great, but there were some shots later on where they kinda stop going for that otherwordly feel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Can you modernize a Carpenter film? The new Thing sucked. Imagine a remake/redo of Escape from NY, They Live, Big Trouble, etc. escape from new york's aesthetics have been copied in every videogame set in a decaying city. the movie is hilarious (and campy but not so much that it's totally frivolous) largely because the movie hits on a certain truth about the new york city of the 70/80s, so modernizing it would necessarily turn it into a completely different movie. also i admire how snake plissken is a parody of the lone wolf hero type, even though both kurt russell and carpenter are out-and-pround libertarians, in how snake callously ignores a rape and destroys the device that could save mankind, etc. theyre honest enough to admit the contradictions and limitations of their rugged individualist beliefs
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
The new thing didn't suck because of the concept, it was just really mediocre and not very interesting
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
To be fair the concept was pretty poo poo too. We all knew how it had to end so there was no tension nor ambiguity, and because the concept was nearly indistinguishable from the original there was no guesswork into how things had to play out either. The worst part was the two elements that could have made the movie even remotely different--language/culture barriers and gender differences--weren't played up in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:
It was above average. I liked the new road they took it down a lot and the world they built but it really suffered from terrible motivationless villians and kind of pointless plot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
CGI for backgrounds usually looks good. CGI blood in game of thrones still looks off, and every creature that is CGI (like dragons) looks terrible. If they used todays CGI to try and recreate the scenes in The Thing it'd look terrible as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
The dragons look good for TV, man
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:The dragons look good for TV, man They look dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Oakdale posted:Or Stuart Gordon's school. See From Beyond: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091083/?ref_=nv_sr_1 In case anyone else is interested in checking it out, I found it on Hulu : http://www.hulu.com/watch/111989
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
10 minutes in and feeling good Later, at the Asylum: 
N. Senada fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
It bit off his head... like a Gingerbread Man!  Touch me if it pleases you. 
N. Senada fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I still can't decide if From Beyond is a really really great Lovecraft movie or just an ok one. It's definitely underrated in the scheme of 80s body horror though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
So far, I'm impressed:
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
In some ways it feels like the best 80s Cronenberg that wasn't done by Cronenberg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:Oh the other thing is that Childs isn't breathing. He is though, if you look closely you can plainly see his breath fogging. It just isn't as pronounced as MacReady's due to the lighting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA4Ozqt7338 1:28 is the most obvious example
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Sold! I must now watch this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Sold! It's a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
It really is. The first act is definitely the best though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
K. Waste posted:The best praise I've ever heard of the film (don't remember where), is that it's like the anti-2001. Obviously, it's easy to see how the concept of 'truckers in space' would eventually come to be used in Ridley Scott's Alien (based on Dan O'Bannon's original script); but the movie's also in many ways a cynical reflection on how as technology has raced forward, human culture has become more self-obsessed and inwardly drawn. I shouldn't have to tell this to anyone in this thread, but Dan O'Bannon was in Dark Star - he played Pinback - and it was where he got the idea for Star Beast. So, Dark Star really is the cinematic parent of Alien.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 15:07
|
|
