Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 60  All

Author Topic: Movies: Any movie buffs?  (Read 346858 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #625 on: October 29, 2015, 02:56:01 pm »
0

Watched Crimson Peak yesterday. Meh. Nice visuals, and far more enjoyable than that terrible jumpscare collection known as "The woman in black". Still a relatively weak and unoriginal, story-wise. At least it has style.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #626 on: October 29, 2015, 03:09:18 pm »
0

I watched the extended edition of the third Hobbit movie recently. I had high expectations for it after the cinema edition felt a little bit too short, and it did not disappoint.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3163
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #627 on: October 30, 2015, 12:45:40 am »
+1

I watched the extended edition of the third Hobbit movie recently. I had high expectations for it after the cinema edition felt a little bit too short, and it did not disappoint.

*holds in rage about how the hobbit movies are terrible cinema, terribly done action, and use terrible CGI to spoon feed fans cheap film making with nothing but expected punches and plot twists worthy of a 5 year old writing their first script.*
Logged

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3163
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #628 on: October 30, 2015, 12:48:20 am »
0

Watched Crimson Peak yesterday. Meh. Nice visuals, and far more enjoyable than that terrible jumpscare collection known as "The woman in black". Still a relatively weak and unoriginal, story-wise. At least it has style.

I was told that it was a romantic film with some ghosts, but that it looked very nice.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #629 on: October 30, 2015, 03:28:47 am »
0

I watched the extended edition of the third Hobbit movie recently. I had high expectations for it after the cinema edition felt a little bit too short, and it did not disappoint.

*holds in rage about how the hobbit movies are terrible cinema, terribly done action, and use terrible CGI to spoon feed fans cheap film making with nothing but expected punches and plot twists worthy of a 5 year old writing their first script.*

It's not supposed to be an action movie, the CGI is super good (for a live action movie; obviously animated movies still look a lot better), and the plot in Tolkien's works is usually mostly just an excuse to explore the amazing world.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #630 on: October 30, 2015, 05:56:07 am »
0

Watched Crimson Peak yesterday. Meh. Nice visuals, and far more enjoyable than that terrible jumpscare collection known as "The woman in black". Still a relatively weak and unoriginal, story-wise. At least it has style.

I was told that it was a romantic film with some ghosts, but that it looked very nice.

It's a film about love, but i didn't feel it was very romantic. The movie even lampshades how love stories are always forced into a plot, which was one of the details i appreciated when watching.
Logged

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3163
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #631 on: October 30, 2015, 10:49:24 am »
0

I watched the extended edition of the third Hobbit movie recently. I had high expectations for it after the cinema edition felt a little bit too short, and it did not disappoint.

*holds in rage about how the hobbit movies are terrible cinema, terribly done action, and use terrible CGI to spoon feed fans cheap film making with nothing but expected punches and plot twists worthy of a 5 year old writing their first script.*

It's not supposed to be an action movie, the CGI is super good (for a live action movie; obviously animated movies still look a lot better), and the plot in Tolkien's works is usually mostly just an excuse to explore the amazing world.

Not an action movie? 4/5ths of the third movie was people twirling around choppin off orcs heads. There was no uniqueness to any of the action. And the CGI is not good. That scene where Legolas jumps on the falling rocks of the tower? It looked like he was flailing through glue. Mad Max is an example of good CGI, because you thought Mad Max was a good example of practical effects :P It has so much CGI but you hardly noticed it because it's blended with the practical effects so well. But The Hobbit just puts lots of generic orcs getting their head lopped off by peasants with no training, and has that run for like 2 hours of the film.

Am I supposed to be aroused when Legolas does something cool? That's why he's there. Or look, a fake CGI Legolas uses a bird to fly up a tower, crash it down to create a bridge than ride a troll into battle. This is a good video of how to do good action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ

And here is a recent movie that follows a lot of what is said in the video above. Longer, clearer shots with a lot of good pacing. They even throw in a joke, just like the cheesy Jackie Chan movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cYDsVamQqU


I do actually agree that the plots is more about exploring Tolkien's world. I just felt the third movie didnt explore anything. It was all just these armies fighting at one place. The first Hobbite movie I liked more because you saw a lot of the world.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #632 on: October 30, 2015, 03:36:22 pm »
0

Not an action movie? 4/5ths of the third movie was people twirling around choppin off orcs heads. There was no uniqueness to any of the action. And the CGI is not good. That scene where Legolas jumps on the falling rocks of the tower? It looked like he was flailing through glue. Mad Max is an example of good CGI, because you thought Mad Max was a good example of practical effects :P It has so much CGI but you hardly noticed it because it's blended with the practical effects so well. But The Hobbit just puts lots of generic orcs getting their head lopped off by peasants with no training, and has that run for like 2 hours of the film.

Am I supposed to be aroused when Legolas does something cool? That's why he's there. Or look, a fake CGI Legolas uses a bird to fly up a tower, crash it down to create a bridge than ride a troll into battle. This is a good video of how to do good action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ

And here is a recent movie that follows a lot of what is said in the video above. Longer, clearer shots with a lot of good pacing. They even throw in a joke, just like the cheesy Jackie Chan movies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cYDsVamQqU


I do actually agree that the plots is more about exploring Tolkien's world. I just felt the third movie didnt explore anything. It was all just these armies fighting at one place. The first Hobbite movie I liked more because you saw a lot of the world.

Well, there is lots of action, but it's also not a romcom even though it has elements of romance and comedy. And it's not like those are particularly unique or well done either, but it doesn't matter all that much because it's not the point.

What's the point of CGI if it doesn't even look like CGI? I think the Madoka movies have some of the best CGI I've ever seen, but if we restrict it to live action movies, then there still are better looking movies than BOFA out there (Cloud Atlas and Life of Pi come to mind), but at least it does look good, which is already pretty amazing for a live action movie.

Yes, the armies are fighting at one place, but the armies are from various places and I like how that's portrayed.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

ehunt

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1528
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1855
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #633 on: October 30, 2015, 03:39:30 pm »
0

Watched Crimson Peak yesterday. Meh. Nice visuals, and far more enjoyable than that terrible jumpscare collection known as "The woman in black". Still a relatively weak and unoriginal, story-wise. At least it has style.

im with you. i was surprised by the good reviews. it's billed as a suspenseful romantic horror film but it's not suspenseful or romantic and all the twists are completely obvious. other than visuals it has nothing going for it.
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #634 on: October 30, 2015, 11:51:27 pm »
+1

It's lovely to see someone just stop giving a shit when typing up descriptions.

Saw: Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) holds two men (Leigh Whannell, Cary Elwes) captive and forces them to choose who will live and who will die — and who will saw off his own foot.

Saw II: Jigsaw ups his kidnapping game to eight strangers in one room.

Saw III: Jigsaw takes on a protégé named Amanda (Shawnee Smith). It’s great to have someone carry on traditions.

Saw IV: Jigsaw is dead, but he’s still wreaking havoc in the form of a tape the police find in his stomach. Who eats tapes?

Saw V: Congratulations, you’ve watched five Saw movies.
Logged
A man has no signature

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #635 on: October 31, 2015, 08:43:31 am »
+1


What's the point of CGI if it doesn't even look like CGI?

This is one if the weirdest things I've heard. The point of CGI is to make it look like things are happening that you can't actually make happen in real life. Same as the point of practical effects, though you can do a lot more with CGI. Good CGI absolutely should not look like CGI. Not in that context anyway. I mean you can have animated films that aren't supposed to look real, and that's a different story. But it's definitely a bad thing if the CGI in your film looks fake. The reason it's being used is to make the audience believe they are actually seeing a certain thing.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #636 on: October 31, 2015, 09:55:29 am »
0

This is one if the weirdest things I've heard. The point of CGI is to make it look like things are happening that you can't actually make happen in real life. Same as the point of practical effects, though you can do a lot more with CGI. Good CGI absolutely should not look like CGI. Not in that context anyway. I mean you can have animated films that aren't supposed to look real, and that's a different story. But it's definitely a bad thing if the CGI in your film looks fake. The reason it's being used is to make the audience believe they are actually seeing a certain thing.

But stuff that looks real is super boring. I see stuff that looks real all the time IRL, I don't need to watch a movie for that. Good art in general is supposed to have more artistic value than just being a replication of real stuff, and that includes CGI in movies.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #637 on: October 31, 2015, 10:31:47 am »
0

Well some great movies only show things that could actually happen in real life, but that's not what I meant. If there's a CGI dragon on screen, that's something you couldn't see in real life. But it's much better if the movie makes you believe that you're actually seeing a dragon.

There's a reason the tag line for the original Superman was "you'll believe a man can fly", not "you'll see some artistic representation of a man flying".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #638 on: October 31, 2015, 10:50:50 am »
0

Well some great movies only show things that could actually happen in real life, but that's not what I meant. If there's a CGI dragon on screen, that's something you couldn't see in real life. But it's much better if the movie makes you believe that you're actually seeing a dragon.

There's a reason the tag line for the original Superman was "you'll believe a man can fly", not "you'll see some artistic representation of a man flying".

Well, there's really no way I'm going to believe that I'm actually seeing a dragon. It's a movie, it makes me believe that I'm seeing a movie.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #639 on: October 31, 2015, 10:56:14 am »
+1

Well some great movies only show things that could actually happen in real life, but that's not what I meant. If there's a CGI dragon on screen, that's something you couldn't see in real life. But it's much better if the movie makes you believe that you're actually seeing a dragon.

There's a reason the tag line for the original Superman was "you'll believe a man can fly", not "you'll see some artistic representation of a man flying".

Well, there's really no way I'm going to believe that I'm actually seeing a dragon. It's a movie, it makes me believe that I'm seeing a movie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

I mean it's fine if you personally prefer to go to a movie for the purpose of feeling like your watching a movie. But for most people, suspension of disbelief is a big part of the entertainment/value of watching a movie.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3163
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #640 on: October 31, 2015, 11:00:34 am »
0

Well some great movies only show things that could actually happen in real life, but that's not what I meant. If there's a CGI dragon on screen, that's something you couldn't see in real life. But it's much better if the movie makes you believe that you're actually seeing a dragon.

There's a reason the tag line for the original Superman was "you'll believe a man can fly", not "you'll see some artistic representation of a man flying".

Well, there's really no way I'm going to believe that I'm actually seeing a dragon. It's a movie, it makes me believe that I'm seeing a movie.



This is what we mean by CGI. Obviously you don't believe dragons exist, or that Iron Man's Suit is real, but it looks real in the movie.

If the CGI looked like a game from 90's, all blocky, you'd say "Hey! that looks bad!" So of course animated movies aren't supposed to look real, but a movie where it just looks like a bunch of people in front of a green screen does not look good.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #641 on: October 31, 2015, 01:22:43 pm »
0

This is what we mean by CGI. Obviously you don't believe dragons exist, or that Iron Man's Suit is real, but it looks real in the movie.

If the CGI looked like a game from 90's, all blocky, you'd say "Hey! that looks bad!" So of course animated movies aren't supposed to look real, but a movie where it just looks like a bunch of people in front of a green screen does not look good.

Yeah, the Iron Man's suit looks real within the setting of the movie, but it super doesn't have to. While I agree that you should be aware of the computer's limitations, I think that you should not only try to get around the limitations, but also embrace them, because that's when you have to get creative and come up with more interesting and unique solutions which make the movie much more worth watching.

I wouldn't necessarily say that CGI that looks like a game from 90's looks bad. For instance, this looks pretty good.

Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3163
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #642 on: October 31, 2015, 03:33:17 pm »
+1

I totally agree it depnds on what te film. I'm studying animation, and many of my peers films would be terrible if they were realistic. I should have clarified I was talking about CGI in Hollywood films that use it as special effects to replace practical effects. In fact, the clip I posted addresses exactly this, that people forgive bad effects if the film is good.

I would argue though that if you're using 3D effects as a style for your film, then realism is of course no the intention. But Legolas jumping and all the hobbit cgi was meant to look real, not stylized, and that's why it's bad.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #643 on: October 31, 2015, 05:06:24 pm »
0

I totally agree it depnds on what te film. I'm studying animation, and many of my peers films would be terrible if they were realistic. I should have clarified I was talking about CGI in Hollywood films that use it as special effects to replace practical effects. In fact, the clip I posted addresses exactly this, that people forgive bad effects if the film is good.

I would argue though that if you're using 3D effects as a style for your film, then realism is of course no the intention. But Legolas jumping and all the hobbit cgi was meant to look real, not stylized, and that's why it's bad.

Well, there were a couple of little things in BOFA that were clearly just mistakes, like the physics of some orcs in the fight scenes (the Legolas one didn't really bother me), but I think the overall visual look of The Hobbit, which the CGI plays a big role in, is a little bit stylized. Clearly it's still intended to be accessible for mainstream audiences and it's playing it fairly safe, but there is something more and something less to it than just looking as real as possible, which I really like and which the movies have been needlessly criticized for.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #644 on: October 31, 2015, 05:20:32 pm »
0

I think one should keep in mind that The Hobbit was stylistically much different than Lord of the Rings.  The Hobbit was written for kids, and it read like it.  The narrative was much simpler and more like someone sitting you down and telling you a story.  It makes sense for the movies to represent this difference, too.  The Hobbit movies are a little more cartoony and "fun adventure", and I think that works out alright. 
Logged

KingZog3

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3163
  • Respect: +1380
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #645 on: October 31, 2015, 11:51:09 pm »
+1

I think one should keep in mind that The Hobbit was stylistically much different than Lord of the Rings.  The Hobbit was written for kids, and it read like it.  The narrative was much simpler and more like someone sitting you down and telling you a story.  It makes sense for the movies to represent this difference, too.  The Hobbit movies are a little more cartoony and "fun adventure", and I think that works out alright.

No I'm not criticizing the more "fun adventure" style of the movies. But when Legolas jumps on falling rocks, I want to think "That's Legolas jumping on falling rocks!" and not "Hey that's not Legolas but instead a poorly done version of him in CGI that doesn't even have his proportions!" Things like the barrels in the rapids in the second movie I won't criticize because that's part of the fun adventure style.
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #646 on: November 09, 2015, 10:44:23 am »
0

I also had seen Crimson Peak. It was on my list of movies I'm willing to watch but not go nuts over. Alas, the Martian was sold out, so we saw this instead.

Definitely more style than substance. The story was really bland. The metadiscussion of romance shoehorned into a ghost story was amusing, but it didn't strike me as self-referential, as this movie had the opposite. There were ghosts shoehorned into a mystery story. Seriously, the ghosts did not contribute to the movie. They led the protagonist to some clues, but the script could have easily been written so that she finds the clues on her own. The ghosts did nothing to advance the plot, especially the ghost in the opening sequence. The end ghost had a way for her to say goodbye, but that was still unnecessary, especially considering the huge betrayal she experienced.

I wasn't even that fond of how the ghosts looked. The smoky tendrils weren't very wispy so it was like parts of their bones were twisting upward. That could be a cool effect too, but I interpreted the effect to have meant to be wispy. I did enjoy the effects of the clay, though even that seemed heavy-handed at times. Does clay really behave that way? In one scene, it was just oozing down the wall like blood (intentional, no doubt).

Kind of disappointed, and I’m glad we used free tickets to see it.
Logged
A man has no signature

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #647 on: November 09, 2015, 10:49:31 am »
0

I'm kind of surprised; I expect Guillermo del Toro movies to be good.  Have you seen The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labryinth?
Logged

Kuildeous

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3840
  • Respect: +2219
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #648 on: November 09, 2015, 11:29:54 am »
+1

I'm kind of surprised; I expect Guillermo del Toro movies to be good.  Have you seen The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labryinth?

I'm a little surprised too. I expected better. I did enjoy Pan's Labyrinth. I have not seen the Devil's Backbone, but I'll add that to my list.

I also saw Mimic. It was okay. It didn't strike me as a really good movie.

The guy does excellent visuals. I don't know how much of the script was del Toro's fault. He was a co-writer, so it's anyone's guess.

As far as the mystery story, del Toro shot it pretty well. There were tense moments with the key ring and the gramophone. It's just that the whole story could have been told without the ghosts. In fact, if you remove the ghost scenes, then you show a woman who probably acts a little insane but has an uncanny ability to conveniently find clues. Clever writing could smooth those scenes over entirely.
Logged
A man has no signature

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« Reply #649 on: November 09, 2015, 11:34:06 am »
0

Well, I guess style is his thing. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 60  All
 

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 21 queries.