To quote from a reviewer he said that the movie's not very well shot and that it looks like a cheap slasher. I thought this would be a visually good movie. It sure looks that way in the trailers... :-\
QuoteIt sure looks that way in the trailers...
No, it doesn't.
Every film had its own visual style. The only visual style I've seen from the legitimate clips is SFX and lots of shadows.
Quote from: Irritator on Dec 19, 2007, 09:52:21 PM
QuoteIt sure looks that way in the trailers...
No, it doesn't.
Yeah, it does.
QuoteNo it doesn't.
Look at the lighting in the forest! Beautiful!! :-*
Quote from: War Wager on Dec 19, 2007, 10:00:44 PM
QuoteNo it doesn't.
Look at the lighting in the forest! Fake and plastic-looking!! :-X
Fixed.
The shots in the forest look neat, but that's about it from the trailers.
I take it your basing this off one or two reviews?
We're getting a little too fixed on fixing here.[/bad pun]
Quote from: Irritator on Dec 19, 2007, 10:07:10 PM
We're getting a little too fixed on fixing here.[/bad pun]
I concur, good sah.
The lighting with Kelly and Molly on the grass was nice. Same with the water reflecting off the walls in the swimming pool.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 19, 2007, 10:06:08 PM
The shots in the forest look neat, but that's about it from the trailers.
I liked the scene of Wolf roaring on the roof, in front of all the sparks. That was a pretty sexy visual treat.
The forest looks good, but I just don't see why they chose settings like that for this sequel.
If I could put it in words...it looks glossy, like a commercial. The setting's not really cinematic.
QuoteIf I could put it in words...it looks glossy, like a commercial. The setting's not really cinematic.
Or very tension-inspiring. Unlike the natural, raw jungle in
Predator. But even that would be a crap environment for Aliens.
I haven't seen any clips with groundbreaking or iconic visuals. 300 had great inovative visuals. I expected maybe something not the same but on par with that since we have two guys that worked on 300.
So far I've seen heavy handed use of rain and dark shadows that obscure most of the characters.
What happened to the Beutiful Cinematography?
It's still there. Look harder.
To the untrained eye, it only looks like what ever is in the frame.
Others take lighting and angles into mind. I think the angles, lighting and color grading looks fab.
I'd much rather have some brutal cinematography, thank you very much.
CRY ME A RIVER!
Anyone that will take any critic's review as fact and not opinion shouldn't watch ANY movie! If you are going to base the overall preformance of a film from a critic's opinion of it and say it's going to suck before YOU watch it yourself..........well, no good way to describe how dumb that is!
Ever since the Red Band trailer and even more so now...I think AVP R looks f**king fantastic! I love the lighting/cinematography of it. This movie looks more like an 80's horror movie, which was what the Strauses were going for. This movie is supposed to be dark. The creatures are being hidden in the darkness and shadows. The Strauses are going the same route of what you don't see may be scary, as opposed just showing the creatures in full light the whole time. Besides, would you really want to see Alien/Predator battles in full daylight?
I have no problem with what I have seen so far. I think Daniel Pearl is a great cinematographer.
I think AVPR's cinematography has alot more imagination than what AVP 1 had, compare the two and you will be thankful for what you see.
u know what i dont understand is if u look at korean movies, their cinematography and gore looks much more brilliant than avpr, yet they spent less than 10 million to make the damn movie.
Quote from: xenomorph36 on Dec 20, 2007, 07:34:42 AM
u know what i dont understand is if u look at korean movies, their cinematography and gore looks much more brilliant than avpr, yet they spent less than 10 million to make the damn movie.
In your opinion.
ever clip i have seen apart from on the predator vision and homeworld
ever clip appears to be very dark and just watchable...:S hope its not like this in the cinema and we can act make everthing out and see whats happening
You have 545 posts. Why do you make pointless threads like this?
Quote from: Weasel on Dec 21, 2007, 11:14:10 AM
You have 545 posts. Why do you make pointless threads like this?
why do you make pointless replys like this?
its not pointless
maybe someone will reply with no its just your screen brightness is to dark
or something
or maybe a good reply with ya...hope it not either and then it develops into a talk
I agree with you. In a music video that someone made, I don't know how he got access to the footage) the sewer scene was fairly light.
So, a thread about agreeing with each other. Wooooo.
You can hope all you want, but we will see if it's the same in theaters or not.
Well this could've been posted in the cinematography thread. Weasel is right - you could've done a quick search and posted in an existing thread instead of starting a new one. The board is currently being cluttered with noobs starting pointless threads that have already been discussed many times over in other recent threads. I'll merge this topic instead of closing it though, it's not as bad as some others I've seen today.
I made the last cinematography thread, that one was about how great it looked in the trailers. This one is the complete opposite. I still think it'll have great visuals, it's just the qoute that that guy said got me worried.
Quote from: Chocolate man! on Dec 21, 2007, 11:23:15 AM
I agree with you. In a music video that someone made, I don't know how he got access to the footage) the sewer scene was fairly light.
Hug? I wanna see!
It was on youtube but has been taken down.
The compositions in this movie are very considered. Thats something. But, if anything they're TOO considered. Virtually every shot is going on the rule of thirds/mild abstractions and it makes the movie a little too stylised for my tastes.
Quote from: jimmylace on Dec 21, 2007, 09:03:15 PM
The compositions in this movie are very considered. Thats something. But, if anything they're TOO considered. Virtually every shot is going on the rule of thirds/mild abstractions and it makes the movie a little too stylised for my tastes.
Please explain that, me does not understand :-* :-\
right well this is from photography/art.
the rule of thirds, or more complexly the Golden Mean/Section is essentially a mathematical principle- a universal constant to do with aesthetics.
a/ lets say you have a piece of paper. you draw a tree right in the middle.
b/ same as above, but using golden mean you calculate where the tree should be placed on the page. it will, theoretically always be more pleasing to the eye when it is placed off-centre.
Its loosely called the rule of thirds, because the most aesthetic way of diving the page tends to look approximately like it is 2/3 in. If you look at the composition of most of the clips from AvPR, the actors, buildings or foregrounds are usually 2/3 in the frame. Or the frame is divided in thirds al around. Mild "abstractions" is simply a quick way of saying "cropping the environment/background of the frame so that it looks as pretty as possible- almost like a pattern."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr03.jpg)
see? look at the composition. the son is about 2/3s of the frame in. you can easily divide this composition into thirds.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr04.jpg)
and again, all of the "action" occupies 2/3 of the frame. Again you can divide this composition easily into thirds. 1/3= Foreground tree. 2/3= action/people 3/3= background.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr07.jpg)
again you can divide this composition into equal thirds fairly easily.
Dude...you could've put all of those into one post.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr08.jpg)
and again. guy on the left, empty space= 2/3. 1/3, the other two guys.
Quote from: wolfboy on Dec 21, 2007, 09:39:50 PM
Dude...you could've put all of those into one post.
the server traffic is too busy for me to open a new window
What? Just edit your first post and add the images into there then delete the rest.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr17.jpg)
again 1/3s.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr10.jpg)
and again 2/3rds
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/trailerrrated/normal_trailerr29.jpg)
and again
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/avp2/tvspots/01-tvspot04.jpg)
and again
you get the point
That's a great explanation, thanks, I know what you mean now. ;D
But is it a really bad thing, or do you think they overdid it?
.... whats bad about it?
It is that u tell this things, otherwise i even didnt noticed these details.
I dont give a f**k about this.
Looks all good to me
QuoteI dont give a f**k about this.
Well you should. Once all the hype has died down and the film has been out for a while, it's stuff like cinematography, visual style etc. that will decide whether or not the film will withstand the test of time.
Which it won't...
Quote from: LukaKovach on Dec 21, 2007, 10:05:08 PM
That's a great explanation, thanks, I know what you mean now. ;D
But is it a really bad thing, or do you think they overdid it?
Glad I've explained it well enough. :)
I think they've overdone it- the problem is, when everything is so overly-composed, you kind of get detached from it. It's obvious they've come from a music video background.
Quote from: Yautja161 on Dec 21, 2007, 10:13:42 PM
.... whats bad about it?
It is that u tell this things, otherwise i even didnt noticed these details.
I dont give a f**k about this.
Looks all good to me
Of course it looks "good"- thats the whole point of composition. As for not giving a f**k, this is a cinematography thread...