|
The United States posted:What twists could a tv show based on a 50 year old movie possibly have Westworld takes the basic premise and runs with it, it's a very different animal from the movie.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Robindaybird posted:Westworld takes the basic premise and runs with it, it's a very different animal from the movie. Robindaybird posted:there's a lot more, like not realizing you shouldn't put a real baby on a block of ice
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
The main twist in westworld everyone guessed was a character based one (the tv series had all new characters from the movie, totally separate plot basically), namely that two characters were actually the same character separated by about 40 years - revealing that the events of the show are actually taking place in two different time periods even though they’d been interlaced the whole series But everyone guessed that twist by like episode 2 or 3 I honestly don’t remember any changes made to the show during its run because everyone guessed it. They still went ahead and did the reveal and it was cool but not a surprise at all It’s on the level of everyone everywhere knowing Benedict Cumberbatch was going to be playing Khan long before Star Trek Into Darkness came out, but the director and everyone denied it up until the movie came out, then the scene where Cumberbatch is like “but i go by another name... KHAN!” was just really silly, groans were heard in cinemas across the earth Hedrigall fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 08:31
|
|
|
The absolute stupidest thing the showrunners for Game of Thrones did was have that interview because that revealed them as not just stupid but oblivious. Also laffo they negotiated down the number of episodes needed to end the show because they were bored so the entire ending is a rushed mess while HBO was begging them to take more time. Frozen 2 did not deliver on its objectives in Japan, I'll tell you that for free. Good lord did they not understand the market with that film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 09:50
|
|
|
Barudak posted:The absolute stupidest thing the showrunners for Game of Thrones did was have that interview because that revealed them as not just stupid but oblivious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 10:05
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:I had no idea that was what made her decide to leave. Good to know. I mean I'm like 95% sure of it. I suspected it right off the bat but it was kept very hush-hush and all the writers and other high-up figures danced around it very carefully (understandably). Nobody ever confirmed it directly in my circles, but people I know and trust who were closer to the source said as of like 2018 that it was pretty definitely it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 13:22
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Moana exists because Musker and Clements said let’s make a good movie and so they made it, it’s good I looked it up: moana exists because they invented a new particle physics plugin where they could render particle effects on one computer then easily slot them into scenes at the planning stage so they made a movie with lots of particle physics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
I'm gonna say it again: 101 dalmatians only exists because they bought a bunch of xerox machines so they made a movie that was about 1) characters that are black and white. 2) the plot is that there is a lot of identical ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:It’s on the level of everyone everywhere knowing Benedict Cumberbatch was going to be playing Khan long before Star Trek Into Darkness came out, but the director and everyone denied it up until the movie came out, then the scene where Cumberbatch is like “but i go by another name... KHAN!” was just really silly, groans were heard in cinemas across the earth That Shaymalan's name is synonymous with WHAT A TWIST and JJ isn't relentlessly mocked for his idiot mystery boxes with wet turds inside says a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm gonna say it again: 101 dalmatians only exists because they bought a bunch of xerox machines so they made a movie that was about I do think this is pretty funny, but I feel like there's a "Step 2: ??????" in there somewhere. Like, they aren't blatantly reusing animation or literally photocopying characters, are they? What part of the movie was actually assisted by xerography? Aside from the more traditional understanding of its role in animation, i.e. transferring rough animation art for cleanup and ink/paint. I wouldn't disagree that there's a thematic connection there, like the dalmatians are meant as a commentary on the creative process, but ... E: hrm, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edfM5OuJqks Never mind I guess? Or maybe not? This video doesn't provide any evidence of the character duplication stuff that it asserts was happening. It does seem to stand to reason — no studio in its right mind, facing a budget crisis, would greenlight a project featuring hundreds of individually animated characters if they didn't have a technical ace in the hole — but I just don't have the clips in front of me to demonstrate it. Data Graham fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Moana exists because Musker and Clements said let’s make a good movie and so they made it, it’s good Everyone is like ooooh Idina Menzel what a great singer wooooow, but I'm all over here like, the Moana girl is way better, go sit down GRANDMA
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
In any scene with a crowd of dogs, it's usually three or four have been animated and they repeat on a loop over each other. Some people think it's kind of cheap but I disagree. It's not really an issue, lots of movies have done this in the past. The same technique is used in the last unicorn at the end, you can watch individual unicorns repeat as they run out of the water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm gonna say it again: 101 dalmatians only exists because they bought a bunch of xerox machines so they made a movie that was about The 101 Dalmatians was a children's book first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:The 101 Dalmatians was a children's book first. Also I think it came up before itt but that book's sequel is loving wild
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
There are many properties out there, they choose which ones to adapt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Also I think it came up before itt but that book's sequel is loving wild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlight_Barking what the fuuuuuuuuck lmao quote:One morning, the dogs find all other living things besides dogs cannot be wakened. No dog is hungry, thirsty, or weak. Doors, gates, and machines operate on command, and the dogs are able to communicate via thought waves to others many miles away. Cadpig, now acting Prime Minister in the humans' absence, orders her parents to come help her in London, where hundreds of dogs are arriving awaiting her advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Yeah they definitely didn't adapt 101 Dalmations because they had a technology breakthrough. That film was a nightmare for the animators because of the difficulties in tracking the spots on the dogs, and there's a hardly any reuse animation on them. These days of course you could just make an animation library for them and slap them in a lot of shots, but the fur interaction between them when the dogs play around would destroy any cost savings regardless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
Pick posted:There are many properties out there, they choose which ones to adapt. Yeah, this. I'm sure they aren't inventing things whole cloth out of no where with every change in technology, but I'm also sure that dozens of extremely good suggestions are made on what movie to make next, I am sure someone wrote and pitched a really good and deep story driven narrative in 1926 right when sound came out, but they picked "the jazz singer" instead, and like wizard of oz was years old when the movie was made but I doubt they just picked it by accident to be a big color movie. When studios get a big upgrade they play to the strengths of it instead of the weaknesses, even if they don't strictly have to do that and could just make any movie same as ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Technically, there were quite a few Oz movies beforehand. However, the decision to reboot the franchise for a major color film was very intentional.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing I'm reminded traumatically of how in the late 90s people would sneer at the idea of animated movies and animators, saying "Oh they just do it all on computers now"
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Remember in the 1990s when all media involved everything morphing into other things? Because the "morph" graphic effect got cheap? Or when reality tv got to be big at the exact same time digital editing made filming and cutting down hundreds of hours of footage simple? I feel like people for some reason don't like the idea that production technology strongly influences what media comes out. But it's really one of the dominating factors in what gets made and when.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
I don't doubt that. I just want to be sure of the 101 Dalmatians thing before I add it to my mental library of Dumb Animation Facts to Spout Over Drinks
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Yeah they definitely didn't adapt 101 Dalmations because they had a technology breakthrough. That film was a nightmare for the animators because of the difficulties in tracking the spots on the dogs, and there's a hardly any reuse animation on them. 101 Dalmatians also has my favourite background illustrations out of any Disney movie so major props to the animators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt5nCPkV-cE happy birthday to the other bakshi
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlight_Barking what the fuuuuuuuuck lmao I started reading this the exact second I read this post and I can confirm this book is exactly as weird as it sounds. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Pick posted:In any scene with a crowd of dogs, it's usually three or four have been animated and they repeat on a loop over each other. Some people think it's kind of cheap but I disagree. It's not really an issue, lots of movies have done this in the past. quote:The same technique is used in the last unicorn at the end, you can watch individual unicorns repeat as they run out of the water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
perepelki posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt5nCPkV-cE perepelki fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlight_Barking what the fuuuuuuuuck lmao quote:the dogs find all other living things besides dogs cannot be wakened. No dog is hungry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Apropos of nothing I'm reminded traumatically of how in the late 90s people would sneer at the idea of animated movies and animators, saying "Oh they just do it all on computers now" This attitude continues today Everyone shits on cgi lion king for having dead facial expressions, and it does there’s no denying it, but they fuxkin hand animated, not motion captured, KEYFRAME ANIMATED realistic animal movement for that entire film See also: anytime I tell people I mainly draw digitally. No it’s not the computer creating the image for me, I’m still physically drawing that on the screen, I still have to employ hard earned knowledge of line and anatomy and gesture and light and shade, and apply it all in my own style. I can just do it with layers and undo and stuff now
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
The face rigs on those lions is also ridiculously complex. I got to play around with Scar's face rig and it's incredible, probably the best animal FACS-based rig ever made. But it's reliant on the actual expressions that lions can make, which is not nearly as expressive as, yknow, cartoons. The actual film was joyless and also incoherent what with songs like "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" happening in broad daylight. Another casualty of the super realistic animation, as there isn't enough light in actual night scenes to present the characters well, and they were constrained by physical accuracy. If I were given the budget to make a series I would, without hesitation, go for a 2d studio. Despite being a CG animator, I don't think CG provides enough benefits on its own to bother with. It's good for vfx though, and as and aid in 2d shows when you need cars and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
And to think the original case for CG was "it's cheaper/faster to get better results". I kinda feel like CG is more successful the more cartoony / less realistic the designs. Almost as though the stylization is the point, not the medium e: I'm not talking about things like, a CGI cityscape for a period 1920s piece or a Marvel movie or whatever Generalizations, gotta love 'em e2: ^^ haha, we're having a hedging ninja edit duel Data Graham fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
i just remembered fire and ice is free on youtube and i am finally in an existential state conducive to watching it. two minutes in and it is living up to my expectations re: men legs
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
I kinda do feel like computers ruined a lot of 2D animation in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Like some really good stuff came out, but there was a really sad shift where once people did not have to hand draw each frame they stopped putting any personality of any sort into any animation. Like the famous marge's head movement in the opening thing: It feels like it's gotten better now, it's like how the SNES by the end kinda had really good 2D sprite based graphics and everything still looks good today, while the n64 looks like garbage and it took years for the new styles to look good again. I feel like animation went through an awkward period when computers really took over in animation and everything moved like a bad flash animation with too much slidey motion tweening and copy and pasting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
I was watching the old Poochie episode of Simpsons the other night, just because that's a great loving episode and it gets to the heart of everything we're talking about, and God the old Simpsons animation was good. Like even when it wasn't technically good, the expressiveness of it was incredible
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Pick posted:I was watching the old Poochie episode of Simpsons the other night, just because that's a great loving episode and it gets to the heart of everything we're talking about, and God the old Simpsons animation was good. Like even when it wasn't technically good, the expressiveness of it was incredible
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
hahahaha YES
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
this movie begins with blatant rotoscope of a guy getting sucked off disguised as an evil wizard doing some kind of thing, interspersed with phallic icicles thrusting and bursting into sprays of white water. my heart has found its home
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
 as he cums, the pulsating icicles snowball into a mighty avalanche that crashes down upon the half-nude winsome barbarians, killing them all
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
I found out just now Jim Henson held masquerade balls.....now that sounds like a party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Pick posted:I was watching the old Poochie episode of Simpsons the other night, just because that's a great loving episode and it gets to the heart of everything we're talking about, and God the old Simpsons animation was good. Like even when it wasn't technically good, the expressiveness of it was incredible Very early simpsons had such expressively awful animation. Like every single time anyone moved they would redraw every single part of the frame entirely different. So like bart would move his head and his eyes would swing all around and he'd make a billion weird little mouth shapes, and the proportions wouldn't stay at all the same even in terms of motion squish in animation, but it was super expressive. Now it's like, absolutely perfect models that stay exactly on model and never move more than the exact amount needed to achieve the motion. (and again, it really isn't just simpsons, animation in general feels like it got dramatically worse then better again, with a lot of stuff using digital animation to make everything look really cold and lifeless compared to hand animation being super detailed and expressive)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:52
|
|