 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Why Titanic? posted by Tranny on February 29, 2000 at 08:42:15:
"2.) The most exciting special effects sequences of the 90's"
???Have you seen "The Matrix"? or similar movies? I don't remeber any mind-shattering special effects in the Titanic. Could you mention some?
RichardH
There are MANY special effects in that movie. In fact it is one of the most effects laden of recent Hollywood releases in the last few years.Basically, another to do with the ship sailing, sinking, whatever is a special effect. When the ship is sinking is astonishing. Re-watch the part where its rear is lifted high in the air with people on-board. It's amazing!
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
By exciting special effects, I mean the blending of the creators work to further enhance the quality of the movie. In my opinion, The Matrix was a poor movie, therefore, the effects in the film were put to waste.(Karate flicks never did it for me anyway)Unless you'd like to claim that The Matrix was a more effective film(which might be your opinion) that's what I'm talking about. Besides, I would say that 11 Oscars and 13 nominations(both records) somewhat supports my opinion of the film.
Oh well, I'm your basic Titanic Geek.
Tranny
Just 5 minutes ago I was talking to someone about The Matrix. I feel that over the much-hyped The Phantom Menace, The Matrix is THE special effects movie of last year. As for the story, it was decent, but the realistic mixing of effects with the action was spellbinding. In terms of technical mastery it is a great movie.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
http://www.soundstage.com/
I didn't really like "The Matrix" either, but I simply mentioned it as it is jam-packed with special effects. As for the Oscars, I don't think that makes any difference. Look at the Backstreet Boys, they're popular, does that make them good? Well, not in my book.Saving Private Ryan, now there's a good movie.
Richard H
Have you seen Dark City....a very unrated movie IMHO.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
http://www.soundstage.com/
Unfortunately, I don't think Private Ryan will endure the test of time. I thoughly enjoyed the theatrical experience but have no desire to ever see it again.
I've only seen it once, in the theater, and it was a great experience. I agree with you, it's the sort of movie that losing something on repeat viewings. Still, it is what a great movie is supposed to be. For me, that means that it is one of a handful that actually made me rethink certain paradigms that I hold.RichardH
I find that I enjoy replayable stuff much more even upon 1st viewing. (e.g: I just replayed my "My Girl" LD tonight) I find myself stating that I want the film on LD when I leave the flick. I did that with "Matrix" & I'm not a Keanu fan (a DiCaprian actor). I thought it was a nice blend of "Lost in Space" & "Avengers". It had tons of effects that was harmoniously emblished with interjected style. The result was techincal equivalent of the "Oxbow Incident" in its cimenatic beauty. Where did this scenerio break down for you?
I thought if the ending had been a little more imaginative it would have really been a great movie, I still think it was pretty good though.
greg horn
to "me" that many Oscars mean just one thing, stay far far away. It was a movie explicitly designed for the acedemy. It wasn't meant to be enjoyed. It's a sure sign that it's poor & this rule of thumb is having less exceptions every year. The Oscars have become a marketting gimmick. If they design a picture that sweaps the Oscars & manage to have it still playing, they can clean up by the gullible masses. Not me, not anymore, too many flops & utter failures later, I'm on to them.
My experience with people who hate successful films is that there are other underlying issues not mentioned.Example- Many of the Titanic Haters crowd will fess up and admit their Star Wars obsession afterward. I don't know why that is, just happens alot.
Hey, I totally disagree with everything you mentioned but I'm enjoying the forum at this site. No problemo.
Tranny
My experience with people who hate successful films is that there are other underlying issues not mentioned.Example- Many of the Titanic Haters crowd will fess up and admit their Star Wars obsession afterward. I don't know why that is, just happens alot.
1st, you can keep the Phantom Menace too.
But, is there something wrong with this statewment? hmmm...
Perhaps, it's because Star Wars was successful?! I'll step out on a limb here & say it may just be a contradiction. Ya think?
Nah, can't be ... that would mean you have some unresolved issues.
I just want something intelligent fun & entertaining. Ya know ... like the beginning of Titanic. That was rivoting. The rest .... how did it go again?
But, I guess that's too much to ask of hollywood these days.
The special effects were vast and plenty and were use to help tell the story. The trick is to know when they are happening. For example, many times unoticed, green screening and using powerful software like Ultimate, with expert lighting you'll never know when things are happening unless you're told by insiders. Reading Cinefex's (Special Effects magazine) "Making of Titanic" issue you'll find the finer details of what were effects and what weren't. As Titanic wasn't showing off it's special effects, there was many great FX and the compositing was superb.You have Kate and Leo at a the front of the ship, that's a studio prop with green screen behind them. The camera is pre-programed a pass that's centered on Kate and Leo, then it pans away following the Titanic ship prop. Then the CGI artists have to create that part of the ship to every detail to the last nail, and match the perspective, angles, lighting. Then the path of the real camera is fed into the CGI camera(camera animation path) so that the CGI camera flys along the CGI ship and looks back at the ship as it passes by in the vast digital ocean. Then it's off to the compositors who take away the green screen and add in the CGI seamlessly. There could be tons of compositing layers but in the end we just see one long pan shot without us saying "hey that's a cool special effect"
Actually, that shot was obvious. The lack of a proper shadow from the ship onto the "water" (rounded white caps) & the generic ocean spray from the bow was screaming CG.It's never a good idea to use CG to model chaotic events. At least not until computers grow another quantum level (roughly 10GHz & 100Tbytes) which'll be in about a decade.
What I can't understand, with their there big budget, is that Titanic used the same dolphin clip from Steven Seagal's "Under Siege".
the only one that was any good was meant not to be mind shattering. As such this may be a surprise to you but some of the extras are CG/FX. The regular stuff was rather poor.
Of course they're CG generated. What's the difference anyway. The Matrix was all CG generated too(many people liked the effects in this film).All I care about is the end result, and the subtle work by Cameron to not overwhelm the audience was genious in my opinion.
Hey, enough Titanic for me today.
Later,
Tranny
into a cohesive statement of suspension of disbelief. To "me", most of it was like watching a saturday morning cartoon. Wakes were wrong. Current was wrong. Shadows were wrong. I could go on but you've got the concept. The project waranted a physical model.
There were four physical models used in the filming. Each a different size. The ship splitting scene, for instance, was a real model and real water.Just wanted to clear that up.
Tranny
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
