Dubstepforum.com

Only getting to me about the whole thing is how the effects and CGI look worse than the original film still.

pete_bubonic wrote:Only getting to me about the whole thing is how the effects and CGI look worse than the original film still.

yes this is true peter but it is also true for most films

LOTR orks were well gully compared to the hobbits ones

guardians guy was good in that movie, honestly I thought it was decent, I hate superhero/comic movies mostly and I went in to that flick with a piss poor attitude with GF thinking it was going to be a massive wank and I thought it was good for what it is. I enjoyed it.

AxeD wrote:

ehbes wrote:That movie was a train wreck

Don't get what the appeal was either. So played out.

Went to see Interstellar and none of the trailers interested me tbh. All massive cgi
epics. My friend and I were literally sitting there laughing.. All those blockbusters seem
to be parodies of themselves. One of them actually followed the story of bible with
the plagues and shit.

Looking forward to quite a few films, including Hollywood stuff (Inherent Vice and Birdman)
but the masses are in for some real garbage.

Thought Interstellar was excellent tho tbf. No idea where the hate comes from on this one. it had such a nice sober vibe and an enjoyable lack of lasers for a modern sci-fi flick complete with wormholes/blackholes, time dilatation and paradoxes.

Yeah I quite enjoyed Interstellar itself. Same with Inception.

Inception was kind of lame to be honest. Alright idea and a few good effects and a horrible sound track dresssed up like it's some work of genius. What the fuck was the point even in the skiing bit too? Just felt so out of place tonally and pacing wise. Christopher Nolan these days in general seems to be "intelligent" films for idiots.

its gonna be a shitty cgi fest
they shouldve just stopped at the second one honestly

The scene with the shark and the plesiosaur type thing is pretty trill. I feel a bit hyped for it, but I dunno why, probably won't even watch it.

The second one was pretty OK, the third one was shit. This one looks like there's too much CGI.
New Star Wars trailer is also coming tomorrow I think

3rd JP > 2nd JP imo

New star wars will be a blatant pisstake.You know its going to be some bait/plastic Disney wank for 11 year olds that dont even know what star wars is (and how inferior it is to star trek) with no real claim to actual cinema legitimacy. 100% chance theres 2 or more JarJar Binks dildo characters in there just for one-liners and comic book grade rhetoric.

Stoked for the new JP even though you can probably see the dinosaurs operated by puppet strings.

cyclopian wrote:

ehbes wrote:sorry but I can't see Andy from Parks and Rec doing well in a serious role

Do you really consider playing the protagonist in a Jurassic Park film to be a serious role?

more so than this role on Parks and Rec? absolutely

jaydot wrote:Stoked for the new JP even though you can probably see the dinosaurs operated by puppet strings.

See it's the opposite thing that looks like the issue. everything is cgi

garethom wrote:The scene with the shark and the plesiosaur type thing is pretty trill. I feel a bit hyped for it, but I dunno why, probably won't even watch it.

looks more like a pliosaur tbh

wolf89 wrote:Inception was kind of lame to be honest. Alright idea and a few good effects and a horrible sound track dresssed up like it's some work of genius. What the fuck was the point even in the skiing bit too? Just felt so out of place tonally and pacing wise. Christopher Nolan these days in general seems to be "intelligent" films for idiots.

Conversely, I really enjoyed Inception and thought the soundtrack was one of Hans Zimmers best. I'm not sure about all the over hyped 'arthouse for the masses', but I don't think anyone else is making contemporary Blockbuster films with as much spectacle and thought behind them. I also loved Insterstellar.

topmo3 wrote:

garethom wrote:The scene with the shark and the plesiosaur type thing is pretty trill. I feel a bit hyped for it, but I dunno why, probably won't even watch it.

looks more like a pliosaur tbh

Yeah I'm not too clued up on marine dinosaurs tbf, you know what I meant though!

more likely a liopleurodon tbh

pete_bubonic wrote:Only getting to me about the whole thing is how the effects and CGI look worse than the original film still.

Thiiiiiiiiis. Models are so much better than CGI.

It's been downhill since someone thought it was a clever idea to replace Ray Harryhausen with a datacentre.

bluh bluh bluh things were better in my day wah wah wah pepperidge farm bluh bluh bluh

suspension of disbelief

must get harder as you get much older

soronery wrote:bluh bluh bluh things were better in my day wah wah wah pepperidge farm bluh bluh bluh

suspension of disbelief

must get harder as you get much older

I'm sure there's a bit of this in it, but CGI starting coming through heavy when I was a young teenager and I've rarely, if ever, seen any that's as in-your-face as a good model. Always feels slightly detatched.

Look at the typewriters in Naked Lunch... fucking terrifying. Typewriters!



Plenty of models were shit though (hold tight Jaws sequels and old-school Dr Who spaceships) and for most special effects CGI is less likely to look embarrassingly fake, but yeah, if you want something to look genuinely scary, a genuinely good model is hard to beat. Harryhausen was a genius.

CGI Yoda was just fucking shit.