As someone who DOES work in CGI, I'd just like to note that A) yeah, the majority of movies have a lot of CGI nowadays and most people can't tell, B) I think the original statement of "CGI takes less effort" is perfectly true and don't think it needed any special qualifying statements.
- Status
Why bother, you're there to see the film, not guess what is GCI or not.
Ha, knew it...
Point is, if you couldn't tell if it was CGI while watching the movie, it doesn't matter much whether you can tell it's CGI when you're pausing frame by frame and analyzing it for CGI content. The point is to trick people so they can enjoy the movie. And aside from that, during my compositing class, they did a lot of showing scenes from movies and pulling them apart so we could see all their component elements, and even knowing that there was a lot of CGI in a given shot, I was still amazed.
Not sure what you mean by that.
R
RocketGirl
Oh, I disagree. I think that people hated JarJar so much that it colored the rest of their perception of the movies. I think they would have been a lot more tolerant if either JarJar hadn't been present or had been less of a goofy-ass cartoon character. But JarJar is introduced almost right away and he comes off like a refugee from Looney Tunes, thus insulting everybody who has been a Star Wars fan since birth and wants to be able to take the Saga seriously.
Without him, people would have to work a lot harder to hate these movies.
I kept mine, both from this movie and Battle for Terra.
ElJuski
Staff member
Uhh, no way. JarJar was only one of a grand number of points that I found problematic with the Prequel Trilogy; again, pointing to the fact that Lucas is a genius idea man but horrible in his execution as a writer and director. The writing is miserable, the acting is leaden and the direction is bland. You have a mess of "neat" Sci-Fi ideas, some borderline ridiculous, mesh together in a story that has some heavy brushstrokes connecting it to the original trilogy.
Well, keep in mind that episode one was a children's movie. It was aimed at the 7-12 year olds who wanted to be anakin, and who would, if caught early on, age appropriately to see the next 2 episodes and still want to be anakin.
It was never written to appeal to adults, and it wasn't meant for the star wars die-hards.
If you compare it to regular children's fare, it is good. Surpasses regular children's fare in some ways, not as good in others, but certainly on par with 'good' children's movies.
If you compare it to the best action/science fiction adult fare, it is mediocre at best.
He caught enough flack from the first that he could do some changes for the next two, and they were an improvement, but not much - they were still very obviously squarely aimed at teenagers.
That being said, many movies prove that one can appeal very strongly to a very wide range of ages - take pixar's films, for example, such as the incredibles. It has some character with a problem at every age group, and both children and adults love it.
Lucas did not write the story in a way that appeals to a wide demographic.
But children loved Episode 1. And their parents took them so they could experience the star wars universe, even if it didn't appeal to the parents in its new form.
It was a success, and those who complain about it don't understand that they are not the intended audience.
That being said...
It was never written to appeal to adults, and it wasn't meant for the star wars die-hards.
If you compare it to regular children's fare, it is good. Surpasses regular children's fare in some ways, not as good in others, but certainly on par with 'good' children's movies.
If you compare it to the best action/science fiction adult fare, it is mediocre at best.
He caught enough flack from the first that he could do some changes for the next two, and they were an improvement, but not much - they were still very obviously squarely aimed at teenagers.
That being said, many movies prove that one can appeal very strongly to a very wide range of ages - take pixar's films, for example, such as the incredibles. It has some character with a problem at every age group, and both children and adults love it.
Lucas did not write the story in a way that appeals to a wide demographic.
But children loved Episode 1. And their parents took them so they could experience the star wars universe, even if it didn't appeal to the parents in its new form.
It was a success, and those who complain about it don't understand that they are not the intended audience.
That being said...
ElJuski
Staff member
Explain to me how all that trade tariff political bullshit in any way resembled a "children's movie". Calling it a "children's movie" is such an easy way of hiding behind the glaring problems of the script. You can say it's a kid's movie but I won't believe you, nor will I simply say that I "misunderstood" what the film was geared for. That's a bit of a stretch considering all of the components of the film besides a young, plucky narrator and an annoying batch of funny-talking robots and aliens.
Yeah, the 25 or so minutes of Episode One that are solely dedicated to discussing a trade dispute was definitely aimed square at kids (though who it could possibly have been aimed at is beyond me.).Well, keep in mind that episode one was a children's movie. It was aimed at the 7-12 year olds who wanted to be anakin, and who would, if caught early on, age appropriately to see the next 2 episodes and still want to be anakin.
It was never written to appeal to adults, and it wasn't meant for the star wars die-hards.
If you compare it to regular children's fare, it is good. Surpasses regular children's fare in some ways, not as good in others, but certainly on par with 'good' children's movies.
If you compare it to the best action/science fiction adult fare, it is mediocre at best.
He caught enough flack from the first that he could do some changes for the next two, and they were an improvement, but not much - they were still very obviously squarely aimed at teenagers.
That being said, many movies prove that one can appeal very strongly to a very wide range of ages - take pixar's films, for example, such as the incredibles. It has some character with a problem at every age group, and both children and adults love it.
Lucas did not write the story in a way that appeals to a wide demographic.
But children loved Episode 1. And their parents took them so they could experience the star wars universe, even if it didn't appeal to the parents in its new form.
It was a success, and those who complain about it don't understand that they are not the intended audience.
That being said...
I
Iaculus
And as for 'children's movie' being an excuse for poor quality...
Pixar, guys. Pixar.
Pixar, guys. Pixar.
Frankly i didn't find the next 2 any better (the last one had better special effects), and Jar Jar was mostly absent from them.
Sure, some people focus on him too much, and might not be so against the film if he wasn't there, but the films would still be sub par without him, less vocal fanboys or not.
Are you an angel?! Well are you RocketGirl?
Kids would have loved it anyway if he just kept the pretty colours...
Just saw it last night. Pretty much this.[/QUOTE]
Caught the IMAX Sunday night. I'm with 'Droll.
Uhh, no way. JarJar was only one of a grand number of points that I found problematic with the Prequel Trilogy; again, pointing to the fact that Lucas is a genius idea man but horrible in his execution as a writer and director. The writing is miserable, the acting is leaden and the direction is bland. You have a mess of "neat" Sci-Fi ideas, some borderline ridiculous, mesh together in a story that has some heavy brushstrokes connecting it to the original trilogy.[/QUOTE]
YES. Jar-Jar was merely icing on the crap cake that was 1-3.
A
Alucard
Please gawd don't talk about Jar Jar. With Lucas having to go back and make the prequals he basically ruined Star Wars for me.
It was like raping all of my fond memories of Star Wars.
It was like raping all of my fond memories of Star Wars.
Um, okay? I mean, yeah, but this is such a blanketly old-news statement I don't know how to respond.
(Almost spoilers (very very basic stuff)
I saw it yesterday and, as I suspected, is an adaptation of a short story I had read some years ago, 'Desertion', by Clifford D. Simak, with an added mix of Ferngully in it.
Having read some unmarked spoilers in this forum, I knew about the use of avatars. I only needed to know they were blue (thanks to the posters) to suspect it. It was confirmed when I saw that the main character is handicapped.
I saw it yesterday and, as I suspected, is an adaptation of a short story I had read some years ago, 'Desertion', by Clifford D. Simak, with an added mix of Ferngully in it.
Having read some unmarked spoilers in this forum, I knew about the use of avatars. I only needed to know they were blue (thanks to the posters) to suspect it. It was confirmed when I saw that the main character is handicapped.
Boy howdy, this movie was really stupid.
D
Dusty668
Oleander!
This is a solid data point for a theory of mine. Thanks.
This is a solid data point for a theory of mine. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
tell me more
I
Iaculus
Stupid fun, or stupid awful?
I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.
Stupid fun, or stupid awful?[/QUOTE]
The spectacle was far worth it, but I am never gonna watch or think about this movie again
Pretty much all of this. I was happy the shaky cam wasn't as obtrusive as it could have been, though being in 3D even regular scenes felt a little rocky. At least they didn't get ridiculous with the 3D effects.Very gorgeous movie, the story was fine. Some of the dialogue seemed really silly to me. Visually amazing, though... and I went to the last 5$ matinee left in town, so I feel I got my money's worth.
The plot was somewhat mediocre and easy to predict, but I enjoyed it for what it was. I mean, complaining about this story after seeing RotF would be silly.
I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.[/QUOTE]
So you only heard the name and that's it?!
I avoid most info about films before going to watch them.[/QUOTE]
So you only heard the name and that's it?![/QUOTE]
I knew it was made with some kind of new revolutionary technology, by Cameron, I had seen the blue dude's face, a ship that looked like one of them helicopters from Halo and... pretty much that was it, until I read in this forum a sentence about "using sinthetic bodies to try an trick some alien natives" out of context. ( http://www.halforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11104&highlight=alien Second post in the thread. )
Then I linked this with the blue dude's to the story I had read a few years ago.
But, with most movies, I like to just know the name, the genre and if it's good or bad. Everything is a spoiler for me.
And if I don't like to have "basic stuff" spoilered, you may understand why I hate "actual" spoilers.
Z
Zarvox
Saw it two days ago. Loved it. As was said, the spectacle was amazing. Sure, the story wasn't original and held few surprises, but it was masterfully well-told. Cameron got Chehkov's Armoury down to a T. EVERYTHING that appeared in the third act appeared in the second, and damn near EVERYTHING that appeared in the first and second acts was used in the third.
What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:
What intrigued me the most was the way he snuck in some pretty good hard sci-fi. This isn't a novel, so the man can't go and devote three pages to discovering this critter's ecology, so he had to do it by hints. That said, you can just look at the animals and plants and see that they follow some pretty clear taxonomy. The film does not just throw in some funny monsters and call it a day. If you dig a little deeper and think about what you see on the screen, everything makes sense. In fact, I think there's an underlying fact about Pandora that was barely even hinted at:
It was bioengineered. From the ground up. Ain't it awful convenient that all these different species of trees just happen to be able to talk to each other? And in a way that forms a brain? And ain't it awful convenient that all these different critters, from horses, to pterodactyls to cat-people all have identical sockets they can use to plug into each other? Without feedback, and with one in complete control of the other? And ain't it weird that the na'vi are completely differently evolved than all the other vertebrates we see?
Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).
So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?
Looks to me a whole lot like someone wanted a massive, global biological supercomputer. All the other animals and plant-analogues exist only to make a functioning ecosystem to support the trees. And the na'vi are the caretakers of the ecology. Someone built a biological supercomputer, set in place a system to support it, and left behind some intelligent creatures to look after it. Indeed, the supercomputer even has control over its own support structure, and can command it at will –*even if such an action would be evolutionary disadvantageous (like charging a squad of marines).
So who built Pandora? And why did they see the need to seed it with a room-temperature superconductor like unobtanium? And what do they want from Pandora? And what happens when they come back and get very cross with humanity?
I
Iaculus
Also note the morphological similarities of the various beasties. There was a whole-lot of blueish, six-legged, bioluminescent stuff in there - variations of a basic template?
Z
Zarvox
Also note the morphological similarities of the various beasties. There was a whole-lot of blueish, six-legged, bioluminescent stuff in there - variations of a basic template?
Oh, that's what I was talking about with the taxonomy. That's not part of my crazy spoilered theory –*that's just pretty good use of science.
W
wana10
those goddamn mice
Stupid fun, or stupid awful?[/QUOTE]
The spectacle was far worth it, but I am never gonna watch or think about this movie again[/QUOTE]
Hey, I totally think this movie has officially raised the bar for
the stereotype of the bad mother fucker marine colonel. I mean, I was kind of expecting his mech to be sporting a long cock, the way he was enjoying his killing of that big cat...thing.
C
chakz
Man. That sounds pretty awesome. If the movie focuses on this instead just being a pure "The poor Indians" flick then I'm interested in it.
- Status