|
Post by summers8 on Aug 3, 2018 4:56:41 GMT
So why d hate for us real comic fans? James Cameron was right.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 3, 2018 5:37:47 GMT
The fact that you refer to yourself as a "real comic fan" is a telltale sign that you are not one.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Aug 3, 2018 5:38:14 GMT
that's why it feels like nothing is it at stake, the next Avengers will probably reverse 99% of the deaths.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 3, 2018 5:53:25 GMT
that's why it feels like nothing is it at stake, the next Avengers will probably reverse 99% of the deaths. As long as it doesn't reverse YOUR death, it will be fine. Till' Underverse!!
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 3, 2018 6:06:43 GMT
Look at the bright side, it's employing a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Aug 3, 2018 6:27:32 GMT
no story, no nothing.
So why did hate for us real comic fans? James Cameron was right.
How is CGI any less valid as an artform as anything else? And what is your definition of story? There was a lot more character and thematic depth in Avengers: Infinity War than there was any of the X-Men movies so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 8:27:20 GMT
That article and producers never said anything about their being no story you idiot; all they said was that for a film with action sequences like Infinity War lots of CGI is required.
Keep trying, you're only trying to convince yourself that true comic book fans hate Infinity War not anyone else. Also James Cameron was flat out wrong as stated by John Campea.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 3, 2018 9:39:23 GMT
I will say this, and it may even be a unpopular opinion, it is disappointing how so many in the film industry rely so much on CGI.
Obviously it's going to be required for things that can't be done physically. But it does seem to be a lazy way out.
A good example is what George Lucas did with Episode 2 and 3. He pretty much CGI the entire film, save some sets and locations. And those films didn't exactly age that well.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 3, 2018 11:50:20 GMT
I A good example is what George Lucas did with Episode 2 and 3. He pretty much CGI the entire film, save some sets and locations. And those films didn't exactly age that well. no he did not. The percentage of prequel CGI is significantly lower than that of modern blockbusters.
Fantastic locations like Camino or Geonosis in EpII were miniatures (see vid), others like the clubs & bars were built sets or on locations (Naboo lake) .
Same with most of the spaceships - in contrast sequel SW films (or modern Sci Fi) sport only CGI spaceships.
The CGI in the prequels was mostly used for compositing and characters (Jar Jar, Watto, Clones, Grievous). And these effects - after two decades - look still mostly on par with modern CGI characters like Maz, Snoke et al. If you think the films have not aged well, tell it to the models and miniatures.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 3, 2018 12:26:44 GMT
I A good example is what George Lucas did with Episode 2 and 3. He pretty much CGI the entire film, save some sets and locations. And those films didn't exactly age that well. no he did not. The percentage of prequel CGI is significantly lower than that of modern blockbusters.
Fantastic locations like Camino or Geonosis in EpII were miniatures (see vid), others like the clubs & bars were built sets or on locations (Naboo lake) .
Same with most of the spaceships - in contrast sequel SW films (or modern Sci Fi) sport only CGI spaceships.
The CGI in the prequels was mostly used for compositing and characters (Jar Jar, Watto, Clones, Grievous). And these effects - after two decades - look still mostly on par with modern CGI characters like Maz, Snoke et al. If you think the films have not aged well, tell it to the models and miniatures.
Alright I'll take back the "CGI the whole film". I guess it just didn't age that well and made it look bad in some shots. Still I do think he got lazy with those films, especially with the Clone Troopers. A lot of it looked like a video game cutscenes.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 3, 2018 12:42:46 GMT
You're seriously complaining about CGI and use James fcking Cameron for your case? The guy behind Avatar?!?! Gtf out of here.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Aug 3, 2018 13:17:58 GMT
Did you see Justice League? That looked like a PS2 cut scene compared to Infinity War.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 3, 2018 13:43:00 GMT
Did you see Justice League? That looked like a PS2 cut scene compared to Infinity War. Burn! Hee hee hee...
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 3, 2018 14:47:32 GMT
So why d hate for us real comic fans? James Cameron was right.
James Cameron was also right about what he said about Wonder Woman
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Aug 3, 2018 15:36:48 GMT
that's why it feels like nothing is it at stake, the next Avengers will probably reverse 99% of the deaths. Within the context of Infinity War, the Avengers lost. Why the fuck would you care about the next movie?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 3, 2018 16:43:52 GMT
Hate to say it but with the kind of fantasy/fictional stuff we're expecting movies to accomplish today, CGI is really the only option. Sure we can use practical effects here and there but by and large they're not able to meet audience expectation anymore. A good example of this is comparing Lurtz (Urukhai from LOTR) to Bolg (Hobbit). Both were orcs, one used practical effects and the other CGI. Personally, I much preferred Lurtz's look. However when it came to the action scenes, Lurtz just looked clumsy due to all the make-up he was carrying. This is most obvious during the scene he draws and fires a bow. Very stiff, obviously having a hard time moving.
This is even more evident with characters that are supposed to be superpowered. Compare for example Kurse with Hulk. Based on how well they did against Thor, a good argument could be made that Kurse is actually quite stronger, faster and more skilled than Hulk. However due to Hulk being made in CGI, he's able to perform maneuvers far more easily than Kurse making him look faster, stronger and more agile.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 3, 2018 17:16:17 GMT
Hate to say it but with the kind of fantasy/fictional stuff we're expecting movies to accomplish today, CGI is really the only option. Sure we can use practical effects here and there but by and large they're not able to meet audience expectation anymore. A good example of this is comparing Lurtz (Urukhai from LOTR) to Bolg (Hobbit). Both were orcs, one used practical effects and the other CGI. Personally, I much preferred Lurtz's look. However when it came to the action scenes, Lurtz just looked clumsy due to all the make-up he was carrying. This is most obvious during the scene he draws and fires a bow. Very stiff, obviously having a hard time moving. This is even more evident with characters that are supposed to be superpowered. Compare for example Kurse with Hulk. Based on how well they did against Thor, a good argument could be made that Kurse is actually quite stronger, faster and more skilled than Hulk. However due to Hulk being made in CGI, he's able to perform maneuvers far more easily than Kurse making him look faster, stronger and more agile. You know I completely forgotten about the Hobbit trilogy. The orcs did look terrible in Hobbit films.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 3, 2018 17:24:29 GMT
Hate to say it but with the kind of fantasy/fictional stuff we're expecting movies to accomplish today, CGI is really the only option. Sure we can use practical effects here and there but by and large they're not able to meet audience expectation anymore. A good example of this is comparing Lurtz (Urukhai from LOTR) to Bolg (Hobbit). Both were orcs, one used practical effects and the other CGI. Personally, I much preferred Lurtz's look. However when it came to the action scenes, Lurtz just looked clumsy due to all the make-up he was carrying. This is most obvious during the scene he draws and fires a bow. Very stiff, obviously having a hard time moving. This is even more evident with characters that are supposed to be superpowered. Compare for example Kurse with Hulk. Based on how well they did against Thor, a good argument could be made that Kurse is actually quite stronger, faster and more skilled than Hulk. However due to Hulk being made in CGI, he's able to perform maneuvers far more easily than Kurse making him look faster, stronger and more agile. You know I completely forgotten about the Hobbit trilogy. The orcs did look terrible in Hobbit films. Well when it comes down to just "the look", I much prefer how practical effects, costume and make-up look. However when it comes to action scenes (especially superpowered ones) or even something as simple as moving around, CGI is where it's at. The only question is whether it's good or bad cgi.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 3, 2018 18:06:04 GMT
no he did not. The percentage of prequel CGI is significantly lower than that of modern blockbusters.
Fantastic locations like Camino or Geonosis in EpII were miniatures (see vid), others like the clubs & bars were built sets or on locations (Naboo lake) .
Same with most of the spaceships - in contrast sequel SW films (or modern Sci Fi) sport only CGI spaceships.
The CGI in the prequels was mostly used for compositing and characters (Jar Jar, Watto, Clones, Grievous). And these effects - after two decades - look still mostly on par with modern CGI characters like Maz, Snoke et al. If you think the films have not aged well, tell it to the models and miniatures.
Alright I'll take back the "CGI the whole film". I guess it just didn't age that well and made it look bad in some shots. Still I do think he got lazy with those films, especially with the Clone Troopers. A lot of it looked like a video game cutscenes. Lazy you say? Was Jesus lazy when he let Judas sell him out so that he could die on the cross for all of us...? Was Einstein lazy when describing the relationship between energy and matter in the most simplistic formula...? Was Kevin Feige lazy when hitting that raccoon turd in the shallow end of the kiddy pool, giving him his grand vision of a MCU...? Was JJ Abrams lazy when he studied the gospel of Lucas and rehashed it plot beat for plot beat...? Well, one or two of them certainly were, but definitely not our lord Lucas I can tell you that.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 3, 2018 18:33:02 GMT
Alright I'll take back the "CGI the whole film". I guess it just didn't age that well and made it look bad in some shots. Still I do think he got lazy with those films, especially with the Clone Troopers. A lot of it looked like a video game cutscenes. Lazy you say? Was Jesus lazy when he let Judas sell him out so that he could die on the cross for all of us...? Was Einstein lazy when describing the relationship between energy and matter in the most simplistic formula...? Was Kevin Feige lazy when hitting that raccoon turd in the shallow end of the kiddy pool, giving him his grand vision of a MCU...? Was JJ Abrams lazy when he studied the gospel of Lucas and rehashed it plot beat for plot beat...? Well, one or two of them certainly were, but definitely not our lord Lucas I can tell you that. With the Clone Troopers he absolutely did. Should have went with an actual suit like he did with the Storm Troopers.
|
|