Clip shown on the Graham Norton show

Started by FreeFacehugz, May 06, 2017, 10:05:42 PM

Author
Clip shown on the Graham Norton show (Read 30,372 times)

cucuchu

Quote from: xArchAngelx on May 07, 2017, 01:52:36 PM
Biggest tube on Alien back didnt fold they went through the wall smaller ones did. I watched it on slow motion you can check it out  (biggest one on left). I think thats why this scene was so fast but still it looks a little bit unnatural .:)

Wonder it there is any chance this is older footage that got edited up later

GrimmVision

Quote from: cucuchu on May 07, 2017, 02:08:46 PM
Wonder it there is any chance this is older footage that got edited up later

I bet it's old footage. No way they'd let that pass through post.

Evanus

I hope it is older footage.

Maybe someone who has seen the film can comment on this? Did it look better in the film?

DendaReloaded

DendaReloaded

#63


checked again, it still looks like shit is just rendered lazily. u can see the lowest tube intersecting horizontally with the floor. the angle of them wasnt changing, which was what would happen during folding. not that it matters much, im just a bit disappointed at how its all handled. practical effects would suffice.

the alien vision is trash. the use of the screens also stuck me as weird. simply fullscreening a monitor in front of a camera feels quite video-gamish to me. in the end prometheus had quite good effects, trailers and tv spots aside. i wonder what will change/has changed with this one till release.

edit: also i dont like the physics in general. the way the tail moves for example. dont think ridley really gave a f**k abt it this time lol. still optimistic abt the whole movie tho

motherfather

motherfather

#64
I'm kinda with you Denda. Of all the Covenant trailers I've seen where a creature was shown, this is the most disappointing/inferior.

And I'm not a complete cgi hater. I loved the water tentacle in The Abyss for example. The cgi in District 9 had weight and heft to it. We know the xeno can knock a person flying for dozens of meters - the cgi version here looks far too nimble to me. Even though it is graceful and stealthy it should still have weight and heft enough to pracitcally pull the ladder from its wall bolts, never mind a whole zillion gallon water tank in avp1.

Dallas at Thedus

Dallas at Thedus

#65
Katherine Waterston is not fit to scrub Sigourney or Noomi's toilet the day after Cinco de Mayo!! ::)  ::)

Petr Švancara

Petr Švancara

#66
As a long-term fan and player of many video-games, I think that I can clearly say how good or bad PC graphics today exactly is, of course even the games are not about graphics at all, players always wanted the best visual experience, heart-breaking, photo-realistic quality and stuff like that, everyone want that. . and yet, still in the end, it's the gameplay that convince the player to play it or invest the time on it. Movies have totally different problems than games, in games. . every little thing is created by the computer graphics, because that is the only way how to create something in a virtual reality. Believe me, there is not much players that actualy rather prefer movie cinematic sequences in games instead of classic computer generated animations. It's reasonable. . if you want to play a game, I guess you should as a player got a game with full cgi animations and everything, but of course. . some of us could like the movie sequences rather than actual cgi ones, there are even these people. On the other hand, movies trying to do they job differently, actors and directors are trying to act as best as they can, so they can convince us about their roles in the story. What Im trying to say there is, movies are made in reality. . if the directors choose to made things in their movies realistically by using prosthetics, costumes and real mechanical toys, man. . it's their way how they try to convince us, and we should be glad for it. . because our eyes (or atleast my eyes) always recognize what is real or what is not real in the screen itself. So, if they try made the things without using the PC's, they made it practical. . and that is always in any way more believable than anything ever produced by the computer graphics. . the problem with computer effects is that most of the time they look too perfect, and that is not believable at all. Why it is like that? It's simple. . computer is trying to define or show something that is hard or near impossible to do in reality, the result is (in this case) almost perfect looking Alien doing perfect movement in the perfect ideal timing, with the perfect camera position, you know what I'm trying to say there? It is everythihg too perfect, and that is the reason why it is miles away from to be even real! I don't think that we see all the Aliens in the entire movie only like this, of course not. . dear god I hope for more prosthetics. But still, If there is a some good mix with both cgi and real costumes in this movie like they say. . it is clearly evident that it's not the case of this specific clip. I think that overall image quality of this clip is bad enough, so it can hurts the computer effects even more. Watching anything in lower quality made it worst, if you like movie and got the Blue-Ray version of it. . than you can judge.

bobcunk

bobcunk

#67
Do we know when the naustromo was built? Maybe it's older then the covenant. It could be an 80 year old ship. In alien resurection, Ripley said the Betty was older then her so it can be assumed that the ships can last 100s of years.


Here is a sitest to save YouTube video.
http://www.saveitoffline.com/

iain

iain

#68

echobbase79


Quote from: Evanus on May 07, 2017, 03:02:59 PM
I hope it is older footage.

Maybe someone who has seen the film can comment on this? Did it look better in the film?

I doubt that is old footage. I wish every effect shot could look perfect, but I guess the budget can only stretch so far for certain shots.

Evanus

Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 06:24:11 PM

Quote from: Evanus on May 07, 2017, 03:02:59 PM
I hope it is older footage.

Maybe someone who has seen the film can comment on this? Did it look better in the film?

I doubt that is old footage. I wish every effect shot could look perfect, but I guess the budget can only stretch so far for certain shots.
Yeah, you're probably right. I hope the rest looks better.

Petr Švancara

Petr Švancara

#71
It's not about hope or their budget, they simply need to change it, repair it. . that is the right word for it. I can imagine that (not only) on some big TV screens it's gonna be even bigger disaster to see this (if it's still stay exactly same). Everyone should notice how badly the Alien tubes going through, there is no way this fault stay there. If they show us how the Alien use his tail in movement (ladder) than they simply can't forgot on his tubes. End of story.

echobbase79

echobbase79

#72

I wish they would've made the shot shorter. We already get the idea that the Alien is going down the tunnel. I mean it's hilariously bad seeing the tubes just magically go through the floor like that.


I don't mind the vision mode either. Reminds me of Alien 3.

Ragonk_Force

Ragonk_Force

#73
You cgi haters are funny. Like its going anywhere. Its in all of your favorite movies theses days and it has to be. Poor you

echobbase79

Quote from: Ragonk_Force on May 07, 2017, 07:04:17 PM
You cgi haters are funny. Like its going anywhere. Its in all of your favorite movies theses days and it has to be. Poor you

Not hating on CGI, but commenting on how that's just really stupid looking. And it is.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News