Movies you've seen recently

[Blarghagh]

 

Without visual effects artists, there wouldn't have been a Life of Pi, there wouldn't have been any Lord of the Rings movies, there wouldn't have been a Gravity.

am I bad if I hated all those movies? 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are movies that employed visual effects that you did enjoy. People tend to underestimate how many visual effects are used - even non-action films. Pretty much every other shot in, for example, Forrest Gump has some form of digital effect or enhancement. Even people who say "I hate CG, I hate blockbuster movies" will have a film that is filled with digital visual effects in their top 10, I guarantee it. Pan's Labyrinth, that was critically lauded for it's amazing practical effects had each of these effects enhanced by VFX artists. Titanic, Jurassic Park, The Matrix, even Fight Club (especially Fight Club even, which has more CG shots than Jurassic Park does) - these films are filled to the brim by things VFX artists made on ridiculous, cheap fixed bid contracts that allow for no overtime even if the amount of shots they need to create dramatically increases.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[sorophx]

I'm not saying visual effects are bad, but I do like older techniques of VFX production (Kubrik's 2001, for example, or early ILM) a lot more than computer generated effects. movies like Gravity and Life of Pi look so fake that I'd much rather have them be animation then live-action. 

 

and then they're just awful movies if you take the visuals away (IMHO), it's sad when the only thing a movie does right is visual effects, and it's no thanks to actors, directors or screenwriters 

[Blarghagh]

I actually do agree with you, I think CG has been used as an excuse to be lazy by many directors and studios. The one sentence VFX artists dread is "we'll fix it in post" and a lot of CG is bad. This is mostly because of A) Directors don't know what to do with them and don't actually talk to the visual effects artists (see the video) and B) Because the VFX artists don't have enough budget for quality, usually due to the fixed bid structure. They get contracted  to do vfx on a movie that, according to script and storyboard has an estimatd 50 vfx shots. Then the director adds twenty more shots, but because it's a fixed bid, the vfx team doesn't get paid more for those shots so the budget for each shot to be done goes down.

 

I also agree with you that I miss practical effects. While Jurassic Park was made famous due to it's CG, I think the dinosaur animatronics are much more impressive. Similarely, the Alien lost a lot of it's power when they made it CG. I don't think CG is a catch-all solution for all special effects work. That doesn't take away that the way the studio works for VFX artists is completely unfair. The set designer has to build another set, he gets paid for an extra set. The people who build 90% of the rest of the set in modern movie making? Don't get paid an extra dime.

[TheChris92]

Her, directed by Spike Jontze -- I adore the cast in the film but also the director for his rather unique concepts and approaches to filmmaking like with Being John Malkovich & now a romantic comedy mixed with a bit of sci-fi, discussing the effects of social media, instant messaging & being constant connected. No matter how much most of us hate the idea of always being online on our gaming devices, or the idea of cyborg augmentations, it doesn't change the fact that we are always wearing spectacles, wristwatches or IPhones. We are in the Information Age. Her then examines one man’s relationship with an 'electronic device', that is to say -- Artificial Intelligence in form of a Computer Operating system, which travels with you everywhere. Far from being a cautionary tale, it highlights how technology itself can not only fulfill our emotional needs, but also clarify our relationships with the people it’s meant to connect us with. It feels a bit ludicrous, from my point of view, how most characters in the movie are very accepting or forward about the idea of dating a tin-can. But it's not necessarily something we won't see for ourselves in the nearest future.

 

Our man of the hour Theodore, played by Joanquin Phoenix, decides to buy himself an Operating System named Samantha, who sees to his every day working schedule. What makes the movie particularly sci-fi is the emphasis placed on Samantha's growth as a person despite her being a faceless machine. This kinda growth will obviously plant new ideas in her programming, which puts her world into new perspectives. As she explores the world through the eyes of Theodore, her evolvement starts to grow  beyond the common sensory experiences of her human counterpart, and she begins contemplating deeper philosophical ideas. She yearns after the same sort of emotional gratification as that of the kind she provided for Theodore -- This causes Theodore to worry as it opens up the possibility of Samantha leaving him behind, so she can further develop her knowledge of human nature. Although, while the movie is incidentally sci-fi, it stretches its point from a larger point of view, as it explores the factors behind the common relationship. How do we draw a line of which relationships are most important to us? It comments on the concept of Online dating, and in some ways BioWare fans could probably relate to it, right? As has been established; The movie makes the argument that any online relationship can be meaningful, even when it stays online. The commitment doesn't have to falter even without physical consummation --  Her defines it as not only but socially acceptable, as I established earlier the characters are very forthcoming to the whole concept. This allows us to understand the narrative, and makes the relationship feel all the more believable, as the actors do their utmost best to make every interaction as sharply convincing as one would be able to. 

 

I sincerely hope that Spike Jonze and the cast get recognized for this picture because it's quite unique and thus also a very welcome surprise within the whole romantic-comedy genre-film. I recommend it very much.

[sorophx]

watching the video, and when the guy's mic got cut off during the award acceptance speech... man, these people, executives and their henchmen, have no morals at all 

Edited February 27, 2014 by sorophx

[Volourn]

Yeah, because man/woman falling in love with machine/non human is new. Oh yeah, it isn't.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Volourn

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, because man/woman falling in love with machine/non human is new. Oh yeah, it isn't.

 

I'm not going to lie, I clicked on that a couple times expecting it to be a link to some man/machine lovin' action.

[Blarghagh]

Notch just confirmed that he's working with the producers of The Lego Movie on a potential film version of Minecraft.

[TheChris92]

Yeah, because man/woman falling in love with machine/non human is new. Oh yeah, it isn't.

Specify? We are talking about a film that sheds light on the idea of an intimate relationship between man and an artificial AI.

[Oerwinde]

Notch just confirmed that he's working with the producers of The Lego Movie on a potential film version of Minecraft.

Why?

[HoonDing]

Yeah, because man/woman falling in love with machine/non human is new. Oh yeah, it isn't.

[Blarghagh]

 

Notch just confirmed that he's working with the producers of The Lego Movie on a potential film version of Minecraft.

Why?

 

 

I don't know. I'm just the messenger. I reported it without comment because I really don't know what to say about it.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Notch just confirmed that he's working with the producers of The Lego Movie on a potential film version of Minecraft.

Why?

 

 

I don't know. I'm just the messenger. I reported it without comment because I really don't know what to say about it.

 

 

I'm not too surprised.  Or rather I've already been surprised at how marketable Minecraft has been, it's pretty much everywhere.  So it is not shocking that they will try and cash in on a movie.

[ShadySands]

Poor Leo

 

I guess he'll just have to console himself with his piles of money and the company of some of the most beautiful women in the world

[Volourn]

The Oscars fail again. Not surprising, though, it's to be expected. How the hell does a crap movie like Gravity win any awards? DISGUSTING. And, the ebst actor and actress don't win anything. *puke*

[sorophx]

but Matthew McConaughey did win, Volo, you weren't paying attention 

[Orogun01]

but Matthew McConaughey did win, Volo, you weren't paying attention 

I hate Matthew McConaughey simply on the fact that he continues to waste his talent, he keeps it up and he is going to end up doing the same crappy movies as Ben Kingsley.

[Meshugger]

Matthew is a brodude that we all deserve.

[Hurlshort]

 

but Matthew McConaughey did win, Volo, you weren't paying attention 

I hate Matthew McConaughey simply on the fact that he continues to waste his talent, he keeps it up and he is going to end up doing the same crappy movies as Ben Kingsley.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  In the last few years he's done nothing but critically acclaimed movies.  Just look at all the awards he's been getting since 2011.

 

If anything, he seems to be getting better every year.

[Volourn]

McC is good but he is nowhere as great as Leo is.  If McC is a 9. Then Leo is a 25. BEST. EVER. PERIOD.

[LadyCrimson]

Ah, did I miss the Oscars again? Oh well.

 

Hubs and I watched the Thor sequel. It's like watching Norse mythology fused with Star Wars, but hey, at least there's Loki to amuse me. The dark elf grenades reminded me of Borderlands2 "singularity" grenades, too, which made me laugh. Even more of a laugh was what hubby said when the Big Bad used his giant, tall ship to go through that town square/whatever like a field plow.. I quote:

 

"I bet that's murder on the paint job. Couldn't that dark elf get his darn flying ship to rise just a little bit higher?"

[Mor]

I just noticed this Gravity dominates the Academy Awards with seven Oscars and its 8.2 on imdb( Drama | Sci-Fi | Thriller )

 

Someone previously stated it was crap, can anyone please elaborate i.e. good/bad and why ?

[sorophx]

it's entertaining, but very badly written. if you can suspend your disbelief for 2 hours you may enjoy it, but other than directing it has nothing worth praising. 

 

no, really, it's **** 

 

to elaborate. the characters don't feel alive, they don't act or talk like real people do. the story itself is plain stupid. two main characters that drive the whole movie are portrayed relatively well, but neither Clooney nor Bullock looked like they were the only actors to do their roles justice, if you know what I mean. they do have good chemistry, can't take that away.

 

overall, a generic soft sci-fi disaster movie with boring camera work and special effects. Cuaron deserves all the praise he got for directing two people against a blue screen in a two-hour snore fest and getting such a successful movie out of it.

 

meaning, if you're really into movies, it's worth watching for insight into how to direct **** scripts the right way.

Edited March 3, 2014 by sorophx

[Meshugger]

All Leo needs to is to convince Scorcese that their next movie together will be about a man that has 1) a serious deteriation of his body 2) goes from living large to living small and 3) finds repentance and he will get his Oscar

[Meshugger]

Gravity is a well made thriller/drama in space. It's not "Chinatown" of its genre, nor does it transcend it.