Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Maxunderground news unavailable

First page  Go to the previous page   [01]  [02]  Go to the next page  Last page
The Weta Effect...
show user profile  Bolteon

-Marko Mandaric

read 788 times
7/1/2015 1:42:16 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 1:42:36 AM)
show user profile  LionDebt
I've found pretty much all (big blockbuster / hollywood) CGI in the last 10 years to be mundane.

Something might be technically impressive, but it all seems so over-saturated. Take any major film in the last 6 years and I can almost guarantee you there will be RayFire everywhere. Skyscrapers for a "sense of scale". Everything crumbling to pieces.

Also, everything seems to be shot in total darkness these days. Game of Thrones especially. Maybe I need to adjust my monitors or some shit but if the sun is so much as thinking about shining, I'm squinting at the screen trying to see what dafuq is going on.

And don't get me started on the teal/orange colour grading bullshit.

On a more serious note, if this continues and doesn't improve, black and white silent movies will be back in style.
read 773 times
7/1/2015 2:45:58 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 2:45:58 AM)
show user profile  S. Silard
Okay... so my point of view:
The thing is that the directors try to take most of the criticism/response as a constructive one. So... as the CGI thing gets more photo-realistic, it's much harder to accept for an average viewer, if the scene is a bit off. In the past the whole thing has been off, and that was much easier to accept (that everything is shitty). So now the response of an average viewer is: "The CGI of this movie sucks !1!!!111!!!". Thus they ("movie makers") spend more money and concentration into that one (CGI), and they forget several other thing, like a good story and logic, storytelling and after all, a soul for the movie. And what we get in end of the process, TRANSFORMER: AGE OF BULLSHIT.
Also if anybody keeps wondering: "Why the fuck we have such a horrible movies?", the answer is, because most of the people will go to the cinema, and will pay for it. Because the "3D effects are sooooo fucking cool in this one."

So yeah, just like Mcdonalds... You hate it? Stop paying for that crap than.

By the way; It's easy to compare an image of Yoda, now compare animation as well. P.S.: Oh, don't forget facial expressions.

That's just my opinion. Although, I'm not in the industry.

Congrats, you found my signature.

read 767 times
7/1/2015 3:04:50 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 3:04:50 AM)
show user profile  S. Silard
Seems appropriate.

Congrats, you found my signature.

read 766 times
7/1/2015 3:06:39 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 3:07:45 AM)
show user profile  Sangre
Hopefully this tendency will start decreasing. I remember watching Mad Max movie in the I-MAX and being amazed at the amount of scenes they pulled of without resorting to CGI. The most fun I've had in a long time.

read 737 times
7/1/2015 8:23:46 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 8:23:46 AM)
show user profile  TiMoN
Wow.. Those Fury Road effects are pretty impressive.

I remember seeing some commentary for "The Thing" - 2011, that most of the monsters had actually been prepared in makeup and animatronics, but it was all scrapped for CG, which seems a shame, not to mention a huge waste of time and money, they could have mixed it at least, it does not always have to be CG..
Plus watching, behind the scenes, videos of animatronics being made and tested, is often more interesting than watching CG being rendered..

Also, I have not seen the new jurrasic World movie, but from what I've seen in the trailers, the CG just looks more obviously CG compared to the original Jurassic park.. which sort of fits with the WETA effect clip..

Have to admit though, that recent stop-motion movies, like BoxTrolls and Paranorman, which mixes stop motion with some CG, is definately my favorite style at the moment. They just look awesome.

Terribly boring signature.
read 730 times
7/1/2015 9:04:53 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 9:05:37 AM)
show user profile  herfst1
For me Transformers is a perfect illustration of what not to do . . . which they're doing in abundance. That is, confuse the audience, rather than impress. You can look at the 80's cartoon showing a transformation compared to the new films and see the difference. In the cartoons you could, as a child, work out frame by frame how each transformer turned from vehicle to robot; good luck doing that with the films.

And fuck night shots. Pacific Rim could have been good but it wasn't, thanks to the confusing camera work and shiny metal twisting in the moonlight.
read 707 times
7/1/2015 11:08:21 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 11:09:05 AM)
show user profile  Nik Clark
The original Blade runner is amazing. That is all.

Click here to send me an emailClick here to visit my websiteClick here to visit my photo gallery on Flickr

read 699 times
7/1/2015 11:36:59 AM (last edit: 7/1/2015 11:36:59 AM)
show user profile  mike_renouf
I agree with all that you've written folks. I also think another factor that pulls movies down in quality is the ability of a virtual camera to do just about any kind of crazy movements. When you get huge panning shots or rapid complex movements that could never be achieved in reality with a traditional camera rig, you lose something in the final footage.

Whilst there are some crazy cool things that can be achieved with virtual cameras (e.g. bullet time) they are often best used to show conventional settings to give them an edgy feel.

Just my opinion.

read 660 times
7/1/2015 4:02:02 PM (last edit: 7/1/2015 4:15:45 PM)
show user profile  khamski
Lack of a good story and deep dimensional characters is what drags nowdays movies down to the abyss of mediocrity.
In previous years producers had to hire talented writers to create awesome stories that will drag attention of the audience.
Nowdays they can stuff up cg in every plot hole.

As that guy said it will change.
Because we viewers are getting tired of it.


Take Pulp Fiction for example. Or Reservoir Dogs.
Great movies.
Try to embed cg there.
It rejects it. Plot is too strong. No holes to stuff up.
You dont need cg in those movies.
They all are about storyline, believable characters, their actions and dialogues.

That what movie really is.
And what we mostly see now is disneyland attractions.

read 639 times
7/1/2015 5:48:24 PM (last edit: 7/1/2015 6:04:54 PM)
show user profile  herfst1
Agreed. And yet people who don't know better still try to defend modern films. E.g. Mad Max. I don't care how much you thought the stunts were cool, it's got near zero story or character development. And the direction's fucking lazy, e.g. writing "You won't take our children" or something like that, being used as a plot device to fill the audience in, whilst being the dumbest move possible if you really were to steal the women on a covert mission. I mean, fuck's sake, how pathetic do films need to be before we get critical of the shit they shove down our throats?
read 609 times
7/1/2015 9:18:48 PM (last edit: 7/2/2015 8:12:50 AM)
show user profile  khamski
Yes. Mad Max is a great example to illustrate that it's mostly about the story vs no story.
And yes. It takes talented director to harmonize relationships between story and cg in a movie.
One of the greatest examples of that harmony is Terminator 2.
Also i'd like to mention Men in Black.

read 603 times
7/1/2015 10:10:14 PM (last edit: 7/1/2015 10:12:16 PM)
show user profile  ScotlandDave
Although i understand the sentiment i don't think CGI is to blame for modern movies being largely forgettable. The problem IMO is in the film-making itself. The most obvious thing for me is that in comparison to older 'classic' movies, most modern flicks just do not give the viewer space to breathe. There is very little 'space' within the dialogue and visual narratives. Watching many classic movies there is often much more very real tension as the film makers provide space to allow the viewer to think for themselves and in many cases fill in the blanks where things are implied rather than every little detail being explicitly drawn on screen for them. It allows the viewer to participate much more in what they are watching via the imagination and i reckon leads to a much more lasting experience..

I think great CGI will always be great art and it aint fair to put the blame on it. A movie will be memorable for being a good movie whether it's live action, cartoon animation, CGI or a mixture of all of those..

To be honest I think the rise is amazing CGI just happened to coincide with the rise in shitty film-making. And that an explosion in the possibilities offered by CGI resulted in a trend of moviemaking which just happened to tip the balance over into emphasis on how cool it was rather than is it a good movie..

[edit] I never realised peter stringfellow was the main bad guy in the mad max movie..

Website | Blog | Contact | Vimeo

read 558 times
7/2/2015 2:25:30 AM (last edit: 7/2/2015 2:30:26 AM)
show user profile  Garp
Give me a Leone or Peckinpah any day.

read 557 times
7/2/2015 2:27:05 AM (last edit: 7/2/2015 2:27:05 AM)
show user profile  Sangre
I don't usually expect to see a deep, engaging plot when I go to watch an action movie. Action films are about camera work, over the top action sequences, stunts and visual effects that don't look like CG. Nice acting is also a plus but not mandatory.
read 507 times
7/2/2015 12:31:50 PM (last edit: 7/2/2015 12:32:55 PM)
First page  Go to the previous page   [01]  [02]  Go to the next page  Last page
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window