 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.169.223.36
In Reply to: The scene in the river with the tripods picking people out of the water was stunning. nt posted by Lord Dot on June 3, 2005 at 10:57:39:
Well that are computer animations. But on the whole they were very nicely made. Before the film started we had the preview that AuD posted and it was even more coarse that what I saw on the PC.
Follow Ups:
No, they were the same ones. I would suspect that they are the temp CGIs commonly used in previews. They will working on the final CGI right up until just before th release if this is like most other heavy CGI movies.
Yes that is what AuD wrote also. But I find it stupid to let us see a sketch of an half finish scenery.Looking at the background of the road on the first scene and having in the back ground no details at all ...well...
"Yes that is what AuD wrote also. But I find it stupid to let us see a sketch of an half finish scenery."
Well, it may be stupid. I am not a publicity guy. It's their call not the film maker's call. I suspect marketing people think it was a good idea. I don't know. I actually suspect not. The best marketing campaign I ever saw was for the American Godzilla. They chose not to show too much. Clearly a wise choice.
"Looking at the background of the road on the first scene and having in the back ground no details at all ...well... "
I've seen worse in previews. Previews that were not that far behind the release date.
.
nt
nt
.
nt
If you don't like the general genre ... (I don't either by the way), and want to add this film to all the rest in this category, just say so.
nt
You and Patrick just need to learn to write a bit better about how you don't like this movie. Learn to express yourselves, that's all. I'm just looking for substance.
nt
.
nt
"You and Patrick just need to learn to write a bit better about how you don't like this movie."No you need to learn to read. My comments on CGI were in regards to the trailer of King Kong. My comments on War of the Worlds were full of examples that support my criticisms and I said *nothing* about the quality of the CGI. But if you like I will comment. Well executed visual realization of things that wouldn't really happen. Craft doesn't fix poor content. And FYI I know plenty about CGI. I have been brought in as a consultant on a few occassions by CGI guys to critique their work.
.
nt
.
nt
.
Did you get them coffee?
They offered me coffee and thanked me for my insight and helpful advice. Then they went off and won an Emmy. You called out the wrong guy. Deal with it.
..., my line of work is robotics and AI stuff. We are working out the story board this month. It's kind of fun. I think we will be allowed to make it public so I might be able to show it to you guys when it is finished. We did a shorter one a few months ago but it was quite flawed in terms of the technology that was illustrated since the animators did it without reviewing the story board in detail with us.
That's nice, good luck with it and I'll be happy to watch it when you are done. But dude. When I post relevant information for Patrick about the nature of previews that contain CGI and you chime in by asking the obnoxious question "What the hell is wrong with you?" *You* are starting a flame war. Sorry, I don't turn the other cheek. As for my actual criticisms of War of the Worlds I can only guess that you are not paying any attention to the content of those posts. You claim it's ure vitriol with no content. Balony. I made very specific critiques, explained why I thought those critiques were valid and cited examples. What more do you want?
OK, I am all knowing, all seeing and am never wrong about anything .... your turn.Just kidding,
The problem I have is that I am familiar with the H.G. Wells story, I am a long time SF fan both in reading and in films, my line of work is robotics, often in military applications, and I thought the effects here were fantastic. As they were in Minority Report. I guess I'm a bit surprised you didn't notice.
Looking back, most of your comments are not about the graphics at all. You made a couple of comments about the relationship between the marketing CGI and the ones in the released film. What else? That is why I'm saying that you really have not said much about the graphics.
From my point of view ...
The pacing of the landing and people's understanding of what was happening was very believable.
The war machines were exceedingly well animated. The dynamics of their movement in the scenery very well done.
Any lack of detail in background scenery, I didn't notice because I was not looking for that. In my experience, this is quite common in ALL movies that simulate some environment.
The scene of carnage outside the mother's house with a downed airplane, quite horrific, well done.
The remote eye in the basement was exceedingly well done, reminded me of the very impressive aquatic remote in "The Abyss".
The horrific mix of organic and mechanical features in the human cage again nicely done.
etc. etc. etc.
"OK, I am all knowing, all seeing and am never wrong about anything .... your turn.
Just kidding,"Looks like there are several of us. ;-)
"The problem I have is that I am familiar with the H.G. Wells story, I am a long time SF fan both in reading and in films,"
I share your problem.
" my line of work is robotics, often in military applications, and I thought the effects here were fantastic. As they were in Minority Report. I guess I'm a bit surprised you didn't notice."
I did notice. But for me good effects are not a sufficient remedy for bad story telling and i thought this was very bad story telling. It's like really good icing on a cake of crap.
"Looking back, most of your comments are not about the graphics at all."
That was because I was so bothered by the problems I cited in this movie. But if you want my opinion on the effects I thought most of them were excellent. Some of the destruction sequences looked rough and jerky almost like stop motion but the tripods seemed to always look quite good and sometmes they looked extremely convincing. I thought the artwork was excellent. Nice cross between H.G. Wells vision and a modern techno look.
" You made a couple of comments about the relationship between the marketing CGI and the ones in the released film. What else?"
That comment was only in regards to the King Kong preview. I don't think War of the Worlds showed any CGI in their previews.
" That is why I'm saying that you really have not said much about the graphics."Well, Now I have said a bit more.
"From my point of view ...
The pacing of the landing and people's understanding of what was happening was very believable."
I had a problem with that. Two problems no less. I like to have a little more time to get to know the characters. Spielberg seemed to do the bare minimum for this. So they threw a baseball back and forth while bitching at each other and the girl acted older and wiser than her age. I didn't buy any of it and didn't care about these characters. Kind of kills the drama when one doesn't care about the main characters when they face danger. The other big problem. Um these robots were already here in the ground. why? Makes no sense whatsoever. Now consider the fact that they really weren't *that* far under the ground and there were how many of them? At least one under the city TC lived in. No one ever found one by chance or while drilling for water,oil or other things were look for under the ground? Sorry but it was a poor decision for the sake of a cool effects sequence. The effects are supposed to service the story not the other way around."The war machines were exceedingly well animated. The dynamics of their movement in the scenery very well done."
Yeah, they were cool.
"Any lack of detail in background scenery, I didn't notice because I was not looking for that."
I didn't notice it either. But again, I think tht was about the King Kong preview not War of the Worlds.
" In my experience, this is quite common in ALL movies that simulate some environment."
If it exists then it is a flaw. If it is noticeble then it is a bad flaw. These things are fair game when critiquing visual efects. I don't think that was a problem with War of the Worlds."The scene of carnage outside the mother's house with a downed airplane, quite horrific, well done."
Good set dressing no doubt. But how the hell did a commercial airplane get there overnight? That was a huge inconsistancy in this movie. Things don't work, now they work, now they don't. i hate that kind of stuff. The planes would have gone down when the watches and cars stopped working. No commercial planes would have taken off after that. Yet *that* plane crashed, on the house TC and family were staying in no less, about 12 hours after the initial attack of the aliens. No way. Now lets talk about TC beng the only guy in a big city who figured out how to fix a car. stupid. How about the twenty near death experiences he and the family had in fleeing from the initial attack. ridiculous. That works for Raiders of the lost Ark because that movie was an tribute to Saturday matinee serials. War of the Worlds was not. We were expected to suspend our disbelief not revel in it. Spielberg just presented one bad cliche after another. People can't run from a fireball!!!
"The remote eye in the basement was exceedingly well done, reminded me of the very impressive aquatic remote in "The Abyss"."
I liked in the Abyss. Felt like it was a cheap copy of that scene to a degree. Actually this was one of two scenes that were directly adapted from the first movie. But Spielberg managed to turn it stupid. So they hide behind a mirror and TC slips and makes a noise and his foot can be seen from behind the mirror. but no, it was a trick and TC cleverly swtched his foot with an empt old boot. I can alway find an empty boot when trying to hide myself. Ridiculous! A cheap trick using camara angles. No way those people could have gotten out from behind that mirror while that eye was right infront of them looking for them. Just a cheap trick for a cheap twist. Stupid. Lets not forget that TC and Tim Robins mangaed to have a silent wrestling match while they all played hide and seek with this high tech probe. As if this thing wouldn't have motion detector sensery or infra red technology or any other number of ways to easily detect the presence of people. All very stupid when all is said and done."he horrific mix of organic and mechanical features in the human cage again nicely done."
Looked good but again made no sense. Why were the people being fried during the first attack if they had significant value as fertilizer? Cheap twist. The effects, the action are there to suit the moment but when you step back they are cheats, inconsistancies. If you want to embelish the original story you better make it consistant and logical rather than just using it as dressing to service an unsupported twist.
"etc, etc, etc..."
Ditto. I could also go on and on.
.
You really should keep track of the crap you post or you will keep stepping in it.
.
nt.
.
CGI work can be and usually is worked on right up until a Feature's release. Obviously the producers are very happy with what they've seen, especially the live action, and since Kong won't be out until December one should expect far better live action/CGI interaction than available in a summer teaser.Of course if you prefer only grey poupon weepies and don't like any CGI flavored popcorn fun (or, more likely, you're determined to hate Peter Jackson no matter what), then you've probably already made up what little mind you have to dis King Kong even before it comes out.
AuPh
About whom are you talking?
Hate?
...I realize that English is your second language, but you do have the capacity to read it & understand the nuances, don't you? [see point #2]> > > "About whom are you talking?" < < <
You know good and well to whom I refer.
1) It read: "Peter Jackson," not "Jackson." As you well know, I'm refering to the man who produced and directed the upcoming King Kong AND your least favorite series of films, the highly lauded LoTR trilogy.
> > > "Hate?" < < <
Sheeeesh! You and your grey poupon buddy Victor have made it quite clear that you hate his films, going out of your way to belittle PJ's work at every opportunity and you've both been especially nasty to those who enjoy LoTR.
2) By "hate" I'm not refering to a personal dislike of the man as a human being, even though I can't say that for sure, but rather your hate of his artistic prowess as a Director, including his use of CGI as a special effects tool.
Personal jealousy of Peter Jackson's achievements aside, you seem to delight in ridiculing films that a great many intelligent folks appreciate.
AuPh
Donīt feel insecure.
(nt)
There is that definite parallel to Michael Jackson - watching kiddie movies surrounded by little kids...
...but I don't think folks want to be stuck with mental picture in their heads of you two moon-walking with Michael, so maybe we should drop the innuendoes, n'est-ce pas? ;^)AuPh
Thanks for the translation....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
