Awesome movies |
Awesome movies |
Dec 4 2009, 12:21 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Squire Group: Members Posts: 111 Thank(s): 0 Points: 0 Joined: 10-November 09 From: Ipswich, UK Member No.: 4,159 |
Just finished watching 2012 and yesterday watched Law Abiding Citizen. The latter was 1 of best movies I seen this year and 2012 had some amazing effects altho some were not very well digitised.
Not that I condone any illegal activity, but should you stumble across any r5 lines on pb... they are both worth a look -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 12:27 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Paddle Master Group: Clan Members Posts: 2,085 Thank(s): 30 Points: 317 Joined: 3-December 07 Member No.: 50 |
or stop being a stindgy fucker and go to the cinema instead of watching in shitty 480x320 or whatever res they are knowadays ;p
harry brown was the last film i saw at cinema, pretty good film, though very 'london' -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 01:58 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Security and Projects Group: Clan Dogsbody Posts: 4,687 Thank(s): 1098 Points: 2,440 Joined: 31-August 07 From: A Magical Place, with toys in the million, all under one roof Member No.: 1 |
Apparently:
Downloading movies funds terrorism Whereas going to cinema technically funds Raile's job. .... It's just too difficult to decide which is the lesser evil! -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 02:08 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
tough to say any FX sucked if you watched a downloaded version (and not even a ripped blu-ray or something higher quality)
i mean, I could make photoreal FX for youtube quality video with one hand up my ass |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 02:13 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Squire Group: Members Posts: 111 Thank(s): 0 Points: 0 Joined: 10-November 09 From: Ipswich, UK Member No.: 4,159 |
I don't watch any cam copies, just movies that are DVD rip or have minimum a9 v9 ratings.
Watch the movie and you'll see what I mean. -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 02:51 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
then you've watched a screener dvd as it's not publicly released on dvd yet.. I will also point out that the cinema is quite a lot higher quality image then a dvd. then add compression/etc to ripping the dvd..
and no i dont need to watch the movie i worked on the fuckin thang! |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 03:10 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Squire Group: Members Posts: 111 Thank(s): 0 Points: 0 Joined: 10-November 09 From: Ipswich, UK Member No.: 4,159 |
It's only a few of the green screen moments that let it down
I understand your unwillingness to accept what I say seeing as you have a personal tie to the movie, but it's not perfect graphics and never will be regardless of what version you watch -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 03:49 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
actually it has nothing to do with personal ties, I thought it was a terrible movie..
it's more just people who think they are getting the same experience watching it out of format.. there's a reason nothing goes into the film until its been viewed on film, because that's its native format and it'll only look right on it. besides, I'm guessing you aren't in the industry so I'll take my opinion over yours..... |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 04:30 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Squire Group: Members Posts: 111 Thank(s): 0 Points: 0 Joined: 10-November 09 From: Ipswich, UK Member No.: 4,159 |
Really don't care what your opinion is, you seem as stubborn as me so won't be changing it and don't care enough to want to either
The copy was almost perfect quality visually apart from a few scenes that I mentioned had been skimped on. Unless you watch the copy I did, you have no basis to judge my vision except to state the obvious in that a higher res format would be better viewing. However, regardless of format, it still won't change the crappy work on some of the green screens Happens in almost every sfx movie, and this 1 is no exception -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:07 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
wow you sound like an expert..
perfect visual quality?? kind of impossible to download a physical object nor do I believe you even have a projector to play it on....... There is no way you have anything higher res then a screener dvd. it's pretty much impossible since there are never any digital prints of the entire movie ever released, outside of screeners. or unless there was another Wolverine type incident.. but that would have been publicly known. so yeah i actually do think i have a basis to judge. your dvd isn't good enough IMO. besides, you having not watched it in the cinema, I'd love to know how you base your opinion that your copy is perfect visual quality. i mean, compared to what? clearly you don't care for my opinion, and that's fine, but you posted yours here so expect some flaming. especially because with at least this particular subject, I get paid for my opinion. and I don't think I have a hugely elite view over other non-industry people, but to pretend that you and I are sharing the same viewing experience with your dvd download, is laughable. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:25 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
|
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:39 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Squire Group: Members Posts: 111 Thank(s): 0 Points: 0 Joined: 10-November 09 From: Ipswich, UK Member No.: 4,159 |
T2 - awesome sfx... apart from the bike riding scene where arnie picks him up and puts John on his bike. The background is sooooooooooooo bad.
2012 - awesome sfx... apart from the rolling doughnut sign and a few explosions with characters in. The background is sooooooooooooooooo bad. Not sure how you are unable to understand that there's some parts which are very bad quality whereas the majority of the movie has brilliant sfx. Maybe visually you'll understand what I mean cos you seem a little confused as to my point. Cos I'm not saying a high res spec film isn't better, I'm saying the areas I am talking about won't be any better. -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 05:58 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
actually you are totally wrong. the film is designed to be viewed on film. certain things will hold up on film that won't hold up digitally. sometimes we do shots again for dvd/blu-ray release which won't hold up digitally. i go thru this all day, every day at my job. like i said, it's fine that you don't want to believe me, but I'm talking from experience.
and if you think the only thing bad fx-wise in T2 was the picking him up and onto the bike scene, then you must have somehow got a dodgy downloaded version of the film back when there wasn't even the internet (!). cuz there is tons of bad fx in that film. atleast by todays standards. which i'm assuming your basing your standards on, since the bike shot looks just fine by 1991 standards. the t-1000 liquid fx would only be good enough for temps for me by today's standards. pretty much the same goes for 2012 too.. its amazing you talk about the donut over all the absolutely horrible shots in the snowy mountains in china. as i've said i actually enjoy discussing peoples opinions when they actually watched it on film.. but there's always guys who watch it off-format and then throw their 2 cents in.. we dont do the fx for digital.. when it looks right on film it goes out. |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 06:29 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Security and Projects Group: Clan Dogsbody Posts: 4,687 Thank(s): 1098 Points: 2,440 Joined: 31-August 07 From: A Magical Place, with toys in the million, all under one roof Member No.: 1 |
I've seen far too many films ruined by cgi though... makes we want to resurrect jim henson and ray harryhausen
Specifically: I am legend, surprisngly wasn't ruined by will smith (!) but instead any sense of atmosphere and immersion based on the potential reality of what was going on was ruined by the fact the infection seemed to make them go all stretch-armstrong capable of making there jaws drop about 30cm when they roar etc.,. This is one area where 28 days/weeks later got it spot on: plausible reality is scarier than elastic cgi monsters. As for the fx, haven't seen 2012 yet (I expect it to be a showy clone of day after tmrw etc.,). However I would suggest that while the production of a film is aimed at a specific media e.g. cinema 1.85:1 etc. (heh, worked in a cinema as a student) I don't personally believe that there's a drastic difference in my overall experience between say imax and watching it on my tv.. don't get me wrong as imax screen is much bigger/impressive than my tv (and almost as loud as my surround sound ) and is betterbut the actual impact between the 2 experiences isn't that great. It like me saying, that the =SM= is a work of mutherfucking art, the beauty of which could make grown men weep! (but only when viewed on a diamond studded 3D VR headset). It's akin to telling someone that they can't enjoy wine unless they've spent some time in the fine vinyards of bordeaux. True it may not be quite as authentic but their opinion can't be dismissed just because they're not consuming something in the way it was originally intended. ha. right time for games (which raile shouldn't play as a PC was originally intended for number crunching and business use and you should really take the 'PC' experience in the way it was originally designed after all ) -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 09:52 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
ahhh tsk tsk monkey.. such a common response.. blame the cg. you do realize that somewhere, the director of I am legend, said he wanted stretchy monsters that look like cg. cuz if he didn't say that then they wouldn't look like that. i hear this arguement all the time that people would love to see sfx back in film, but the reality is, that todays audiences are way smarter then they used to be, and you would never get away with sfx. almost every movie i work on tries to do a bunch of the fx practically, and almost every time we sit at my work looking at this piece of shit on screen going why did they even bother. a movie i can't mention the name of, just spent 2 million pounds creating a puppet to go in a shit load of shots for the film. we are now redoing the entire thing with a cg creature because the puppet looks ridiculous. the thing is, any of those cg monsters in i am legend could have looked photoreal if thats what they wanted, and were willing to pay for. you have to sit around and listen to the directors and producers talk about this shit and what they want. they'll all go "oh it has to look photoreal", and then the next week they are asking us to do entirely crazy things that will never look real but they think its a great idea so we have to do it anyways. as i said, it can be real if they want.
look at dark knight and bourne ultimatum. in both movies, almost every single shot has cg. batman is completely cg in more shots then he isn't. bourne is never shot in any of the locations, ever, with the exception of waterloo station, but even that is only about 20% shot there. but those guys pay for that shit. and do realize mate I was never saying that people can't enjoy a movie that isn't in it's original format. i agree with you, that simply isn't true. tbh i download movies all the time. however what I DID say, was that someone who hasn't watched it in it's original format, shouldn't be critisizing the visuals. ps - i am legend is a shit movie because the script was shit... well before anything else made it shit |
|
|
Dec 4 2009, 10:51 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Squire Group: Members Posts: 111 Thank(s): 0 Points: 0 Joined: 10-November 09 From: Ipswich, UK Member No.: 4,159 |
lmao, you still don't get it.
-------------------- |
|
|
Dec 5 2009, 10:13 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Knight Errant Group: Clan Members Posts: 645 Thank(s): 0 Points: 79 Joined: 18-November 07 From: Swindon Member No.: 43 |
hmmmmm i dont watch films
-------------------- |
|
|
Dec 5 2009, 01:58 PM
Post
#18
|
|
Man at arms Group: Clan Members Posts: 161 Thank(s): 0 Points: 67 Joined: 13-February 09 From: Aberdeenshire Member No.: 4,071 |
i just had to endure 2hrs 20mins of Transformers 2 with my son. I feel violated.
I watch Moon as well which gets my movie of the year. 1 bloke no effects budget..superb. -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 5 2009, 04:28 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Security and Projects Group: Clan Dogsbody Posts: 4,687 Thank(s): 1098 Points: 2,440 Joined: 31-August 07 From: A Magical Place, with toys in the million, all under one roof Member No.: 1 |
i quite liked moon... think the voice of the computer was kevin spacey too
-------------------- |
|
|
Dec 7 2009, 11:37 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Knight Errant Group: SM Guild Members Posts: 543 Thank(s): 0 Points: 102 Joined: 29-October 07 Member No.: 32 |
agreed hypo, transformers 2 sucks but moon was great!
and the director is Duncan Jones (David Bowie's son) |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th October 2024 - 02:49 AM |