Films/DVD Asylum

• Re: How long are you willing to take this... - fredgarvin 09:31:59 01/02/03 (1)
  In Reply to: How long are you willing to take this... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 04:58:36:

  I coudn't agree more. Remember the great effects, using crab legs and rubber, in Carpenters' "The Thing"? I can't imagine feeling the same disgust and horror over a cgi creature. The Mummy would be another example. Cartoons are not scary.
  
  

  ---

  • Re: How long are you willing to take this... - patrickU 09:51:38 01/02/03 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: How long are you willing to take this... posted by fredgarvin on January 02, 2003 at 09:31:59:

    You meant the Boris Mummy´s ? Yes, it had charm even if the acttors did look coming from an fashion show...The music was there, the effects too, The Thing...no I just did love the Hawk version too much, to really appreciate the Carpenter....thing....
    
    

    ---
• You haven't seen Gollum yet, have you? - NapTime 17:03:36 01/01/03 (1)
  In Reply to: How long are you willing to take this... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 04:58:36:

  Just shows the potential for movie makers who actually take the time to do it right. Hopefully the technology (and careful attention to detail, e.g. facial expressions) will trickle to upcoming movies like "The Hulk". I agree that in general CGI is overused and underdeveloped.
  
  

  ---

  • No only " The Golem ".... - patrickU 05:12:43 01/02/03 (0)
    In Reply to: You haven't seen Gollum yet, have you? posted by NapTime on January 01, 2003 at 17:03:36:

    A wonderful picture....( hehehe) )
    
    

    ---
• CGI is here to stay and will only get better and better . . . - rufus 10:55:41 01/01/03 (2)
  In Reply to: How long are you willing to take this... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 04:58:36:

  remember the underlying stink about no longer needing real actors at some point in the future? Man, the studios will really rake in the doubloons when that happens . . .

  Accept it, pat-man, your future cinematic future is dark--take up a sport. 8^)

  
  
  

  ---

  • Like I have my.... - patrickU 12:16:48 01/01/03 (1)
    In Reply to: CGI is here to stay and will only get better and better . . . posted by rufus on January 01, 2003 at 10:55:41:

    old books, I also have my old films who travel along with me, making the journey till I die....With them I could make a two hundreds years old satyre.....
    -Happy new year, you ol´d peeping tom...
    
    

    ---

    • Happy New Year to you!! nt - rufus 19:37:09 01/01/03 (0)
      In Reply to: Like I have my.... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 12:16:48:

      nt
      
      

      ---
• roughly as long as I'm breathing.... - late 06:23:37 01/01/03 (6)
  In Reply to: How long are you willing to take this... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 04:58:36:

  Hi,
  I really like The Two Towers, which uses FX to great effect. Lucas seems to have lost his touch; but movies like this are supposed to be ***FUN***!!!! They are for kids (of any age). I liked many of these movies, and I'm going to go see another one today (harry Potter).
  I've done the culture bit, season tickets to the symphony, Bergman up the wazoo, Shakespeare till I was shaking. Now, I am in my 50's, and all I want is to be entertained. My life is already a chess match with death, thank you very much.
  
  

  ---

  • Re: roughly as long as I'm breathing.... - patrickU 06:32:29 01/01/03 (5)
    In Reply to: roughly as long as I'm breathing.... posted by late on January 01, 2003 at 06:23:37:

    To believe a story it have to be plausible, the picture are to be realistic, as the story has to...ANY KIND of , has to.
    When you see this digital artifacts, can you still be part of the film ?
    DE-FI-NI-TI-VE-LY not !
    Think of Spiderman, the chase scene...Can you look at ?
    Happy new year, by the way....
    
    

    ---

    • I liked Spiderman, got the dvd..nt.. - late 18:22:59 01/01/03 (0)
      In Reply to: Re: roughly as long as I'm breathing.... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 06:32:29:

      .
      
      

      ---
    • When scenes can't be filmed the old fashioned way, how do you propose filming them? - Audiophilander 08:15:42 01/01/03 (3)
      In Reply to: Re: roughly as long as I'm breathing.... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 06:32:29:

      Okay, so what you are apparently alluding to is that you don't like SF & fantasy; well, that's cool, but don't be a Grinch for the rest of us who like the genre. The fact that some folks have an imagination and others don't is just a fact of life.

      Cheers,
      AuPh
      
      

      ---

      • Re: When scenes can't be filmed the old fashioned way, how do you propose filming them? - patrickU 09:55:39 01/01/03 (2)
        In Reply to: When scenes can't be filmed the old fashioned way, how do you propose filming them? posted by Audiophilander on January 01, 2003 at 08:15:42:

        My God ! I just point out that the digital effect are used abusely, on most films in our time-That is all.
        
        

        ---

        • If you had just stated that originally, we would've found conditional agreement. - Audiophilander 15:58:53 01/01/03 (1)
          In Reply to: Re: When scenes can't be filmed the old fashioned way, how do you propose filming them? posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 09:55:39:

          I won't argue with you about effects being overused or at least poorly used in some of today's films. In many cases they are, but a lot depends on the story being told. For instance, you mentioned Spiderman, which has become a favorite of mine. How could that story have been rendered without the special effects that were employed? Truth is, I wish that there had been a bit more in the way of special effects in Spiderman because they were sparsely employed, but it was a satisfying movie nonetheless, with wonderful live action character development. The point is that the STORY was well done and the LIVE ACTORS believable; that's what carried the movie even though there were one or two places where the "effortless acrobatics" rendered through CGI shots could've been a little more believable.

          The problem I had with your criticism of CGI "abuse" is that you threw out an opinion in very general terms without getting specific as to which movies and which shots offended your sensitivities. You can't expect to make a blanket statement damning the use of special effects in contemporary movies without getting negative feedback. OTOH, I'm beginning to suspect that the muddled phrasing which I jokingly attributed to New Year's Eve alcohol imbibing may simply be miscommunication especially if English isn't your first language. In no way was I trying to ridicule you; if there's a language barrier that I failed to detect then I offer you my sincerest apology.

          AuPh
          
          

          ---

          • Re: If you had just stated that originally, we would've found conditional agreement. - patrickU 05:05:02 01/02/03 (0)
            In Reply to: If you had just stated that originally, we would've found conditional agreement. posted by Audiophilander on January 01, 2003 at 15:58:53:

            The final chase scene was badly done, the digital effects were really not the best....
            No, no no offense to me, imagine a board with all the people shares the same view.
            The fact is that even in fiction films like Spiderman ( beside the others misses ) the effects are robbing my pleasure to look at...
            The over use of this, take the soul out of every picture.
            It is generally speaking, a critic for the over abuse of this technique...it is simply put down, an over kill.
            
            

            ---
• Huh? Good FX can't improve a bad story, but a great story with cheesy FX still looks cheesy! - Audiophilander 06:09:58 01/01/03 (3)
  In Reply to: How long are you willing to take this... posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 04:58:36:

  BTW, for someone suffering from CGI withdrawal you seem awfully animated. :o)

  So, you're tryin' to tell me it wasn't the REAL Titanic that James Cameron sank? ...! Well, 'whadaya' know; I'll never be able to look at that film the same way again! And 'whaddabout' those " Star Wars " puppets " blue screen " thingies? You mean Yoda actually had strings attached and that cornball JarJar character was actually performed by the Blue Man Group? Tell me it ain't so, Pat!!! ;^)

  Seriously, the more imaginative and fanciful the story being told the more expensive and realistic the visuals should be to involve the audience. The suspension of disbelief is crucial to modern cinematic storytelling. How would you go about recreating the Titanic (i.e., which is a good movie, IMHO) or visually establishing distant worlds, alien races and advanced civilizations as were created in Star Wars (i.e., the first three of which were generally quite good; the others, far, far away)?

  Next New Year's Eve, I suggest cutting back a little on the "sauce" feller!

  Cheers,
  AuPh
  
  

  ---

  • If you only did stick to your title / response ! - patrickU 06:43:07 01/01/03 (2)
    In Reply to: Huh? Good FX can't improve a bad story, but a great story with cheesy FX still looks cheesy! posted by Audiophilander on January 01, 2003 at 06:09:58:

    You would have been soooo right....But no you did have to go further...
    Digital artifacts are like some kind of strange human sickness,( you know this kids that looks like Joda with two ) they grow older by the day.
    In two years from now, the look & feel will be so passé...
    What I want to tell to put it blantly is, that lake of creation & fantaisie, ain´t no erzatz for creativity.
    But we have the films that we deserve.
    Next year, you should have some more, as sometime it clear the sight....
    Cheers !
    
    

    ---

    • Passe? Yes, but so do the effects from 80 year old classic silent films. - Audiophilander 07:44:12 01/01/03 (1)
      In Reply to: If you only did stick to your title / response ! posted by patrickU on January 01, 2003 at 06:43:07:

      Every technological effect introduced into the motion picture medium is done with the idea of trying to keep ahead of the curve. Can digital FX be overused? Sure! Can they be badly rendered? Absolutely! Can they be a distraction? Of course! But it's a ridiculous argument for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

      So, through your apparently boozy New Year's afterglow I suspect some smoke is being blown. ;^)

      Cheers,
      AuPh
      
      

      ---

      • Re: Passe? Yes, but so do the effects from 80 year old classic silent films. - patrickU 09:56:52 01/01/03 (0)
        In Reply to: Passe? Yes, but so do the effects from 80 year old classic silent films. posted by Audiophilander on January 01, 2003 at 07:44:12:

        Not even that.
        
        

        ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---