GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
I think big special effects budgets have kinda killed scifi a bit for me
Every scifi film I liked was a mixture of what they wanted to show and what they could actually build with the resources on hand, kinda made everything seem more real.
I think big special effects budgets have kinda killed scifi a bit for me
Every scifi film I liked was a mixture of what they wanted to show and what they could actually build with the resources on hand, kinda made everything seem more real.
See once more, I am the opposite
For me, good sci-fi needs a solid storytelling core, preferably one which is quite intelligent and thought provoking, even if the thought is just "that's a cool concept." But around that, sci-fi for me is also about the visual spectacle, seeing something that makes me go "wow, that look's cool too."
It's why (well, part of why) I don't like Dr Who. The Aliens in that just look kind of silly (and I am a guy who likes Star Wars and Star Trek and the Fantastic Four comics and so on, so I have a high tolerance for silly looking aliens). I don't think they look fun or cool or exciting, for the most part.
Solar on
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
Star wars is the example I always like to think about
The first three were awesome. Look at the art style of the ships, the tech, how they all fit together. If you ignore the fact that rebel troopers all have silly helmets in a new hope, its a fairly down to earth swashbuckling scifi universe.
Then the prequels come out and its all magical glowing stuff.
Show a guy a B-Wing, and he'll be like "Yup, that's a B-Wing." Show a guy a clone trooper X-wing thing and what the hell are they even called
I think tho gritty swashbuckling and magical glowing arent indicators of quality. A film can be shiney and have amazing CG and be better than a gritty low-CG piece.
0
Options
denihilistAncient and MightyRegistered User, Moderatormod
You realize that the only Star Wars movie that had anything that approached a "small" budget was New Hope right?
I like doctor who because it feels like the British equivalent of power rangers
0
Options
denihilistAncient and MightyRegistered User, Moderatormod
American Gangster was pretty bad too. He's turned out a lot more hits than misses though.
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
I'll admit, I'm not a film buff by any means. Like, I basically see most of the big blockbusters, but I don't dive deep into the film world. My opinions are based on a far briefer relationship with movies then probably anyone else in this thread, but I really dig props and special effects over CG. The way most of the impressive shots in Dark Knight felt, the fact that serenity had a very small CG budget and still managed to make the entire thing work. Space battle at the end of Return of the Jedi being one of my favourite things, and that's all model driven. I dig things like that.
The prequels were not bad because they look bad (apart from the lightsaber fights, they actually looked pretty good. The Lightsaber fights were pretty terrible though)
They were bad because they were bad
I mean sure, none of the space battles in the prequels measures up to the X-Men trench run. But then, that's because the X-Wing trench run was a wonderfully tense, exciting bit of storytelling which also looked cool, which they could have done with CGI in the prequels but didn't because the prequels sucked. Also because people are eager to use CGI as much as they can whereas practical effects still have them beat in many ways. But that's not something inherent to a bigger budget, just a poor film-making choice.
As for the difference between a X-Wing and a Clone Trooper proto X-Wing (which makes little sense in the background but wev), yeah the X-Wing looks better. But that's because the X-Wing is a better design, not because it was a miniature and the Clone Trooper starfighter was CGI.
The new Star Trek movie had very modern looking SFX, for example, and it looked really cool. So did Tron: Legacy.
Solar on
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
You realize that the only Star Wars movie that had anything that approached a "small" budget was New Hope right?
Well yea, but massive amounts of CG weren't around back then, so larger budgets for the other two meant more of the same kinda stuff a new hope had, instead of a lotta green screens.
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
The new star trek was awesome! But it always kind of kept its pants on in the CG department. District 9 had a lot of fantastic CG, but it was kinda supporting the rest of the movie, not driving it.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I like science fiction movies to have big budgets but use primarily real things supplemented by CGI.
Fucking star wars.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
denihilistAncient and MightyRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'll admit, I'm not a film buff by any means. Like, I basically see most of the big blockbusters, but I don't dive deep into the film world. My opinions are based on a far briefer relationship with movies then probably anyone else in this thread, but I really dig props and special effects over CG. The way most of the impressive shots in Dark Knight felt, the fact that serenity had a very small CG budget and still managed to make the entire thing work. Space battle at the end of Return of the Jedi being one of my favourite things, and that's all model driven. I dig things like that.
Yeah, I can get behind that.
I was kind of lost because I didn't know if you were talking about Drive-In style B-Movies or what.
The new star trek was awesome! But it always kind of kept its pants on in the CG department. District 9 had a lot of fantastic CG, but it was kinda supporting the rest of the movie, not driving it.
I am a film watching Neanderthal.
Me too, I am not a big fan of the film medium overall. I am a big fan of sci-fi though so I watch a lot of sci-fi films, same as I watch a lot of Fantasy, Adventure and Superhero films.
Using CGI well is important, and combining CGI with miniatures is the best way to do SFX.
I'll admit, I'm not a film buff by any means. Like, I basically see most of the big blockbusters, but I don't dive deep into the film world. My opinions are based on a far briefer relationship with movies then probably anyone else in this thread, but I really dig props and special effects over CG. The way most of the impressive shots in Dark Knight felt, the fact that serenity had a very small CG budget and still managed to make the entire thing work. Space battle at the end of Return of the Jedi being one of my favourite things, and that's all model driven. I dig things like that.
Yeah, I can get behind that.
I was kind of lost because I didn't know if you were talking about Drive-In style B-Movies or what.
I'm only 21, those kinda things were before my time. I was raised on a diet of Star Wars, Aliens and Disney films, so my film tastes are kinda weird.
I think I know what Gumpy means, he can correct me if not
But sometimes the amount of CG is distracting because it's more LOOK SPECIAL EFFECTS instead of just blending into the background and being realistic
The Star Wars prequels were like that, Lucas got so caught up with trying to fully realize his worlds that he ended up gilding the lily
Oh yeah I totally get that
Generally it's best to make everything you can as real as possible and then do CGI on top. In Tron: Legacy they actually made costumes with glowing piping, set up as much of the sets as they could, did all the lighting as physically as possible, and then let the CGI dudes work with what they shot. And it really shows, because it looks great.
The Star Wars Prequels do the opposite and it all looks a bit fake and plastic-y. Like when they just throw in more spaceships and lasers and explosions in the battle above Coruscant and it ends up being really difficult to focus on what is going on through all the shit flying around.
Solar on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
I think part of the Star Wars problem is also that it's so busy
Everything has too many little extra details ostensibly intended to make it more real, but actually making it distracting by giving too much screen real estate to irrelevant crap
Well I think that is poor direction more than always being poor design.
I mean, the Millennium Falcon is iconic and looks great, even though when you look at it there's a lot going on with the ship and all the stuff all over it.
But it's okay, because when we see the Falcon it's in the center of the screen, and there's not too much going on other than it being there and flying around, so we focus on it and and think "yeah that's cool"
It's not like the Jedi Starfighter is any more crazy looking, but surrounded by so much shit at all times you just can't see it. Because nobody said "no, just give it some space to be in."
Someone should post the redletter prequel reviews. He covers the ridiculous amount of stuff going on often times and how it pushes people away rather than drawing them in.
At least I remember a part like that. Might just be cwazy.
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
I'm thinking Coruscant for example, yes it's a big crazy city full of things but even stuff shot in NY or Tokyo isn't so jam-packed with random little whosits and blinky lights and extras
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
Yea, Quoth has it. Spend too much time trying to make things real with CGI and you get something that always seems kinda fakey. Stick some twigs on a box, give it a lick of paint and film it from the right angle and you have a darn sexy space ship.
Posts
me four
I haven't even seen the original alien movies
Seriously you must watch the alien movies right this second
then buy them for me, hypothetical forumer response
also, noomi rapace and charlize theron make out scene please.
No.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You will not taint what will be a glorious scifi horror film with a stupid slasher trope.
deleted scene will suffice
Idris Elba and Michael Fassbender
Every scifi film I liked was a mixture of what they wanted to show and what they could actually build with the resources on hand, kinda made everything seem more real.
See once more, I am the opposite
For me, good sci-fi needs a solid storytelling core, preferably one which is quite intelligent and thought provoking, even if the thought is just "that's a cool concept." But around that, sci-fi for me is also about the visual spectacle, seeing something that makes me go "wow, that look's cool too."
It's why (well, part of why) I don't like Dr Who. The Aliens in that just look kind of silly (and I am a guy who likes Star Wars and Star Trek and the Fantastic Four comics and so on, so I have a high tolerance for silly looking aliens). I don't think they look fun or cool or exciting, for the most part.
The first three were awesome. Look at the art style of the ships, the tech, how they all fit together. If you ignore the fact that rebel troopers all have silly helmets in a new hope, its a fairly down to earth swashbuckling scifi universe.
Then the prequels come out and its all magical glowing stuff.
Show a guy a B-Wing, and he'll be like "Yup, that's a B-Wing." Show a guy a clone trooper X-wing thing and what the hell are they even called
Except for Robin Hood. Didn't much care for that.
They were bad because they were bad
I mean sure, none of the space battles in the prequels measures up to the X-Men trench run. But then, that's because the X-Wing trench run was a wonderfully tense, exciting bit of storytelling which also looked cool, which they could have done with CGI in the prequels but didn't because the prequels sucked. Also because people are eager to use CGI as much as they can whereas practical effects still have them beat in many ways. But that's not something inherent to a bigger budget, just a poor film-making choice.
As for the difference between a X-Wing and a Clone Trooper proto X-Wing (which makes little sense in the background but wev), yeah the X-Wing looks better. But that's because the X-Wing is a better design, not because it was a miniature and the Clone Trooper starfighter was CGI.
The new Star Trek movie had very modern looking SFX, for example, and it looked really cool. So did Tron: Legacy.
Well yea, but massive amounts of CG weren't around back then, so larger budgets for the other two meant more of the same kinda stuff a new hope had, instead of a lotta green screens.
I am a film watching Neanderthal.
Fucking star wars.
I was kind of lost because I didn't know if you were talking about Drive-In style B-Movies or what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvR_FlHDEfc&feature=relmfu
Me too, I am not a big fan of the film medium overall. I am a big fan of sci-fi though so I watch a lot of sci-fi films, same as I watch a lot of Fantasy, Adventure and Superhero films.
Using CGI well is important, and combining CGI with miniatures is the best way to do SFX.
But really that's because it's not all terrible exposition leading to boring fight scenes that look like some kinda rave dance.
I'm only 21, those kinda things were before my time. I was raised on a diet of Star Wars, Aliens and Disney films, so my film tastes are kinda weird.
Rock on Ridley Scott!
But sometimes the amount of CG is distracting because it's more LOOK SPECIAL EFFECTS instead of just blending into the background and being realistic
The Star Wars prequels were like that, Lucas got so caught up with trying to fully realize his worlds that he ended up gilding the lily
Watch more movies.
I've actually started regressing lately and pretty much only watch movies on TCM these days.
Oh yeah I totally get that
Generally it's best to make everything you can as real as possible and then do CGI on top. In Tron: Legacy they actually made costumes with glowing piping, set up as much of the sets as they could, did all the lighting as physically as possible, and then let the CGI dudes work with what they shot. And it really shows, because it looks great.
The Star Wars Prequels do the opposite and it all looks a bit fake and plastic-y. Like when they just throw in more spaceships and lasers and explosions in the battle above Coruscant and it ends up being really difficult to focus on what is going on through all the shit flying around.
Everything has too many little extra details ostensibly intended to make it more real, but actually making it distracting by giving too much screen real estate to irrelevant crap
I mean, the Millennium Falcon is iconic and looks great, even though when you look at it there's a lot going on with the ship and all the stuff all over it.
But it's okay, because when we see the Falcon it's in the center of the screen, and there's not too much going on other than it being there and flying around, so we focus on it and and think "yeah that's cool"
It's not like the Jedi Starfighter is any more crazy looking, but surrounded by so much shit at all times you just can't see it. Because nobody said "no, just give it some space to be in."
At least I remember a part like that. Might just be cwazy.
It's like a bad acid trip
just based on that this will be good, i think