|
Doc Furious
|
 |
« on: Mon, June 9, 2003, 05:16:25 » |
|
CGI Hulk sucks!
KIrby returns from grave!
Kirby smash fake Hulk!
Is anyone buying this crap? Sure it'll open strong but I got play dough thats more convincing looking than this
X-box piece of crap. :o
Im supposed to spend $10 on Larry Leiber's poop?
Ang Lee in a Fangoria interview said that the Hulk tease that preemed during the super bowl was "unfinished" and that the finished CGI rendition would beat the pants offa Gollum. Uh huh, yeah sure...Ang Lee - youre a sell out, baby.
Anyone miss Ray Harryhausen? :P
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #1 on: Mon, June 9, 2003, 07:06:49 » |
|
CGI Hulk sucks!
Sure it'll open strong but I got play dough thats more convincing looking than this
X-box piece of crap. :o
:P In complete agreement. CGI SUCKS! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Mon, June 9, 2003, 07:08:26 by flerk1 »
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #2 on: Mon, June 9, 2003, 07:09:03 » |
|
Anyone miss Ray Harryhausen? :P
You're speaking right to me, Robiesan. The whole WORLD is missing Harryhausen and they don't even know it because CGI has become the absolute NORM. My peeve against CGI is it simply doesn't exist. There is nothing there but nothing. Which gives the creators no limits. If there are no limits then there is no tension. The viewer just simpy accepts everything that is thrown at them instead of wondering "how did they do that" which sparks the imagination and draws the viewer deeper into the world of their own imagiation.The world of Haryhausen and Svankmeyjer(sp?) and others that use stop motion begins as an actual three dimensional world, with three dimensional laws. The creator then has to follow those basic laws that we all are saddled with, which makes very shlocky films like, "20 million miles from earth" seem magical. The best use of CGI seems to be when it is used to support the action of the scene or is solely the film itself like the Pixar pictures. Not when it dominates the scene. Because it ends up looking like "Xbox" as you so aptly put it. Take the use of it in Daredevil when Daredevil and Bullseye are scaling the pipe organ. My thumbs began twitching, looking for the leap and run buttons on a game controler that I quickly realized was not in my hands. They looked like CRAP. Anyway, sorry to rant but you spoke to my own pet-peeves and my disappointment in the treatment of the Hulk, which is my first comic book and is held in great regard by myself. It seems the Hulk just always gets the short-end. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Mon, June 9, 2003, 07:29:18 by flerk1 »
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #3 on: Mon, June 9, 2003, 08:13:00 » |
|
One of the major problesm with CGI is that it has no weight - no center of gravity. Fine for Spidey (which had some of the most atrocious FX ever) but a problem for dinosaurs stampeding in Jurrasic what - have -yous.
When Kong leaps down from the stage, he lands with a thud, when a skeleton's sword crosses that with a Jason or Sinbad, an illusion is made real because there is weight and depth to their movements.
Digitized pixels made of air aint gonna replace real... but most audiences dont know or care...they accept the new Bond flick as exciting and yet, what was previously done live-action with full blown stunts now comes across as moving colorforms ruining the impact of a stunt sequence.
A lot of us here and elsewhere know that its crap but until we stop giving into the monoliths that control our media and stop handing over our cold cash its not going to stop anytime soon . And dont get me started on Lucas' 24P stuff replacing film anytime soon. Anyone see that deplorable Clones drek?
The major players constantly rewrite history and common sense is voided because something that is "new" is obviously "improved".
A 3-D cartoon is not "real". Fine for "Toy Story" which has no pretense about WHAT it is, but the filmmakers of "The Hulk" should be ashamed for the abberation and disservice they did to Lee-Kirby's creation.
CGI can be incorporated with models and be somewhat successful. The "X-Men" movie was a good example of that. But as cheesy as some of the shots were in "Superman78", they'll be far greater than the CGI throwback to the animated cartoon flying sequences of the Kirk Alyn Superman serials that'll be in the new Sman flick. Even the flying sequences in "Supergirl" looked sharp when compared to this Mickey Mousing style of FX.
CGI - bah, humbug!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Mon, June 9, 2003, 08:20:48 by Robiesan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #4 on: Mon, June 9, 2003, 09:26:00 » |
|
A lot of us here and elsewhere know that its crap but until we stop giving into the monoliths that control our media and stop handing over our cold cash its not going to stop anytime soon . And dont get me started on Lucas' 24P stuff replacing film anytime soon. Anyone see that deplorable Clones drek?
The major players constantly rewrite history and common sense is voided because something that is "new" is obviously "improved".
STEP BACK! ROBIESAN AND FLERK ON A TEAR! I am in complete agreement on everything you said except I think that a great deal of the movement toward this crap is, it is cheaper and faster. Cheaper and faster aint better, but to the crap-hounds writing the checks, it is "cheaper and faster", which in their bean counting head is "better". The world is going to hell in a hand basket and it is all CGI's fault. >:( >:( >:( >:( WHOA! I just had an adreniline rush! :o |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Mon, June 9, 2003, 12:18:12 by flerk1 »
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #5 on: Mon, June 9, 2003, 17:09:13 » |
|
Flerk, Im gonna watch "Golden Voyage of Sinbad" and stare at Caroline Munro's dalliance with a one eyed centaur and chillllllllllllllllllllllll. :o
Or then again, maybe "The Blue Max" with real WW1 biplane action and Ursula Andress! :P
Now thats SIN-ema! ;D
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Mon, June 9, 2003, 20:23:51 by Robiesan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #6 on: Tue, June 10, 2003, 08:13:00 » |
|
Robiesan,
Just wanted to let you know that my three year old twins favorite movie is Ray Harryhausens' first movie as head of SFX, "20 Million Miles From Earth". They have renamed the "creature" Monkey-monster.
I'm teaching them young.
They don't particularly care for all the "acting" in between the action, and they run through the house screaming "MORE MONKEY-MONSTER", wanting somone to fast-forward through the bad dialogue. I can't blame them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #7 on: Tue, June 10, 2003, 08:43:43 » |
|
Flerk, actually Ray's first solo effortwas "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" but "20 Million Miles" is mighty fine too and your twins are close - since the Ymir (offical name by Ray but not in the films) has an ispired Italo-kong finale. Gotta love William Hopper in that too! LOL And that annoying brat...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #8 on: Tue, June 10, 2003, 08:57:19 » |
|
Dude,
You are quick on the draw with the poster pic. !
I hope you weren't talking about my annoying brat when you were taliking about an annoying brat.
;D
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #9 on: Tue, June 10, 2003, 10:23:16 » |
|
Nah, Flerk I was talking about that kid from the italian fishing village who wanted all the reward lira to buy a horse to match his american cowboy hat.
Pepe. or Was it Tony. Who remembers? ???
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #10 on: Tue, June 10, 2003, 10:57:51 » |
|
Pepe.
It was definetely Pepe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
The Frankster
|
|
« Reply #11 on: Tue, June 10, 2003, 19:55:48 » |
|
Lou Ferrigno will always be the one true Hulk. & how coem the hulk dont talk he sounds liek a stupid lion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
For the latest updates from Your\'s truly check out the frankster\'s files!!!<br />  |
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #12 on: Wed, June 11, 2003, 08:59:53 » |
|
Robiesan,
One exception to the CGI berating we have been so joyously dishing is of course, William Tucci's magna opus : "Some Trouble of a Serrious Nature". [available soon at your nearest comic store]
His subtle use of the computer to enhance the action and story of his well told tale shows how a film-maker can use a light hand for optimum effect. Kudos must also be given to Jack Vilardi (sp?) and his mastering of the medium to take the viewer on a journey of belief in the unreality of the computer generated images.
When are the DVD's available Mr. Tucci?
(how about that for a plug?) ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #13 on: Wed, June 11, 2003, 10:46:54 » |
|
Flerk, yup subtle and not even noticable- cause I asked Billy where the CGI was?! LOL It can be used effectively and subtly in the hands of artists...just dont pull a "Simone" and substitute CGI for a "real" character...or someone who's supposed to be "real" like The Hulk. Some of the CGI was well done in the recent "Pearl Harbor" especially with the multiple Zeros as they only had one real plane to start with, and then cloned it for the sweeping formation attacks. BUT..when you see a film like "The Blue Max" which pulled out all the stops and used vintage and rebuilt Fokkers and Spads ...man, breathtaking stuff! bUT IT COSTS and I guess thats why they dont make em like that anymore.  Im sure Billy ain't gonna use a CGI plane for "The Burning Blue" but those gremlins might be (and again in the case of "Mars Attacks" CGI might actually work to the benefit of the concept) especially if they were looney Bob Clampett gremlins. ;)  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Wed, June 11, 2003, 10:54:46 by Robiesan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sattch
Crusade Uchi-deshi
 Offline
Posts: 82
too much monkey business for me to imbibe again
|
|
« Reply #14 on: Wed, June 11, 2003, 13:39:42 » |
|
CGI and stop-motion are the same, a tool for a filmmaker to tell a story. They're both great if they're used right - the battles in the first Star Wars trilogy - or they can suck if used wrong - the battles in the current Star Wars trilogy.
You can't say all CGI sucks - remember the first Jurassic Park, or the traintop chase in Mission: Impossible or the rain of frogs in Magnolia or the bullettime shot from the Matrix or Fight Club. Or Gump.
What makes a film suck is a director who has no idea how to use those tools.
That's how you get X-Men and Daredevil and Michael Bay.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #15 on: Wed, June 11, 2003, 14:52:57 » |
|
And Satch, unfortunately "the Hulk", regardless of Ang Lee.
And the first "Star Wars" trilogy used old skool FX before their subsequent and needless revamp prior to the prequel release by George "Greedo Shot First" Lucas.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Skud_101
Crusade Uchi-deshi
Offline
Posts: 196
The Disposable Assassin
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Wed, June 11, 2003, 17:06:21 » |
|
I think I'll see it before I rant about it...
But personally, I like CGI... And Claymation for that matter ;D
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Skud: He's here to help
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Wed, June 11, 2003, 18:07:12 » |
|
Hey Skud, claymation is stop motion animation grounded in reality.
yeah, see it - my ranting is only based on the trailer theyre bombarding us with morning, noon and night.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Skud_101
Crusade Uchi-deshi
Offline
Posts: 196
The Disposable Assassin
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Thu, June 12, 2003, 00:27:45 » |
|
Hey Skud, claymation is stop motion animation grounded in reality. I know how they do it! I went to ardman animation back in the UK... I saw it ::) I was just saying that I have a fondness for it ;D Oh... and why are you dissing the X-box? >:( |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Skud: He's here to help
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Thu, June 12, 2003, 06:59:39 » |
|
Oh... and why are you dissing the X-box? >:(
Speaking for myself, I was not "dissing" Xbox, I was dissing CGI in films that use it badly. CGI is a perfect medium for gaming. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Thu, June 12, 2003, 07:41:22 » |
|
I second THAT demotion. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Skud_101
Crusade Uchi-deshi
Offline
Posts: 196
The Disposable Assassin
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Thu, June 12, 2003, 22:16:12 » |
|
Then why mention it? and add the "peice of crap" on the end? So far the Box has out done anything anyone else has made.
*Waves Microsoft flag*
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Skud: He's here to help
|
|
|
|
flerk
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Fri, June 13, 2003, 08:15:11 » |
|
Oh boy I have to explain EVERYTHING.
Okay Skud old Bean,
I believe that the "box" is being used as a "reference" as to where CGI is most "effective" and also used as an example to state that CGI doesn't look great on "film" because whemn it is used on "film" it looks "fake", so when we say it looks like it belongs in the "box" it belongs in the "box" as opposed to a 150 million dollar movie that has a job of suspending the viewers disbelief for the time spent watching the movie. So, when a movie viewer such as myself or Robiesan watches a big Hollywood movie and our "disbelief" is not suspended we get mad at the filmmaker for using a special effects technique that from our viewpoint cheapens the experience. So we refer to the Xbox or Nintendo or Sega as a reference point because that is where the medium is used 100% of the time. It is a computer, film is not a computer it is a medium made up of chemicals and . . . .
Oh Jesus Christ. . . .help me out Robiesan. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hey, I'm not a jerk. . . oh. . . I don't know anymore. . . maybe I am. . . if I hadn't found that skunk by the road, none of this would have happened. . .
|
|
|
|
Doc Furious
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Fri, June 13, 2003, 08:41:57 » |
|
Yup.
CGI in films no look real.
XBox or gaming situations its fine because the entire melieu is digitized and hence not "real".
Its like putting an acrylic plastic(CGI) on top of a fine oil painting (motion picture film) and expecting the two to blend or recreate a "reality" seamlessly. They dont.
Nuff said.
Even in the review you posted, Skud, Variety said the film is undermined in its tragic scope by the "cartoony-ness" of its central character, the Hulk. Imagine if the renedering had been more reality based...
I fear for "Van Helsing"...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
