New Tv Spots!

Started by Darkoo, May 01, 2012, 07:20:56 PM

Author
New Tv Spots! (Read 140,783 times)

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#150
Amen JKS1!

zuzuki

zuzuki

#151
Quote from: Vickers on May 09, 2012, 11:11:55 AM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 09, 2012, 11:05:13 AM
Jesus Christ there's no pleasing you people.

There is.  The original shots looked just fine (the ship flying by, Shaw blown away by storm, space jockey, derelict landing/crashing).  This is what happens when people don't know when to stop adding and working on something.

you need to understand that this movie is filmed in 3d, the cgi is done to compliment the 3d aspect of the film. if it would have been a normal 2d film shot on regular film not with digital camera, the movie would have had a different feel, different depth. it wouldn't have looked this sharp, and the cgi would have looked a little bit different.
it sucks but that's the way things work and why cgi in 3d films look kinda wack when you see a 2d normal presentation

Vickers

Vickers

#152
Quote from: zuzuki on May 09, 2012, 01:38:40 PM
Quote from: Vickers on May 09, 2012, 11:11:55 AM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 09, 2012, 11:05:13 AM
Jesus Christ there's no pleasing you people.

There is.  The original shots looked just fine (the ship flying by, Shaw blown away by storm, space jockey, derelict landing/crashing).  This is what happens when people don't know when to stop adding and working on something.

you need to understand that this movie is filmed in 3d, the cgi is done to compliment the 3d aspect of the film. if it would have been a normal 2d film shot on regular film not with digital camera, the movie would have had a different feel, different depth. it wouldn't have looked this sharp, and the cgi would have looked a little bit different.
it sucks but that's the way things work and why cgi in 3d films look kinda wack when you see a 2d normal presentation

The CGI should in no way interfere with the 3D aspect (which comes from the cameras and sets themselves, not the CGI).

Look, I'm not trying to get into a flame war here.  I'm obviously looking forward to Prometheus and it's still my most anticipated film this year.

I'm simply saying that some of the CGI changes/additions look off to me.  That colour grading and added CGI in the jockey shot - dare I say it - looks cheap and the kind of quality I would expect from something like Power Rangers.  I know a lot of people had a problem with the original shot before but that had more to do with the size of the jockey than the colour scheme and lack of digital effects.  Then you have the name of the ship they added in, in the latest TV spot, that looks like something somebody added in after discovering Adobe After Effects.  I'm not going to get into all the shots that were changed because you get the idea.

Also, not everybody has 3D plasma TVs at home.  Hypothetically speaking, let's say the CGI was being done for the 3D aspect... if the film can't look good in 2D, how is it going to hold up on DVD and Blu-Ray?

I know I'm not the first person to bring this up and I won't be the last but that's what forums are for right?  To discuss these things.

I still think Prometheus is going to be a quality film.  At this stage it's only Logan Marshall-Green and the final results regarding the CGI that's worrying me.

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#153
After a while Vickers...this discussion is read as tedious nitpicking, only because IT'S GONE ON FOR SO LONG....:)

I'm no expert...I did attend film school if that means anything (which it doesn't) and I just don't see what you're seeing. Obviously this is your opinion and you have the right to have it. To me, your comment reads as a bit insulting to Ridley I suppose, because we know that even his films that misfire have a high quality of care given to their aesthetic. Leveling a term like 'cheap' just doesn't seem respectful....but carry on. You have every right to your opinion of course. Just don't be surprised if it ends up offending or upsetting some people.


Vickers

Vickers

#154
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 09, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
After a while Vickers...this discussion is read as tedious nitpicking, only because IT'S GONE ON FOR SO LONG....:)

I'm no expert...I did attend film school if that means anything (which it doesn't) and I just don't see what you're seeing. Obviously this is your opinion and you have the right to have it. To me, your comment reads as a bit insulting to Ridley I suppose, because we know that even his films that misfire have a high quality of care given to their aesthetic. Leveling a term like 'cheap' just doesn't seem respectful....but carry on. You have every right to your opinion of course. Just don't be surprised if it ends up offending or upsetting some people.

Don't read too much into it.  I was referring to a shot that looks cheap.  I didn't say Prometheus looks cheap and I know Ridley Scott is a legend.  But he too can make bad judgement, let's not forget that.  I'm not in any way disrespecting Ridley Scott.  I'm merely talking about what I see.  Like I said, most of what I've seen looks fantastic but there are concerns.

And the only reason this discussion has gone on for so long is because we're all offering our views.  We're allowed to, aren't we?  If somebody misreads what I say, I am going to reply and reword what I'm trying to get at.

SpeedyMaxx

SpeedyMaxx

#155
Has no one considered the possibility that the shot with the lit jockey suit is simply a different frame from the other one we've seen, before the lights comes up?

VickersAsh

VickersAsh

#156
ugh i need to stay clear from the forums from now on. i thought people were supposed to put the spoiler tags on obvious spoilers
::) ::)

escroto

escroto

#157
Quote from: VickersAsh on May 09, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
ugh i need to stay clear from the forums from now on. i thought people were supposed to put the spoiler tags on obvious spoilers
::) ::)
yep...

And stuff

And stuff

#158
Glad they're adding to the CGI.  It always seemed so unfinished and half-ass looking before.  Hopefully they clean it up even more for the final release.

Darkoo


Zenzucht

Zenzucht

#160
The RED cameras are getting better and better.. I wonder when they introduce 70mm.

Melack

Melack

#161
This size of the jockeys and/or the explaining of them discussion is ridiculous. I'm so glad I'm nowhere near that hung up on nitpicked details and pre-conceived notions.

tonyt2000

tonyt2000

#162
We're STILL arguing over whether or not the Engineer is the SJ?  Really?  Well, to the NOT SPACE JOCKEY folks, PROMETHEUS IS NOT "ALIEN".  Engineer is now proportionally smaller, move on.  Less than a month now, can't wait!

hardcorps54

hardcorps54

#163
Quote from: 180924609 on May 09, 2012, 10:59:26 AM


You cant polish a turd.

i do believe mythbusters proved you wrong on that one :P

Pvt. Himmel

Pvt. Himmel

#164
Well if this movie bugs people so much than you can always go see
Spoiler
MADAGASCAR 3  ::)
[close]
maybe that's more your cup of tea. :P

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