Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cgi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That reminds me, fuck shaky cam. I am so sick of shaky cam. If I wanted that effect I'd shake the TV myself, thanks.
    Well, I'm fine with Shaky Cam WHEN IT MAKES SENSE. If footage is TRYING to give you the impression that its being filmed by someone there, or if there's a lot of action going on and they want it to look CHAOTIC, its good. Otherwise, it pulls me out of the movie.
    "Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
    ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest"

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Wingates_Hellsing View Post
      Every POV movie I've ever seen was ~90 minutes of horribly utilized gimmick and nothing else.
      I think Diary of the Dead did pretty well with it, but then I love Romero, and he does not use CGI simply because he has access to Tom Savini, who in my book is only second to Stan Winston in the special effects world.

      all I will say for CGI vs "standard" special effects is:

      I'll just leave these here and you can decide which is more "realistic" and scary

      80's standard

      90's CGI

      the first one terrifies me to this day, second one I rolled my eyes at.
      Registered rider scenic shore 150 charity ride

      Comment


      • #18
        Tom Savini is just amazing. Fiance didn't understand why I was so excited to see him in Machete. (But then, I haven't been able to get him to watch From Dusk Til Dawn yet.) Actually, I think Robert Rodriguez is another example of a filmmaker who uses a ton of CGI and special effects, but uses them very, very well. Say what you want about the quality of the story or the truthfulness to the source material, but Sin City was an amazing looking movie - all achieved with a green screen. I like his "one man army" mode of filmmaking very much (except when he gets the hots for his young female leads, but, y'know...)

        Comment


        • #19
          I'd much rather see well-done physical props and costumes (Hellboy) versus most CGI versions (Yogi Bear). In some cases it can be well-done, but even now it still looks so horribly fake when placed next to live actors. Movies like Alien and Jurassic Park, to me, are still stunning today. Hell, Alien was made over 30 years ago! Sure, blue-screen effects can be pretty tacky, but if they're well-done, it's hard to tell the difference.

          I really liked the visual style of Sin City. It worked and made it look very nice.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Depot Denizen View Post
            I'd much rather see well-done physical props and costumes (Hellboy) versus most CGI versions (Yogi Bear).
            Agreed, really well done physical effects can be amazing and will stand the test of time much better. Recently watched Event Horizon again. There's one that goes in the same category since you know they had to build that ship to film inside of it. It and its freak ass gravity drive chamber.

            But really *any* movie with physical effects done by Stan Wilson ( Pumpkin Head, Terminator, Alien, Predator, Aliens, Predator 2, Alien Nation, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc etc ).

            Comment

            Working...
            X