RED FIRE COW Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 I think computr animation in movies sucks! people just over do it with animation and make movies look faker than they already are. Im not saying technology hasnt improved I mean movie like Matrix are good examples of good use of animation. But the majority of movies over do it like Dungeons & Dragons. Please understand my pain. PS: a guy that loves movies.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 5, 2003 Author Posted February 5, 2003 Another example is the new star wars movies I think suck because of too much animation. I liked the puppets in the old ones
Mastermold Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Nowadays, it's becoming a very reliable way to depict characters that would be impossible to show otherwise. How could they have made the war scene from "Lord of the Rings: Two towers" if they didn't use animation? They would have to coordinate tens of thousands of people. Same situation as in The Clone Wars (Star Wars). The war scene would be almost impossible because those machines just aren't REAL... they could not drive them or show them realistically. The cheasy 70's and 80's FX are over.. not computers make movies amazing. After all, I'm looking forward to "The Incredible Hulk" but not if the Hulk form was just a body builder with green paint. What.. Lou Ferigno's agent is calling? Then I wouldn't go see the movie.
Sayonara Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Most inexcusable misuse of CGI in a recent movie award goes to... The Licker in "Resident Evil".
Mastermold Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Hahaha I agreed!!!! And if it hadn't been for the shot of snatch at the VERY end.. I would've walked out of that movie angry.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 5, 2003 Author Posted February 5, 2003 You know what the problem of the Hulk will be? iLL tell you. He will be animation through out the entire movie thats over doing it. Unlike Spider man who when up close was a real human Gymnastic champion. And even then some people complained that the movie looked kinda cheesy. But I liked it!
RED FIRE COW Posted February 5, 2003 Author Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Most inexcusable misuse of CGI in a recent movie award goes to... The Licker in "Resident Evil". I hope they dont make the same mistake with the Tyrant.
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Computer animations keep getting better. Soon these movies will have computer effects compeletely indistinguishable from reality. I just downloaded 3D Studio MAX 5.1, should be fun
blike Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 It depends on the movie I suppose. Lord of the Rings 2 was excellent, especially gollum. The Incredible Hulk looks attrocious
fafalone Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Quality is of course directly related to budget.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 6, 2003 Author Posted February 6, 2003 Dungeons & Dragons was by far the worst result of animation. But could get topped by the hulk.
Mastermold Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Aw come on.. don't trash the Hulk until you see it. I thought Spider-man was going to be junk, but I was pleasantly surprised. I really liked the movie and I think Sam Raimi had a lot to do with it. I hope the director of Hulk is also good.. but I don't even know who it is. Anyone got answers to that? and maybe a filmography of the guy? But seriously.. I would rather have a pixelated Hulk computed on an Atari 400 than Lou Ferigno painted Green.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 6, 2003 Author Posted February 6, 2003 I thought Lou Feringo was very convincing lol
Mastermold Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Yeah but without computers he couldn't transform unless he was thrown over a bar.. or thrown into a dumpster. lol The nerdy guy had to disappear so that Lou could bust through the wall.
PogoC7 Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=1800025608&cf=movies&intl=us BAD ASS director!!
Skye Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Well I think CGI are another tool for film makers to bring a good story to life but you still need a good story, and good people making it.
mister_me Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 :offtopic: Besides the okay comp. animation in SW episode 2, the acting was the most horrible in any movie that I've ever seen! And do you know why? Because George Lucas is a great designer but a horrible director and he directed it. The acting would probably be fine if they had just cut out the fake romance. Those love scenes sucked ass. I almost puked.
mister_me Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 The HULK tosses tanks like I toss dead animals!
PogoC7 Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 SW 2 was horrible. Even though Jar Jar was annoying in the first, nothing could have readied me for the fake romance from the second. Horrible. Plus, the fight sence at the end was so bad. You couldn't tell what the hell was going on. All you see is dust, things flying, blowing up, and it was just one big battle. The E-1 last sence was so much better. It was clear as hell, cool energy ball weapons and werid stuff. And the fight sence took place with Darth Maul, space and the ground. Plus, it was non-stop action. The bad guy in E-2 was a eighty year old man. WHAT A BAD A*S!!
Giles Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=1800025608&cf=movies&intl=us BAD ASS director!! Really? I've only seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and that was best described as 'complete balls'.
PogoC7 Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Twin Towers was a disappointment to me too. It was no where near the quality of the first. And I thought they flimed it straight through, but they forgot about alot of important things. Like fear in those little PECK sh*ts.
PogoC7 Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Giles Really? I've only seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and that was best described as 'complete balls'. The man is very diverse and that will make the movie good. He's isn't a ONLY ACTION director. He can tell a story. The story of the GREEN MONSTER!
Sayonara Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 Twin Towers was a disappointment to me too. It was no where near the quality of the first. And I thought they flimed it straight through, but they forgot about alot of important things. Like fear in those little PEEK sh*ts. Presumably you mean this, seeing as it's the only film known to IMDb by that name: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0344503
PogoC7 Posted February 7, 2003 Posted February 7, 2003 Someone needs some sleep. Rest the mind. I know it must hurt. Twin Towers was a disappointment to me too. It was no where near the quality of the first. And I thought they flimed it straight through, but they forgot about alot of important things. Like fear in those little PEEK sh*ts. There must be a first Out of the way PECK? We are talking about CGI; right? If you still don't get it, I'll give you a clue. Hobit. I suggest searching http://www.Yahoo.movies.find
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now