User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: "The Best Part Of Filming Had to be the Ensemble" ...  (Read 4753 times)


dallevalle
May 18, 2018, 11:17:32 AM
Reply #31 on: May 18, 2018, 11:17:32 AM
Q
The Mummy is from 99 as well and the effects are supperb. Same with Matrix same with Phantom Menace.

IMHO Starship Troopers still holds up to this day.

yeah starship troopers holds up so well what a underrated movie my god now thats a masterpiece.


Master
May 18, 2018, 11:18:49 AM
Reply #32 on: May 18, 2018, 11:18:49 AM
Q
Effects in Mummy Returns and Matrix Reloaded are not tje effects from Mummy and Matrix. On the other hand every cgi shot from deel blue sea is crap.



Master
May 18, 2018, 11:20:27 AM
Reply #34 on: May 18, 2018, 11:20:27 AM
Q
I know. First Mummy still hold it's ground.



Master
May 18, 2018, 11:23:16 AM
Reply #36 on: May 18, 2018, 11:23:16 AM
Q
Better then those from Mummy 2017




dallevalle
May 18, 2018, 11:28:36 AM
Reply #39 on: May 18, 2018, 11:28:36 AM
Q
i get it you have the nostalgia glasses on that's fine we all do that :)


SiL
May 18, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Reply #40 on: May 18, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Q
The jaw dropping effects in the 1999 The Mummy do not hold up well, nor does the mummy without his skin.


ELDERCLANLEADER
May 18, 2018, 12:50:31 PM
Reply #41 on: May 18, 2018, 12:50:31 PM
Q
Talking of film effects holding the test of time , anyone find it mad how well Lord Of The Rings holds up compared to The Hobbit ? Imo Lord Of The Rings is proof practical effects when done well always out shine CGI , another example is Jurassic park 1,2,3 , they have all aged really well , then Jurassic world decided to throw a spanner in the works and make it a CGI fest , and it frankly looks terrible. I don’t buy this whole “CGI is very expensive” nonsense, i think it’s a ploy used by Hollywood to make movies on the cheap , but make the viewer believe its groundbreaking. At the end of the day it’s computer graphics , and things like Pixar’s render man have been public for years , so how expensive is it really ? I’m not saying there isn’t talent in the CGI world , there’s some quality artists out there , but surly a life sized Tyrannosaurus rex puppet with animatronics is more expensive to make than a CGI counter part ?


azamultic
May 18, 2018, 04:01:06 PM
Reply #42 on: May 18, 2018, 04:01:06 PM
Q
Talking of film effects holding the test of time , anyone find it mad how well Lord Of The Rings holds up compared to The Hobbit ? Imo Lord Of The Rings is proof practical effects when done well always out shine CGI , another example is Jurassic park 1,2,3 , they have all aged really well , then Jurassic world decided to throw a spanner in the works and make it a CGI fest , and it frankly looks terrible. I don’t buy this whole “CGI is very expensive” nonsense, i think it’s a ploy used by Hollywood to make movies on the cheap , but make the viewer believe its groundbreaking. At the end of the day it’s computer graphics , and things like Pixar’s render man have been public for years , so how expensive is it really ? I’m not saying there isn’t talent in the CGI world , there’s some quality artists out there , but surly a life sized Tyrannosaurus rex puppet with animatronics is more expensive to make than a CGI counter part ?

What I heard form ADI studio that CGI will cost the same or more compare to Practical effects, but the reason CGI is more popular for producers is because the when theys shoot a scene, and finished, and if something didn't work the way they wanted, they would need to create puppits and practical effects again, when CGI is just there and you can reuse as much time as you want. Producers thinks that it's better and more comfartable to use CGI then practical effects. THey don't want to spend money on the same thing. They pey for practical effects, and after they need to pay again, because something didn't work as they expected. Where for CGI the peying once(more expencive) but they don't need to pay for the VIsual Effect again. That's explanation from ADI heads. So yeh CGI is not cheaper then practical, they just don't want to pay twice.  ;)


ELDERCLANLEADER
May 18, 2018, 04:24:23 PM
Reply #43 on: May 18, 2018, 04:24:23 PM
Q
Azamultic I have to disagree bro , why is it more expensive ? It’s a computer and a artist and a modelling program , as I say Pixar released Renderman to the public , if it was so expensive why would they do that ? Surely that’s where the expense is right ?

I’m not taking away from CGI because when it’s done right , it’s incredible and you would never know it was being used ... the film zodiac was almost entirely CGI and again you would never even know. But when they say CGI is more expensive than practical effects , I just don’t buy it , perhaps 10-15 years ago it was , but not anymore. I think it’s all just a cop out to make films more cheaply. All the films that used CGI correctly used it as a last resort.

In my opinion CGI should only be used to do the things practical effects could never achieve, it should be another tool in the workman box that’s there if you need it , but only when you need it. I don’t think it should be the go to thing , build your sets properly and if it needs a CGI makeover so be it , but whole worlds build out of rendering is lazy film making imo.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 04:35:26 PM by ELDERCLANLEADER »

azamultic
May 18, 2018, 04:51:26 PM
Reply #44 on: May 18, 2018, 04:51:26 PM
Q
Azamultic I have to disagree bro , why is it more expensive ? It’s a computer and a artist and a modelling program , as I say Pixar released Renderman to the public , if it was so expensive why would they do that ? Surely that’s where the expense is right ?

I’m not taking away from CGI because when it’s done right , it’s incredible and you would never know it was being used ... the film zodiac was almost entirely CGI and again you would never even know. But when they say CGI is more expensive than practical effects , I just don’t buy it , perhaps 10-15 years ago it was , but not anymore. I think it’s all just a cop out to make films more cheaply. All the films that used CGI correctly used it as a last resort.

In my opinion CGI should only be used to do the things practical effects could never achieve, it should be another tool in the workman box that’s there if you need it , but only when you need it. I don’t think it should be the go to thing , build your sets properly and if it needs a CGI makeover so be it , but whole worlds build out of rendering is lazy film making imo.

I am not protecting CGI) Even though I am 3d modeler, I do love practical effects, and wish it was used more. So I am totaly on your side. I am just saying that CGI commonly accepted as a cheap way of making movies by regular people, but a lot of people form the industry saying otherwise, it's why I lfet my comment. I never worked for ILM, so I can't tell you from my expirience that CGI is much more expencisve then practical, but if profesionals do say though, I decide to believe them, until somebody oficially will debunk it ;)  and having free render engin Renderman is not even the slightest going to help make CGI cheaper) You need, animators, riggers, 3d modelers, texturers. renderers, technical artist, composoters supervisers, and a lot other programs to make CGI ;) Renderman just a rendering engine.  :)


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed