Films/DVD Asylum

RE: It IS almost 10 years old.

68.63.130.56

Victor Khomenko

In Reply to: RE: It IS almost 10 years old. posted by Prisoners on January 27, 2010 at 14:55:33

***CGI has improved..and continues to improve..by leaps and bounds.
They shouldn't. They should have been choked to death in their cradle.
That is why I will watch the Waterloo but refuse the modern dreck.

Edits: 01/27/10

Follow Ups:

It remains amazing to me how someone could think "Star Wars" and all of its - tinear 16:53:35 01/27/10 (4)
future clones look "realistic." They look exactly like what they are, crude facsimiles of reality.
Anyone that has seen, "2001: A Space Odyssey" either in its original format (true Cinemascope) or on a large screen with a "clean" copy knows the difference. It isn't even close. CGI's popularity truly is a mystery. SO fakey it isn't even arguable.
- It is a philosophical thing - Victor Khomenko 17:28:24 01/27/10 (3)
  I think in a SciFi movie one can take two different roads.
  
  One - just hint at new worlds, don't fall all over yourself trying to fool the viewers, put there just enough to make it look unlike the reality. In some sense this is what the theater does, with its obviously artificial decorations.
  
  This is the road the Solaris takes, and it succeeds. Yes, the viewer has no doubts regarding the place and time, but it is all done with very simple means.
  
  The other road is in throwing in everything plus the proverbial sink, trying to impress... Whom? The teenagers.
  
  That is the 2001 approach, and it fails.
  
  Instead of learning the lesson, the future generations of directors simply decided more junk was "much more better", if you overwhelm the viewer you then can win the Oscars. So we had endless Star Wars, then more stuff, then LoTR, and now that Avatar thingy.
  
  Nothing but tinsel. Actors who can't act, plot that can't stand on its feet, images that do nothing for the brain.
  - 2001 fails in showing a realistic depiction of space? Strong disagreement! - tinear 08:05:11 01/28/10 (2)
    The spaceships, their flight over the planet surface, the landing.... all look amazingly real, even today. You know why, I assume? NO FX. All models and then older-fashioned analog manipulation. I'd argue that the effects in "Forbidden Planet" similarly surpass any CGI bullshit.
    One of the best parts of 2001 is its portrayal of Russians. I bet that's what bothers you!
    - RE: 2001 fails in showing a realistic depiction of space? Strong disagreement! - Victor Khomenko 09:17:02 01/28/10 (0)
      ***The spaceships, their flight over the planet surface, the landing.... all look amazingly real, even today.
      
      Really? Realistic? Have you seen objects fly by at space velocities?
      
      Forget that... have you seen a pistol bullet fly?
      
      There was nothing realistic about the film.
    - RE: 2001 Was merde. - patrickU 08:43:11 01/28/10 (0)
      Back then I remember I was the only one of all my friends who did not like it.
      Save the first five minutes of magic, the rest was empty as empty can be.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft