|
|
Post by bonesmccoy on Jan 6, 2005 1:16:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 6, 2005 1:54:14 GMT -5
That does look good, reminds me of the old days (pre-computer generated everything).
|
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Jan 6, 2005 9:05:00 GMT -5
That does look good, reminds me of the old days (pre-computer generated everything). I miss locations, be they built accuately built and detailed sound stages or actually being on location outdoors. This blue screen stuff like Sky Captain doesn't appeal to me. |
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jan 6, 2005 12:43:41 GMT -5
I miss locations, be they built accuately built and detailed sound stages or actually being on location outdoors. This blue screen stuff like Sky Captain doesn't appeal to me. A flippant (because I don't know if it's actually true) statement I like to make is that the last good 'spectacle' movie was Titanic, because it's seemingly the last movie where they actually built a huge expensive set instead of just doing everything with a blue-screen and CGI. Of course there was lots of CGI in Titanic too (and it's the worst stuff in the movie) but nothing compared to things like The Matrix or Star Wars Episode I that came out only a year or two later. Too much CGI feels like a video game or cartoon to me -- I prefer my special effects to be miniatures, claymation, matte paintings, and even (in honor of BPOM) rotoscoping. |
|
|
|
Post by bonesmccoy on Jan 6, 2005 17:06:53 GMT -5
Good God, Foster. I hate to slag on you so soon after my ball-sac comment, but how in God's name can you claim to be a movie snob and yet call Titanic a 'good' movie?! Sweet Jesus, that pile of stinking, festering, filth-spewing garbage of a movie is the most repulsive thing I have ever had the horror of accidentally seeing. I only thank the dear sweet Lord Jesus above that I have managed to not watch more than 5 consecutive minutes of it even at this late date. I would honestly prefer to sit down and read every revolting Harry Potter novel back-to-back ten times in a row than ever see that putrescent pile of poo in its entirety.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jan 6, 2005 17:42:47 GMT -5
Watch it with the sound off and just look at how impressive the sets are (which also means fast-forwarding through all the modern-day stuff). That's all I really meant. I agree that the story, acting, Celine Dion song, etc. were all total ass, but darn if that huge set wasn't the coolest. I remember wishing somebody had been able to use that same set to make a better movie (like A Night to Remember -- British movie about the Titanic from the 1950s).
|
|
|
|
Post by blackprinceomuncie on Jan 6, 2005 19:44:49 GMT -5
and even (in honor of BPOM) rotoscoping. You didn't say it right....it's Rrrrrrrotoscoping!!!!! (Imagine Richard Dawson saying it to get the feel ;D ) |
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Jan 6, 2005 20:01:46 GMT -5
Long live Ray Harryhousen!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by bonesmccoy on Feb 17, 2005 16:00:44 GMT -5
I wonder if Peter Jackson will employ Harryhausen to do the special effects in his new King Kong movie? |
|
|
|
Post by stonegiant on Apr 10, 2006 7:15:25 GMT -5
Troy had a lot of elaborate sets built for it and they had a core of 300 soldier extras that they CGI'ed to larger numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerto on Oct 23, 2006 9:48:01 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of CS Lewis, I think his work operates on a whole level above children literature. His biblical allusions create an alternate version of christian faith. Such as, the apple from Genesis is instead redemption for original sin, rather than the cause of it. Hell, the entire first book (chronologically, The Magician's Nephew) is a giant metaphysical explanation of the begining of existence. Of course, all of this in addition to great fantasy literature.
Accordingly, I enjoyed the movie, but knew that no film could rival the theology and metaphysics.
|
|
