The New Cinema and Movie Thread

[Malcador]

2 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Variety - Event Horizon at 25 ; Paul WS Anderson Recalls

 

[Keyrock]

55 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Variety - Event Horizon at 25 ; Paul WS Anderson Recalls

I remember loving this movie, though, as a big Sam Neill fan, I cannot be trusted to fairly judge any movie he is in.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

11 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

I remember loving this movie, though, as a big Sam Neill fan, I cannot be trusted to fairly judge any movie he is in.

Then you'll love the newest Jurassic Park World.

[majestic]

Watched Prey, basically agree with Jay Baumann's take. It was a fine movie, but it could really have used more practical effects, less CGI, and some nice film grain. It looks way too digital, and that bear is just ridiculous. Most of the CGI animals are bad, but the bear is a real standout.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

38 minutes ago, majestic said:

Watched Prey, basically agree with Jay Baumann's take. It was a fine movie, but it could really have used more practical effects, less CGI, and some nice film grain. It looks way too digital, and that bear is just ridiculous. Most of the CGI animals are bad, but the bear is a real standout.

I used to prefer crisp and clean digital, but more and more I think the grain adds a texture to movies that you just don't notice until they're gone. When you get too clean you get into uncanny valley territory.

The CGI animals were ridiculous, ngl.

[Bartimaeus]

33 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

I used to prefer crisp and clean digital, but more and more I think the grain adds a texture to movies that you just don't notice until they're gone. When you get too clean you get into uncanny valley territory.

The CGI animals were ridiculous, ngl.

I'm at the point where I actually prefer fake film grain for at least some stuff (e.g. animation) just to give it something rather than the unnaturally clean appearance of digital. Jay specifically argued for it to be shot on actual film, which would of course be better.

[Keyrock]

49 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

I used to prefer crisp and clean digital, but more and more I think the grain adds a texture to movies that you just don't notice until they're gone. When you get too clean you get into uncanny valley territory.

The CGI animals were ridiculous, ngl.

It's sort of like the static and pops of vinyl records, I kind of miss it in this age of digital everything. Film grain is sort of similar to that. In both cases, it's not one size fits all, both vinyl noise and film grain aren't appropriate in all cases IMHO. For certain types of movies, though, some film grain adds to the feel, especially properly grimy film like 16mm (8mm is probably TOO grimy).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

35 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

I'm at the point where I actually prefer fake film grain for at least some stuff (e.g. animation) just to give it something rather than the unnaturally clean appearance of digital. Jay specifically argued for it to be shot on actual film, which would of course be better.

I can see no film grain (fake or otherwise) specifically if trying to specifically do something sanitized or even a neo neorealism, but for the most part I think a light grain to mimic a polished 35mm just looks much better. But it is one of those things I don't notice until it's gone and one of the more minor things, like a shot or scene can still be great without grain while a bland scene with grain is still bland.

The problem with shooting on actual film is that it's prohibitively expensive with the cost of film, so you don't see it nearly as often in the micro to mid budget films. It is what it is, but I think a grain overlays can be good enough or even fool someone into thinking it's film (can being operative). Rian Johnson got fooled by his cinematographer iirc.

[majestic]

53 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Jay specifically argued for it to be shot on actual film, which would of course be better.

Shot on 16mm film, to be specific, with some practical effects and practical blood, to give the film the gritty look it should have. He's not wrong, the film's fairly violent at times, but it looks distractingly clean in its violence. It would also be a decent fit for the setting.

20 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

The problem with shooting on actual film is that it's prohibitively expensive with the cost of film, so you don't see it nearly as often in the micro to mid budget films. It is what it is, but I think a grain overlays can be good enough or even fool someone into thinking it's film (can being operative). Rian Johnson got fooled by his cinematographer iirc.

I don't mind overlays in film. In games, they're usually the only special effect I turn off if they're there. Not sure why, but film grain in cutscenes is really distracting (like in Mass Effect).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 minutes ago, majestic said:

I don't mind overlays in film. In games, they're usually the only special effect I turn off if they're there. Not sure why, but film grain in cutscenes is really distracting (like in Mass Effect).

Games are a completely different beast and there I think grain is just a distraction.

[Hurlshort]

I'm all for animated and CGI wildlife versus training wild animals to do this kind of stuff. The bear was totally close enough to make the scene work versus having a real grizzly bear doing stunts. 

I was reading an autobiography by Clint Howard and I have a hard time understanding how we were just ok with this little kid acting alongside a massive wild animal for the sake of TV. 

[Bartimaeus]

21 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

I'm all for animated and CGI wildlife versus training wild animals to do this kind of stuff. The bear was totally close enough to make the scene work versus having a real grizzly bear doing stunts. 

I was reading an autobiography by Clint Howard and I have a hard time understanding how we were just ok with this little kid acting alongside a massive wild animal for the sake of TV. 

Think I'd rather they cut out the bear entirely than go the animated route, but agree to disagree: something about this Wikipedia article for the bear being structured in the same way an actor would be made me laugh out loud. Based on what's in this article, it seems like he was a remarkably nice bear...still pretty frightening, though.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Both of you are laughably wrong.

THIS is how it should be done.

[uuuhhii]

nostalgia are such weird thing

pretty sure there are tv setting that actually make everything look more grainy

 

[Gorth]

Whoever made Event Horizon should make a “real” wh40k movie

 

A friend and I saw Maverick in the cinema last night. Not something I would normally watch and he’s way more into the Marvel stuff, but it was the only thing showing at a time and place suiting us both.

It was surprisingly unsucky, which I suppose means it didn’t meet expectations

More humour and a slight toning down of the macho stuff (it’s still there, but it has taken on a slightly self deprecating nature). Sound track of the first  Top Gun was still better though

[Raithe]

Stardust Retro Review: 15 Years of the Neil Gaiman Adaptation (gizmodo.com)

[Chairchucker]

57 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Stardust Retro Review: 15 Years of the Neil Gaiman Adaptation (gizmodo.com)

Extremely excellent movie. I prefer it to the book, too.

[Lexx]

I love the movie Stardust. Just rewatched it earlier this year out of boredom. It's just nice.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Lexx

[Amentep]

I still haven't managed to catch up with that one.

[majestic]

21 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

The bear was totally close enough to make the scene work versus having a real grizzly bear doing stunts.

Predator punching CGI bear is probably my laugh out loud unintentionally funny moment in film for 2022.

What follows isn't so bad either, the Predator drags a thousand pounds of almost weightless bear through a beaver dam. Yeah, sorry, I guess sometimes close enough just isn't good enough.

Edited August 12, 2022 by majestic
Wow, turning into Bruce here, can't spell any more.

[Keyrock]

14 hours ago, Gorth said:

Whoever made Event Horizon should make a “real” wh40k movie

Ate you sure? It's the same guy that made all those exceedingly stupid, albeit fun, Resident Evil movies starring his wife Milla. He also directed the first Mortal Kombat movie with Christopher Lambert chewing the scenery and the best theme song ever:

You know what, I just talked myself into it, I'm on board. Obviously, Milla will be the lead, by virtue of marriage. I suppose she can play an Inquisitor.

[HoonDing]

I (re)watched both Allan Quatermain movies. They're the last good roles of Sharon Stone before she decided to show off her honey pot in Basic Instinct. Things went further downhill from there.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Predator punching CGI bear is probably my laugh out loud unintentionally funny moment in film for 2022.

What follows isn't so bad either, the Predator drags a thousand pounds of almost weightless bear through a beaver dam. Yeah, sorry, I guess sometimes close enough just isn't good enough.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. You didn't like the scene, I get that. I still don't want a real Grizzly Bear being forced to do stunts for a 30-second action sequence. 

[Gromnir]

a cgi bear were the bridge too far?

no. just no. is she comanche or na'vi? 

now am suspecting there is some archers somewhere in history who use bows as does the star o' prey... and the na'vi, but such were not the case o' the comanche. most noteworthy aspect o' comanche archery were preternatural speed with which they could release arrows while mounted. 

for those genuine curious, go to ~4:00-5:10ish.

am recalling seeing a comanche archer when we were young. guy were on horseback hitting 20 yd bullseyes from full gallop and is hard to stress the negligible time 'tween each arrow hitting a target.

lakota archery traditions is similar to comanche but noteworthy different in a few aspects (e.g. heavier double-curve bows.)

we may end up seeing the movie, and am knowing is a minor thing, but was the weird archery for the comanche in prey necessary? did it make the movie better? 

am also wondering why every picture we see from prey with comanche using a bow makes it look as if they all got osage orange, but we could live with that curiosity. after all, haven't seen the movie so for all we know is only one bow in the entire film and is being used by multiple comanche.

regardless, w/o having seen the movie, the released images o' comanche doing archery more appropriate to pandora set our teeth on edge. why? 

HA! Good Fun!

ps we read somewheres prey protagonist is 'sposed comanche, so if that ain't true, then ignore everything we posted. regardless, the willie pekah video is kinda kewl if you are willing to watch the entire ~fourteen minutes.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Hurlshort said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. You didn't like the scene, I get that. I still don't want a real Grizzly Bear being forced to do stunts for a 30-second action sequence. 

That scene looks decidedly impractical for live action, but that doesn't mean you have to use CGI. The other option is to rework the scene or cut it completely if CGI can't do the job well. In some cases not having it at all is the better option.

(Have to say, that wasn't the worst CGI animal I've seen by a long shot and was nowhere near as bad as I expected. Out of context the scene does seem rather silly though, which I certainly wouldn't expect from a Predator movie...)

1 hour ago, Keyrock said:

Ate you sure? It's the same guy that made all those exceedingly stupid, albeit fun, Resident Evil movies starring his wife Milla. He also directed the first Mortal Kombat movie with Christopher Lambert chewing the scenery and the best theme song ever

Someone needs to set his feet to the coals so he actually watches/ obtains that first cut tape of Event Horizon which someone supposedly found before he starts anything else.