Jump to content

Smitty

Members
  • Posts

    75,561
  • Joined

Everything posted by Smitty

  1. Ah yes, building an animatronic for that realistic look and then slathering CGI all over it anyway. Genius.
  2. This doesn't mean anything when JP had few animatronic shots in it, if JW2 has loads in it. There is actually hardly any dinosaur action in JP. It's just that what's there is used intelligently and artfully. The overriding visual impression of this movie is fake as fuck.
  3. I've posted it before but this article nails some of the main issues with the overuse of CGI nowadays: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/
  4. Yes, of course and i'm aware of all that but so often it just makes the film look like total shit. When you have shots that are so quick that you can't really establish where you are in the space or what's happening then you can't follow the damn action in question. Generally action is just shot like fucking garbage nowadays, and nobody seems to care. It's all cut/cut/cut/cut-hold-hold/cut/cut/cut/cut/cut/cute - SHITE. Actually - Fucking OVERLAP your shots! Slow them down! Let you audience understand the geography of the space! You watch 100 million dollar superhero films and they have no idea how to make their fights/action look any good. Can you imagine what that would look like if it were made today? Or this? Nowadays its movie after movie after movie with terrible hyperactive editing, terrible shot composition, limp cheography, aggressive and horrible colour grading, obnoxious and completely fake-looking CGI.
  5. The dinosaurs look like shit in this. The effects. Do directors just not care anymore? Doesn't anyone understand the limits of CGI?
  6. Every single snippet about the love, intelligence, craftmanship and artistry that went into the first Jurassic Park makes me heart feel a bit funny. Talk about fucking nailing it, man. Anyway, loved hearing Stan Winston (god bless his soul) described as 'a level 80 effects mage' (the loving tone of that) and there's a few interesting details about the production - George Lucas handled the sourcing of the sound effects, every frame of the T-rex in the rain took 6 hours to render (6 DAYS for a second), a real bit of conversation between Speilberg and the FX guy handling animatronics was put into the movie, they were originally going to use stop-motion before ILM stepped in to convince Spielberg about the use of CGI etc.
  7. The sad thing is this genuinely is the level that your posts are at. I'll file this alongside 'I hate this film because of the poster I saw for it on a bus', in response to someone, er, criticising a film trailer.
  8. Which doesn't make any sense. TFO is surely going to have every lens and sensor watching every centimetre of the ship. Later on we even see that Snoke can easily see the transports by eye with a comical giant magnifying glass he has in his throne room . Yet they are not noticed (similarly Poe's ship can just slip away), somehow, at first. It's incredibly stupid and yet handwaved away like so much in the movie. The only ship containing the last of the only resistance to you (including its leadership) is in front of you and yet apparently watching it closely is not a priority. I'll wait for someone to tell me that telescopes, lenses etc don't exist in Star Wars.
  9. Don't you realise that the whole fucking problem here is arrogantly telling people that they don't understand storytelling (!!) just because they didn't like a particular story? What the fuck has happened to criticism around here? We can't say whether we liked or disliked some movie or game without having to engage in gross psychoanalysis/incredibly personal insults of each other? For fucks sake, stop trying to present an essentially childish and immature position of 'people who dislike the things I like are bad poo-poo heads' as adult and carefully considered. This is shit that I thought we'd all left behind 20 years ago, it's so bizarre to witness this sharp regression in the standards of critical debate. Stuff like this is sub Console Warz drivel.
  10. Yeah and it's so utterly transparent the way the film clumsily tries to get you to think Holdo is bad/suspect. It thinks its so clever with its switcheroo but it's entirely obvious that it's trying to manipulate you.
  11. What a huge shock that you'd endorse such an argument.
  12. Fucking hell, amazing to see a professional critic engage in the new 'critics of X are bad people' approach, which is now all the rage apparently. Where are all the stupid 'why critics of Jurassic World 2 have personality disorders' thinkpieces, though?
  13. She's a god-level pilot, pulling off a one-in-a-million shot when she has never flown any ship before. From the very start and throughout the sequal Rey has been massively, massively super-fantastic at every thing she has attempted. There really isn't that sense of weakness, learning or progression that there is with Luke. She's able to instantly defeat a powerful and trained darkside force user's mental probing. It goes on and on like that. It all just seems totally effortless with this character. It's one of the reasons why I don't find her a compelling character - she's just so perfect, excels at everything she tries and is a perfectly lovely person in everyway.
  14. Is this a joke? Numerous people have explained at length the type of problems with pacing, scripting, story, tone, character etc that the film suffers from.
  15. Had a quick scan earlier - looks like a CGI nightmare.
  16. Where to start with this? Firstly the thread is not 70 odd pages of people calling this film shit. The first trailer was posted on page 30. The film comes out about page 50. The discussion in between is about the trailers and related talk. So in terms of people calling the actual film shit (or good) its 20 odd pages. But those 20 pages include a an 8 month gap with no posts at all until the film appears on Netflix and people who have just seen it because of this chime in with their opinions. Secondly, it's not about you daring to question something. It's about....fuck me do I really need to repeat what I just posted? It's about people like you repeatedly insinuating that critics of the film are sexist etc (fill in various negative descriptors here) whilst trying to dodge the implications of what you're saying by breezily declaring that people do have the right to hold an opinion on a movie. Something which we're all very gracious for you deigning to allow. Thirdly, I have at no point tried to pass off my opinions on what i'd seen from or read about from the movie as me having seen the movie and actually giving a final opinion on it. Oh, and to go back to your previous post: See this is a perfect example. In the first bit you just straight-up state that that people saying the movie is shit are saying this because they are misogynistic. In the second bit you are laboring under the delusion that anyone is obligated to 'justify' their subjective opinion to some rando on the internet. Saying the movie, or any movie, is 'shit' (or whatever) and leaving it at that is a perfectly valid expression of opinion. Saying more and going into detail is too. But you're here complaining about people going beyond 'its shit' to discuss precisely why and how they disliked the film.
  17. Except you have, repeatedly. Of course the film has received some sexist criticism but it is unquantifiable. Repeatedly, constantly, bringing up this angle is offensive when it is trotted out again and again in response to criticism that isn't at all sexist. The implication is obvious. I honestly don't know why you're writing a sentence like 'leads me to suspect there is an element of misogony to some of the complaints about it'. It's like, no shit! You don't say! When did you conclude your investigation, Columbo? That isn't news to anyone, that's been apparent since news of the final Feige version became apparent. People like you and Schomojo and numerous others throughout this thread (seriously, it comes up every other page) keep saying that people are entitled to their opinion, but immiedetly follow it up with 'but lots of people who have your opinion are sexist hmmm HMMMM'. IT'S REALLY FUCKING TIRING. WE FUCKING GET IT. IF YOU THINK PEOPLE CAN DISLIKE THE MOVIE WITHOUT BEING SEXIST STOP FOLLOWING UP EVERY BIT OF CRITICISM WITH 'IT'S A SHAME THE CRITICS OF THIS MOVIE ARE SO SEXIST'. THANKS NOW PLEASE FUCKING STOP. The movie sucks. If you took it and made the cast all-male (with only the tiniest changes to the script) whilst keeping it otherwise identical it would still fucking suck. The only difference is that people wouldn't be unfairly painted as sexist when slagging off yet another horribly unfunny expensive Hollywood turd.
  18. I'm not qualified to hold an opinion on a movie? Are you kidding? Accusing someone of liking a fight when you're casting broad aspersions and insults against the character of countless people because they didn't like a movie is a bit much, too.
  19. I hadn't made my mind up about the film at all, except a general strong wearied scepticism towards *any* Ghostbusters 3 project. I thought the whole idea was tired bollocks, and that was back when it was various ideas revolving around the old crew coming back or some cool young kids bullshit. My reaction to the trailer was what it was: a reaction to a trailer. You do realise that a films trailer is itself a product designed to make you want to go and see a film, right? I really don't understand why you're attacking me for holding an opinion on the contents clips and trailers from a film, based on their isolated merit. Literally everyone who said something about the trailer was doing the same thing - expressing an opinion about something specifically designed to grab their attention and motivate their interest.
  20. OR a lot of people found the movie to be bad and they commented that they found it to be bad. This is yet another entry in the new type of meta-criticism where people attack other people for liking/disliking something by attempting to invalidate their opinion through some notional prior disqualifying characterisation - some highly negative character/political trait - which they never ever ever feel the need to provide even the tiniest smidgen of evidence for. Turning around and trying to dismiss everyone who disliked the movie as one type of person you choose to characterise as bad for the purposes of rhethorically invalidating their opinion is stupid. When you find yourself arguing that everyone who liked some movie is bad, and everyone who liked it is good, and you just so happen to find yourself on the good side then you really really need to stop and think about what you're doing. You just can't fucking do this shit. It's so transparent psychologically that it's laughable. What on earth gives you the right to (in a third hand way) slag off JPL for instance? Beyond that, its just overcomplicating the matter: a lot of people just found the movie to be very bad and unfunny. That's it.
  21. Or, y'know, they just didn't like the movie.
  22. But come on the characters of Man and Woman and also other Man were really compelling!
  23. I hate finn and I hate you*! You're not even my real dad! *I don't hate you xxx
  24. I think Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball was quite sweet, really.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.