If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Locus Magazine)   Cory Doctorow talks about why all special effects movies suck, yells at cloud, enumerates virtues of classic belt onions   (locusmag.com) divider line 56
    More: Obvious, Cory Doctorow, direct experience, work accident, xkcd, Minority Report, Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Spider-Man  
•       •       •

1504 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Sep 2012 at 8:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 08:43:43 AM
FTFA

Spiderman...Spiderman....Spiderman.....Spiderman....Spiderma n...Spiderman

I think I see the problem here
 
2012-09-06 08:43:48 AM
I couldn't disagree more!

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

-Michael Bay: "We start by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! And it, and it's all like CRAAWW a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?"
-Michael Bay: "An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH! And then this huuuge tanker full of dynamite - CRRSHGHGHHG!"
-General: "Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!"
-Michael Bay: "I... don't understand the difference."
 
2012-09-06 08:45:54 AM
FTA: "As I watch such a movie, I know that I'm not going to walk out of it having gained any real understanding of the world or the people in it. "

You watched Spiderman expecting to "gain a real understanding of the world and the people in it"?

I think I may see the problem here...
 
2012-09-06 08:53:12 AM
i.imgur.com

look at this guy.. farkING LOOK AT HIM. I can guarantee you dont need to read the article now. You know exactly what it says and exactly how farking long it is.
 
2012-09-06 08:59:13 AM
Yeah, I stopped after he complained about how the fictional engineers and fictional scientists who work in some fictional building didn't come up with a fictional way of destroying a fictional holographic billboard. Of course they didn't, you farknut! They'd be fired if they did. Yeesh.
 
2012-09-06 09:01:22 AM
Special effects cost lots of money, so money must be made to justify the movie. This means they have to be big audience summer blockbusters.
Ergo, their scripts are tuned to the mainstream tastes rather than a niche.

The guy who likes vague black and white french movies about sad clowns is just going to have to be disappointed.

/One reason I like to watch anime and CGI movies.
/Not as expensive to make, so the scripts can be more experimental.
 
2012-09-06 09:03:15 AM

Egoy3k: FTFA

Spiderman...Spiderman....Spiderman.....Spiderman....Spiderma n...Spiderman

I think I see the problem here


and The Phantom Menace

Yeah, there are better ones...dumbass
 
2012-09-06 09:03:23 AM
I generally agree with him. That's why I occasionally see low budget science fiction movies as well.
 
2012-09-06 09:06:58 AM
Cory Doctorwho?
 
2012-09-06 09:10:05 AM

Grither: Yeah, I stopped after he complained about how the fictional engineers and fictional scientists who work in some fictional building didn't come up with a fictional way of destroying a fictional holographic billboard. Of course they didn't, you farknut! They'd be fired if they did. Yeesh.


Yeah as if that's what is tripping him up with suspension of disbelief not the fact that t a guy in a spandex suit is swinging around Manhattan on spider silk and climbing walls and shiat.
 
2012-09-06 09:11:34 AM
To be fair, if he wanted to take apart a science fiction film, he should have looked at Prometheus, as opposed to a comic book movie. I'm sure that he would have equally found fault with The Avengers...

I'm a big fan of science fiction, and I had issues with the new BSG because of design issues. They created huge problems for me. After years at war with the robotic Cylons, line troops and Marines who are supposed to repel boarders are issued rifles that are anti-personnel. What the heck was that about? It created huge holes that in turn spawned internalized recursive loops of reasoning, that twisted the whole series over and over again, and sucked any enjoyment that I might have had with the reboot. There IS dumb science fiction out there. There is silly science fiction too--love Doctor Who, but I'm also not going to nitpick over genetics or physics where the show is concerned, because it's essentially a sciencey background fantasy. Comic book movies are fantasy, not hard SF. Heck, Chronicles of Riddick was essentially King Kull told with a science fiction backdrop, and at heart, a great fantasy film with guns, gods, and glory.

There is a lot of fun flicks out there. Attack the Block was howls of fun. Part of the issue, perhaps, is that sci fi and fantasy often blend at the edges. There isn't much hard SF out there on screen. Because, math is kind of boring for a lot of folks. Action adventure tends to dominate when you get into an SF market, and that means that they're a bit more fast and loose with the physics in favor of fun. Limitless tried to take a premise and turn it into a thinking film, and sort of got bogged down. Smart science fiction has a blend of both action and philosophy and actual science, but that translates often better into series than films. Most of what we see on the big screen is essentially a fantasy with an backdrop of science. That's what they are, and if you don't like fantasy films, good on you, but as a reviewer it helps to know your genres, and apply them properly.
 
2012-09-06 09:13:06 AM
After his latest Twitter tirade about airport security, I'm starting to think subby's headline is not far off from the truth.
 
2012-09-06 09:14:55 AM
At first I was going to write a long, rambling screed on how special effects need to be blended with traditional film effects in order to be effective, with poor matte effects being a particular bug-bear of mine. Sure, spend millions of dollars on a beautifully animated dinosaur, but if its lit differently from the scene it's in, or it's in a different focus, then you just wasted a ton of money. There's just something jarring about seeing something matted into a picture where it doesn't match the lighting, etc. Even Gollumn suffered this problem, despite all the effort spent on integrating him into the scene.
 
2012-09-06 09:21:58 AM
Has Cory Doctorow been right about anything?
 
2012-09-06 09:27:08 AM
This guy is a douche and his books suck.
 
2012-09-06 09:36:33 AM

hubiestubert: Limitless tried to take a premise and turn it into a thinking film, and sort of got bogged down. Smart science fiction has a blend of both action and philosophy and actual science, but that translates often better into series than films. Most of what we see on the big screen is essentially a fantasy with an backdrop of science. That's what they are, and if you don't like fantasy films, good on you, but as a reviewer it helps to know your genres, and apply them properly.


That movie started out ok, then a woman ran to a child with ice skates on and swung him at the jugular of her attacker after a 50 yard sprint. Also it had inexplicable, this is what tested best with audiences, super happy ending.
 
2012-09-06 09:39:25 AM
I know this isn't in the spirit of Fark, but I can say something intelligent about the subject.

Many moons ago, I saw Patrick Stewart perform "A Christmas Story" at Foothill college. There were very few props, he wore a green suit, and performed all of the roles, including the maid and Big Ben, by himself. He kicked ass.

A few years later, one of the cable channels did a production of the same show, also with Patrick Stewart. It was 80% special effects and they just as well could've had Patrick from Spongebob; the CGI took over and ruined it.

This is the same channel that did "Moby Dick" with Patrick Stewart (busy guy) as Captain Ahab: the whale had "hang time" in mid-air.

Screw your CGI, these were good stories before you jerks got hold of it.

// all done venting now
 
2012-09-06 09:46:55 AM

Foundling: I know this isn't in the spirit of Fark, but I can say something intelligent about the subject.

Many moons ago, I saw Patrick Stewart perform "A Christmas Story" at Foothill college. There were very few props, he wore a green suit, and performed all of the roles, including the maid and Big Ben, by himself. He kicked ass.

A few years later, one of the cable channels did a production of the same show, also with Patrick Stewart. It was 80% special effects and they just as well could've had Patrick from Spongebob; the CGI took over and ruined it.

This is the same channel that did "Moby Dick" with Patrick Stewart (busy guy) as Captain Ahab: the whale had "hang time" in mid-air.

Screw your CGI, these were good stories before you jerks got hold of it.

// all done venting now


You know what I love about John Carpenter's "The Thing?" It feels real. It's special effects still hold up to this day. Scary movies that use CGI are so much less scary because of it. I as a viewer know I'm just watching some animated creation that doesn't look real,and the actors usually can't pull off being scared by something they can't see on set.

This is another reason Tarantino has a cult following. The man absolutely will not use CGI. I think the quote is "I'd rather stick my dick in a toaster." Nonetheless, CGI has lead to breathtakingly realistic and utterly immersive movie experiences when used correctly.
 
2012-09-06 10:01:10 AM

thecpt: Foundling: I know this isn't in the spirit of Fark, but I can say something intelligent about the subject.

Many moons ago, I saw Patrick Stewart perform "A Christmas Story" at Foothill college. There were very few props, he wore a green suit, and performed all of the roles, including the maid and Big Ben, by himself. He kicked ass.

A few years later, one of the cable channels did a production of the same show, also with Patrick Stewart. It was 80% special effects and they just as well could've had Patrick from Spongebob; the CGI took over and ruined it.

This is the same channel that did "Moby Dick" with Patrick Stewart (busy guy) as Captain Ahab: the whale had "hang time" in mid-air.

Screw your CGI, these were good stories before you jerks got hold of it.

// all done venting now

You know what I love about John Carpenter's "The Thing?" It feels real. It's special effects still hold up to this day. Scary movies that use CGI are so much less scary because of it. I as a viewer know I'm just watching some animated creation that doesn't look real,and the actors usually can't pull off being scared by something they can't see on set.

This is another reason Tarantino has a cult following. The man absolutely will not use CGI. I think the quote is "I'd rather stick my dick in a toaster." Nonetheless, CGI has lead to breathtakingly realistic and utterly immersive movie experiences when used correctly.


I think one of the more interesting uses of CGI is when the camera follows the cab in Zodiac. It's locked overhead the cab, and follows its movement precisely, which actually feels unnatural, and lends an air of unease to the scene. According to the DVD commentary, they couldn't have gotten that shot if they had used a crane or helicopter, so they went with CGI.
 
2012-09-06 10:02:56 AM

thecpt: CGI has lead to breathtakingly realistic and utterly immersive movie experiences when used correctly.


I can't think of a single instance where I've felt any "breathtaking realism", and immersion is no challenge- I never have trouble getting immersed in a good story. CGI is itself neutral, but because it's so much of a force-multiplier, it's gotten itself used in places it really shouldn't be. There will always be a need for practical effects. Look at LOTR- Massive rendered armies of CGI soldiers, but when they went into closeup, practical effects provided the realism.

In any case, there's a reason I far prefer to read science-fiction than watch science fiction. The best science fiction doesn't translate to a visual medium anyway- can you imagine turning Incandescence into a film? It'd make the ending of 2001 look like an episode of Barney.
 
2012-09-06 10:04:24 AM

Foundling: Many moons ago, I saw Patrick Stewart perform "A Christmas Story" at Foothill college. There were very few props, he wore a green suit, and performed all of the roles, including the maid and Big Ben, by himself. He kicked ass.


Did he shoot his eye out??
 
2012-09-06 10:06:09 AM

thecpt: That movie started out ok, then a woman ran to a child with ice skates on and swung him at the jugular of her attacker after a 50 yard sprint. Also it had inexplicable, this is what tested best with audiences, super happy ending.


You know she was souped up on a designer drug that made you supersmart and hyperaware of all your surroundings, do you?
 
2012-09-06 10:11:21 AM

SkunkWerks: FTA: "As I watch such a movie, I know that I'm not going to walk out of it having gained any real understanding of the world or the people in it. "

You watched Spiderman expecting to "gain a real understanding of the world and the people in it"?

I think I may see the problem here...


And yet the Raimi movies (the first two, anyway) accomplished it.
 
2012-09-06 10:16:24 AM

redsquid: This guy is a douche and his books suck.


I enjoy his books quite a lot, but he is a wild-eyed wingnut on some issues.
 
2012-09-06 10:17:50 AM

t3knomanser: I can't think of a single instance where I've felt any "breathtaking realism", and immersion is no challenge- I never have trouble getting immersed in a good story. CGI is itself neutral, but because it's so much of a force-multiplier, it's gotten itself used in places it really shouldn't be. There will always be a need for practical effects. Look at LOTR- Massive rendered armies of CGI soldiers, but when they went into closeup, practical effects provided the realism.


I agree with how its gotten itself in places it just doesn't need to be, and I wonder sometimes how is it cheaper than thinking of an alternative, but I don't see how you can argue that it hasn't helped immersion and/or aiding visually striking movies. The most immersive scene to me is the uncut shot in Children of Men. CGI helped stitch that scene together and make it look like one take which initially boggled my mind while watching it. Immersion to me is one of the largest challenges in a film. If I'm brought out of a film I realize how silly it is.
 
2012-09-06 10:20:35 AM
This article aside, Cory Doctorow did write a decent novel called Little Brother.

This is the only other thing of his I've read. Stick to fiction buddy.
 
2012-09-06 10:22:06 AM

thecpt: but I don't see how you can argue that it hasn't helped immersion and/or aiding visually striking movies


"Helped" is different. My LOTR example is a great example of how it helped. But there's nothing particularly breathtaking about a video game sequence rendered on the big screen, anymore than a flythrough of a model set would be breathtaking. Visuals, alone, can never be breathtaking.
 
2012-09-06 10:27:53 AM
Who is this clown and why should his pedantic mewling matter to me?
 
2012-09-06 10:41:21 AM

Quickmatch: Who is this clown and why should his pedantic mewling matter to me?


He is an activist and a fiction author who assumes that his opinion is always right and it applies to everyone and everything. He also has a quaint little cult following among the nerd set.
 
2012-09-06 11:30:21 AM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: This article aside, Cory Doctorow did write a decent novel called Little Brother.

This is the only other thing of his I've read. Stick to fiction buddy.


Down and Out in The Magic Kingdom is a great book, with a lot of really cool ideas, but I totally agree his blogging gets more than a little douchey.
 
2012-09-06 11:30:28 AM

gingerjet: who assumes that his opinion is always right


I never understand this criticism. I mean- everyone who has an opinion must feel that their opinion is correct, otherwise they wouldn't hold that opinion. They may go further in applying clear caveats to their opinion, delimiting the cases in which the opinion applies, but everyone with an opinion either feels that their opinion is correct or is an idiot.
 
2012-09-06 11:30:42 AM
I've liked all the comic book movies to one degree or another. Some are better than others, usually with the script-writing, yes, but infinitely better to watch and enjoy than old Hulk TV shows on 21" screens and no surround sound.


I guess I see going to the movies as watching spectacles on giant screens with giant speakers. If one really wants deep scriptwriting, why not stay home and find something "good" to stream on your 50" TV?

Take this with a grain of salt--I'm an old fart with two teenage boys. It's been more fun than I expected taking the kids to "Monster's Inc." as their first movie-house experience, all the way up to catching "The Avengers" a second time.

Another factor is people are too spoiled now. There are zillions of movies for every taste. Heck, TV shows now are often better than most older movies--go look around there.
 
2012-09-06 11:49:47 AM

thecpt: t3knomanser: I can't think of a single instance where I've felt any "breathtaking realism", and immersion is no challenge- I never have trouble getting immersed in a good story. CGI is itself neutral, but because it's so much of a force-multiplier, it's gotten itself used in places it really shouldn't be. There will always be a need for practical effects. Look at LOTR- Massive rendered armies of CGI soldiers, but when they went into closeup, practical effects provided the realism.

I agree with how its gotten itself in places it just doesn't need to be, and I wonder sometimes how is it cheaper than thinking of an alternative, but I don't see how you can argue that it hasn't helped immersion and/or aiding visually striking movies. The most immersive scene to me is the uncut shot in Children of Men. CGI helped stitch that scene together and make it look like one take which initially boggled my mind while watching it. Immersion to me is one of the largest challenges in a film. If I'm brought out of a film I realize how silly it is.


You bring up another point - the lack of long shots in movies. To the point where a single 10-second shot of a guy walking from his car to his front door seems meaningful. There is bound to be a fight scene in every new movie where all you see is flashes of something. "I have no idea if that guy just got kicked in the face or a car drove by" is not a fun way to watch a movie.

Having just seen 2001 for the first time on Monday, some of the effects in that look better than ILM's latest CGI wankathon.

// but the ending...
// I think the theater people dosed my soda
 
2012-09-06 11:56:29 AM

t3knomanser: I never understand this criticism. I mean- everyone who has an opinion must feel that their opinion is correct, otherwise they wouldn't hold that opinion. They may go further in applying clear caveats to their opinion, delimiting the cases in which the opinion applies, but everyone with an opinion either feels that their opinion is correct or is an idiot.


We all have opinions on things - but some of us allow for the fact we could be very much wrong. Corey doesn't. Take his opinions on corporate Information Technology. At some point in his life he spent three seconds working for or running some IT shop. That has informed his very wrong judgements about IT ever since. I cringe whenever he opens his mouth on Information Technology (or really anything)
 
2012-09-06 11:59:55 AM

Dr Dreidel: You bring up another point - the lack of long shots in movies.


There are long shots, and then there are long shots. The opening battle sequence in ROTS, for example, was terrible. There was a lot of glitz and glam, but it was an awful way to open a movie. It's a great way to open a video game, but man- it was just a long shot of some spaceships and explosions. If you're engaged because you're sitting at the controls, that's potentially exciting. If you're sitting on your ass in a theater, not so much.

Contrast that to the famous long shot in Goodfellas. You get a huge amount of information about the characters, the setting, and their relationships, all in the space of this one ambitious shot.

Dr Dreidel: There is bound to be a fight scene in every new movie where all you see is flashes of something.


Fight direction is a lost art, and I think it's because the trend of casting actual martial artists to play lead roles in action films went out of fashion around the time Chuck Norris got a TV series. Quick cuts are an easy way to make a fight look dramatic without actually having to have anyone around capable of fighting. It's like every fight sequence is taken out of a comic book these days.
 
2012-09-06 12:02:37 PM

gingerjet: We all have opinions on things - but some of us allow for the fact we could be very much wrong.


I don't. If I think I could be wrong, I avoid forming an opinion. I either structure my opinion in a way that I feel is correct, or I don't have one.

gingerjet: That has informed his very wrong judgements about IT ever since.


It's less that he says wrong things about technology and more that he lives in a world both simultaneously full of Orwellian threat and full of Pollyanaish technoutopianism. If nothing else, you have to appreciate his enthusiasm. He's like a less intelligent Neal Stephenson, but with the same level of ego.
 
2012-09-06 12:16:16 PM

t3knomanser: Dr Dreidel: There is bound to be a fight scene in every new movie where all you see is flashes of something.

Fight direction is a lost art, and I think it's because the trend of casting actual martial artists to play lead roles in action films went out of fashion around the time Chuck Norris got a TV series. Quick cuts are an easy way to make a fight look dramatic without actually having to have anyone around capable of fighting. It's like every fight sequence is taken out of a comic book these days.


The Matrix pulled it off without me ever losing track of who was doing what to whom. Similarly, if you've never seen Equilibrium, that movie does damn well at both fighting and cinematography without going overboard on things like quick cuts. (The story is also well-worn, but well-told.)

It does look like they tried to mimic a comic book panel during some fights - they started with the jumble of colors on the comic page, darkened everything, set it in a dark room, then filmed it by tossing a camera back and forth while two idiots slap-fought.

I'd like to see an Enter the Dragon type (or, what was the one where Bruce Lee fights Kareem? Has to keep going upstairs?) movie where the entire (or most of it) fight happens in one long shot, and the camera doesn't move. You can make it seem like two disciplined guys examining their respective fighting styles and actually thinking about their moves during the brawl rather than "flashyflashyflashy-IthinkIsawaleg-flashyflashy-punchinthestomach-flas hyflashyflashy-fight over. Bad guy loses."
 
2012-09-06 12:20:24 PM
Has he apologized to Ursula yet?

No?

Then no one gives a fark what he has to say.
 
2012-09-06 12:32:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: I'd like to see an Enter the Dragon type (or, what was the one where Bruce Lee fights Kareem? Has to keep going upstairs?) movie where the entire (or most of it) fight happens in one long shot, and the camera doesn't move. You can make it seem like two disciplined guys examining their respective fighting styles and actually thinking about their moves during the brawl rather than "flashyflashyflashy-IthinkIsawaleg-flashyflashy-punchinthestomach-flas hyflashyflashy-fight over. Bad guy loses."


Tony Jaa is your man:

Here's a one take scene of him going upstairs and fighting an army of goons
 
2012-09-06 12:37:34 PM
Also, CGI is crock shiat. Should only be used sparsely and for stuff that doesn't exist or can't be done in real life.

The Neverending Story had better and more believable special effects than 99% of CGI movies out there.

And it was all done with practical effects.
 
2012-09-06 12:42:16 PM

TheOriginalEd: [i.imgur.com image 200x300]

look at this guy.. farkING LOOK AT HIM. I can guarantee you dont need to read the article now. You know exactly what it says and exactly how farking long it is.


so much this ^

I clicked to see what he had to say. First thing I noticed was his Steve Jobs douchebag smile. The I scrolled alllllllllll the way down and I though "This many tards read the farkin' blog?"

/ didn't even bother to read the article
 
2012-09-06 12:51:59 PM

TheOriginalEd: [i.imgur.com image 200x300]

look at this guy.. farkING LOOK AT HIM. I can guarantee you dont need to read the article now. You know exactly what it says and exactly how farking long it is.


Yep.
That guy can go suck a butt.
 
2012-09-06 01:08:01 PM

t3knomanser: "Helped" is different. My LOTR example is a great example of how it helped. But there's nothing particularly breathtaking about a video game sequence rendered on the big screen, anymore than a flythrough of a model set would be breathtaking. Visuals, alone, can never be breathtaking.


Please watch Ink for extremely visually striking scenes aided by CGI on a low budget. For pure CGI, I think it is the part of me that likes graphics and video games but I still think Avatar should be categorized as a good movie solely on the 3D experience in IMAX. Also every Pixar movie and FF7: AC.
 
2012-09-06 01:11:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: I'd like to see an Enter the Dragon type (or, what was the one where Bruce Lee fights Kareem? Has to keep going upstairs?) movie where the entire (or most of it) fight happens in one long shot, and the camera doesn't move. You can make it seem like two disciplined guys examining their respective fighting styles and actually thinking about their moves during the brawl rather than "flashyflashyflashy-IthinkIsawaleg-flashyflashy-punchinthestomach-flas hyflashyflashy-fight over. Bad guy loses."


I just watched The Raid: Redemtion at it is incredible for fight scenes (it was also the best action movie that I've seen in awhile). There will be cuts between move sequences, but its more to adjust angle than to create a choppy, can't tell whats happening effect.
 
2012-09-06 01:31:28 PM

Grither: Foundling: Many moons ago, I saw Patrick Stewart perform "A Christmas Story" at Foothill college. There were very few props, he wore a green suit, and performed all of the roles, including the maid and Big Ben, by himself. He kicked ass.

Did he shoot his eye out??


While I'm sure he meant "A Christmas Carol", it would probably be pretty awesome to see Patrick Stewart do a one-man version of "A Christmas Story", too.

/ would be 100 times better than that horrid direct-to-dvd sequel they're about to unleash upon the world
// not to mention cheaper
 
2012-09-06 01:54:41 PM
The reason he's so pro piracy is that he wants to burn Hollywood to the ground so we can only read and see the sort of hipster rubbish that he personally approves of.
 
2012-09-06 02:03:59 PM

narkor: The reason he's so pro piracy is that he wants to burn Hollywood to the ground so we can only read and see the sort of hipster rubbish that he personally approves ofwrites.


FTFY
 
2012-09-06 02:38:26 PM
Cory Doctorow has the astounding ability to take a subject you'd think would be really boring, like intellectual property law, copyright, venture capitalism, and by adding just a few science fiction elements, turn it into something really amazingly boring. Fark Cawy and fark his shiatty writing.
 
2012-09-06 04:42:25 PM
Here is my rebuttal: Citizen Kane...

Special effects

Welles also pioneered several visual effects in order to cheaply shoot things like crowd scenes and large interior spaces. For example, the scene where the camera in the opera house rises dramatically to the rafters to show the workmen showing a lack of appreciation for the second Mrs. Kane's performance was shot by a camera craning upwards over the performance scene, then a curtain wipe to a miniature of the upper regions of the house, and then another curtain wipe matching it again with the scene of the workmen. Other scenes effectively employed miniatures to make the film look much more expensive than it truly was, such as various shots of Xanadu. A loud, full-screen closeup of a typewriter typing a single word ("weak"), magnifies the review for the Chicago Inquirer.


farm3.static.flickr.com

www.moviemoviesite.com
 
2012-09-06 05:21:44 PM

Dr Dreidel:
Having just seen 2001 for the first time on Monday, some of the effects in that look better than ILM's latest CGI wankathon.


Same for Star Wars. CGI is fine, it's awesome for replacing the 'guy in a suit' (for certain things) or doing things like Monsters Inc. or Despicable me... those aren't supposed to look real. Never were. Never will. But when you try and do something that is supposed to be 'real' it very quickly starts to look dated.

Where as 2001, Star Wars and a lot of other big budget films with lots of practical effects (i.e. models) don't look THAT bad even decades later. Perhaps the wire work is a bit shonky or the compositing shows a bit but the actual thing itself looks fine.

I re-watched LOTR the other day and Golum is starting to look a bit... well... fake.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report