|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 18, 2017 20:39:23 GMT
And what, end up making him look like Apocalypse? Thanks but no. Have you seen Galaxy Quest? There is a makeup created bad guy with a similar gait as Thanos--impressive enough. CGI is fine if it is top of the line--and the glimpses I saw were not. To do CGI of someone who has a face that is almost totally humanoid is a waste of technology. Like spending all that money on Ghost Rider's cgi flames when they could have comped it over a practical effect and made it look more realistic. And though Brolin is no Frank Langella, the latter's performance in Masters of the Universe didn't hurt at all due to the makeup. Best toy character performance ever. Galaxy Quest? Masters of the Universe? Are you serious right now?! Whatever prostethetics and make-up they used for those shows might have been considered high-end back when they were done but they would get completely laughed at if they were used in today's movies. There is good CGI and there is bad CGI. Fact of the matter is, no amount of mak-up and prosthetics would be able to make a proper Hulk in today's movies, not without the assistance of CGI. Ironman is a combination of practical effects AND CGI. Apocalypse's costume and look was made a laughing stock.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 18, 2017 20:50:43 GMT
they would get completely laughed at if they were used in today's movies. You find Predator 1987 FX to be a laugh? How about Salieri in Amadeus? I guess some people aren't into suspense or dramatic tension when they watch movies. They still use practical makeup fx. Thor 2 used it (granted, it was a boring villain but that isn't the fault of the makeup). GOOD makeup prosthetics is seamless. Then again since Rick Baker and Rob Bottin retired and Stan Winston dead, I dont think the studios give their inheritors in the trade as much time. If Apocalypse sucks, and I havent seen it, it is because they didnt spend as much time on it. Which is the same problem with CGI. But Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean could have easily been prosthetics. Would not have made a difference at all. Whatever the case, the glimpse of Thanos looked like a cartoon. If they are going to go CGI, they should jazz up the design so it looks more threatening and appropriate for CGI. And was Josh Brolin really the best choice for it? Since the part is entirely CGI, they could have used any actor, someone older or with a stronger voice. He sounds like James Brolin's son, not some bad ass of the universe. Langella was genius as Skeletor. No one has topped him since for a comic-cartoon-toy villain.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 18, 2017 21:12:02 GMT
He says that people are spoiled on CGI, implying CGI in and of itself is wrong, thereby insulting all CGI FX Artists. He wasn't implying; you were inferring. Incorrectly. He says that we're spoiled on CGI, implying CGI in inherently inferior. That's implication.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 18, 2017 21:18:05 GMT
On purpose. It's absolutely hilarious that anybody would complain about this stuff. So awesome. You owe that man an apology, Señor Stanton! Not in the slightest. Complaining about having the privilege to be watching the greatest comic film run ever, that doesn't seem likely to be topped is just silly nonsense. I crack up at the idea that anybody can't take the stick out of their ass and just enjoy it while it lasts. Let it all soak in, just love having this, it's amazing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 21:21:38 GMT
Have you seen Galaxy Quest? There is a makeup created bad guy with a similar gait as Thanos--impressive enough. CGI is fine if it is top of the line--and the glimpses I saw were not. To do CGI of someone who has a face that is almost totally humanoid is a waste of technology. Like spending all that money on Ghost Rider's cgi flames when they could have comped it over a practical effect and made it look more realistic. And though Brolin is no Frank Langella, the latter's performance in Masters of the Universe didn't hurt at all due to the makeup. Best toy character performance ever. Galaxy Quest? Masters of the Universe? Are you serious right now?! Whatever prostethetics and make-up they used for those shows might have been considered high-end back when they were done but they would get completely laughed at if they were used in today's movies. There is good CGI and there is bad CGI. Fact of the matter is, no amount of mak-up and prosthetics would be able to make a proper Hulk in today's movies, not without the assistance of CGI. Ironman is a combination of practical effects AND CGI. Apocalypse's costume and look was made a laughing stock. Emperor Palpatine in RotJ still looks amazing. So does Yoda in ESB. So do the orcs in LoTR. The CGI versions of the latter two examples were vastly inferior.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 18, 2017 21:26:21 GMT
prostethetics and make-up they used for those shows might have been considered high-end back when they were done Emperor Palpatine in RotJ still looks amazing. So does Yoda in ESB. So do the orcs in LoTR. The CGI versions of the latter two examples were vastly inferior. *AHEM* I think you forgot to mention somebody.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 21:31:16 GMT
Emperor Palpatine in RotJ still looks amazing. So does Yoda in ESB. So do the orcs in LoTR. The CGI versions of the latter two examples were vastly inferior. *AHEM* I think you forgot to mention somebody..... Indeed I did! Thank you, Mr. Ack! How could I forget the glorious practical FX of the one and only...
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 18, 2017 21:32:03 GMT
*AHEM* I think you forgot to mention somebody..... Indeed I did! Thank you, Mr. Ack! How could I forget the glorious practical FX of the one and only...
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jul 18, 2017 22:09:56 GMT
He wasn't implying; you were inferring. Incorrectly. He says that we're spoiled on CGI, implying CGI in inherently inferior. That's implication. That's not implied at all. If anything, saying we are spoiled means he thinks CGI is an effective and in some ways superior technique. It's very sad and telling you refuse to admit you're wrong (even to strangers on the internet) when it's painfully obvious.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 18, 2017 22:46:20 GMT
He says that we're spoiled on CGI, implying CGI in inherently inferior. That's implication. That's not implied at all. If anything, saying we are spoiled means he thinks CGI is an effective and in some ways superior technique. It's very sad and telling you refuse to admit you're wrong (even to strangers on the internet) when it's painfully obvious. The way he said it, he meant to say that CGI was inferior to practical FX which is an insult to every CGI FX Artist out there.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 18, 2017 22:54:07 GMT
He wasn't implying; you were inferring. Incorrectly. He says that we're spoiled on CGI, implying CGI in inherently inferior. That's implication. No, it's an inference that you extrapolated from his statement erroneously. You're wrong; move on, dude.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 18, 2017 23:10:48 GMT
He says that we're spoiled on CGI, implying CGI in inherently inferior. That's implication. No, it's an inference that you extrapolated from his statement erroneously. You're wrong; move on, dude. He meant it as an insult, plainly. He's not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 18, 2017 23:31:36 GMT
That's not the way I took it, either.
If you spoil a kid with gifts or cookies, those are not "inferior" things, quite the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 19, 2017 1:35:27 GMT
No, it's an inference that you extrapolated from his statement erroneously. You're wrong; move on, dude. He meant it as an insult, plainly. He's not the only one. Of course he did; you're just not responding to what he said specifically. And, while you might be clumsily implying that I'm insulting you, you'd be at least half-wrong in this singular instance. This is mostly semantics.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 19, 2017 1:58:38 GMT
He meant it as an insult, plainly. He's not the only one. Of course he did; Glad we agree.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 19, 2017 1:59:43 GMT
Well, there's a first time for everything.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 19, 2017 4:50:13 GMT
they would get completely laughed at if they were used in today's movies. You find Predator 1987 FX to be a laugh? How about Salieri in Amadeus? I guess some people aren't into suspense or dramatic tension when they watch movies. They still use practical makeup fx. Thor 2 used it (granted, it was a boring villain but that isn't the fault of the makeup). GOOD makeup prosthetics is seamless. Then again since Rick Baker and Rob Bottin retired and Stan Winston dead, I dont think the studios give their inheritors in the trade as much time. If Apocalypse sucks, and I havent seen it, it is because they didnt spend as much time on it. Which is the same problem with CGI. But Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean could have easily been prosthetics. Would not have made a difference at all. Whatever the case, the glimpse of Thanos looked like a cartoon. If they are going to go CGI, they should jazz up the design so it looks more threatening and appropriate for CGI. And was Josh Brolin really the best choice for it? Since the part is entirely CGI, they could have used any actor, someone older or with a stronger voice. He sounds like James Brolin's son, not some bad ass of the universe. Langella was genius as Skeletor. No one has topped him since for a comic-cartoon-toy villain. The "look" of the practical effects is good. However, it falls apart when they start moving around. Just look at Kurse. Does he look good? Sure... but then he moves very slow and cumbersome, and it makes it hard to believe that he can beat Thor to the punch when Thor was easily beating Hulk and IM to the punch. Which means that Kurse should at least be faster than Thor, Hulk and IM. But watch him move, does he actually look fast? Predator has good effects I'll give you that. But then that wasn't what you mentioned. You specifically mentioned Skeletor in Master of the Universe... which was a horrible costume by today's standards.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 19, 2017 7:38:03 GMT
Just look at Kurse. Does he look good? Sure... but then he moves very slow and cumbersome, and it makes it hard to believe that he can beat Thor to the punch when Thor was easily beating Hulk and IM to the punch. Kurse was bad because the character was boring. He had no personality. He was anonymous. Then again even the predators look like shit these days for all the alleged advances in special effects makeup--none have looked as good as the 87 film. Skeletor's make up sucked but you had a big actor under it and he gave it his all so the performance was great. If you have bad makeup you can compensate with good acting. Sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 17:42:09 GMT
You find Predator 1987 FX to be a laugh? How about Salieri in Amadeus? I guess some people aren't into suspense or dramatic tension when they watch movies. They still use practical makeup fx. Thor 2 used it (granted, it was a boring villain but that isn't the fault of the makeup). GOOD makeup prosthetics is seamless. Then again since Rick Baker and Rob Bottin retired and Stan Winston dead, I dont think the studios give their inheritors in the trade as much time. If Apocalypse sucks, and I havent seen it, it is because they didnt spend as much time on it. Which is the same problem with CGI. But Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean could have easily been prosthetics. Would not have made a difference at all. Whatever the case, the glimpse of Thanos looked like a cartoon. If they are going to go CGI, they should jazz up the design so it looks more threatening and appropriate for CGI. And was Josh Brolin really the best choice for it? Since the part is entirely CGI, they could have used any actor, someone older or with a stronger voice. He sounds like James Brolin's son, not some bad ass of the universe. Langella was genius as Skeletor. No one has topped him since for a comic-cartoon-toy villain. The "look" of the practical effects is good. However, it falls apart when they start moving around. Just look at Kurse. Does he look good? Sure... but then he moves very slow and cumbersome, and it makes it hard to believe that he can beat Thor to the punch when Thor was easily beating Hulk and IM to the punch. Which means that Kurse should at least be faster than Thor, Hulk and IM. But watch him move, does he actually look fast? Predator has good effects I'll give you that. But then that wasn't what you mentioned. You specifically mentioned Skeletor in Master of the Universe... which was a horrible costume by today's standards. Dude, watch the LotR. Compare the practical FX orcs with the CGI orcs of The Hobbit. It's no comparison. The practical FX orcs look a hundred times better, even when moving around. Watch the original Star Wars trilogy too. Check out Biba Fortuna, Admiral Ackbar and Emperor Palpatine.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 19, 2017 19:36:14 GMT
*AHEM* I think you forgot to mention somebody..... Indeed I did! Thank you, Mr. Ack! How could I forget the glorious practical FX of the one and only... Ackbar (and all the other Mon Cal) does look good... until they start talking. They can't convincingly move their mouth like it's an actual person talking. You can tell the face is puppet/animatronic.
|
|