Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: forgotten Herge' last will

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: forgotten Herge' last will Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: forgotten Herge' last will - 1/11/2010 3:05:46 PM   
MarieMJS


Posts: 311
Joined: 15/11/2006
From: London
quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

Can you tell the rest of us what he's on about then?


I wish I knew LOL, Ive tried understanding this in both languages, it's a pretty epic form of literal French->English LOL.

Oh well, back on topic! Had a few more feedbacks from people at lunch time, so far, not good... I wonder if they studio exec will read the forum... ahaha!


_____________________________

3D animator - French, so, probably, rude (I might insult your clothing) - lurking 98% of the time

Missing Big Screen was never an option.

(in reply to pete_traynor)
Post #: 31
RE: forgotten Herge' last will - 1/11/2010 3:26:40 PM   
crazymoviesdude

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 16/12/2005
I just don't get it. I am unimpressed with these few images, but more than purely the realism, or lack there of, I'm confused about the need for recognisable actors to play the roles. These images look nothing at all like Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis. Nothing Like. The navi and avatars looked very much like their actors. Even in that there video game, Serkis' character looks subtley like him. Why did they not just pluck some good actors from obscurity and have them play the roles? It would have been cheaper. Clearly it was always their intention to entirely alter their images to fit the characters. If it was a question of having recognisable voices, it would have still cheaper to have unknowns act out the characters and then have the stars just voice it. It all seems so pointless. I'm gonna go back to not caring much about this project.

(in reply to MarieMJS)
Post #: 32
RE: 3 pictures folks - 1/11/2010 3:49:23 PM   
Drew_231

 

Posts: 882
Joined: 7/5/2008
Ok have to say it has grown on me throughout the day.
And we still have about a year to go dont we?

Edit: The spammer 2 posts below me has 59 posts?? Seriously can you not just ban these accounts as soon as they appear?


< Message edited by Drew_231 -- 1/11/2010 5:26:16 PM >

(in reply to MarieMJS)
Post #: 33
RE: I don't get it - 1/11/2010 7:14:29 PM   
Bighousewill

 

Posts: 244
Joined: 5/12/2009
It's a Mo-Cap film motion capture like Gollum from Lord of the Rings.
Post #: 34
We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 1/11/2010 9:19:06 PM   
crazymoviesdude

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 16/12/2005
What in the hell is wrong with you Pig? We are not haters. We have displayed no hate at all. YOU have displayed oodles of hate towards us just for having the opposing opinion. Free speech can't really be described as necessary, it's a right, and the fact is, a majority of people here, are of the opinion that these images aren't very good. If anyone has said 'the film will be bad' that IS wrong, and judging an entire film upon 3 images is stupid, but judging 3 images to be 'crap' based on those 3 images, is perfectly justified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Merlin the happy pig

Yes, it is photo real, actually.



You can't just say that. To your eyes, maybe they are, but to most of our eyes, they certainly are not photo real, and whilst better than Polar Express, they are certainly closer in quality to that than to Avatar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Merlin the happy pig

Pete Traynor, I doubt you're a 3D animator, or a good one at any rate. The shoulders are fine for the angle at which he has his arms.
Stick to your student quality animation on 3rd rate commercials.



Are YOU a 3D animator? Do you have mountains of talent? I'm sure Pete is, and so am I, though I AM a student, but even I have a decent level of knowledge, which possibly you don't have and are just being a really rude apologist. I have rethought, and yes, his shoulders could be appropriately placed, but why must you be so confrontational about it? Does us saying these images aren't promising imply that we could do better?

I have done a similar thing as you are doing now. I've bitched about everyone else because I was in the minority, but it is so stupid, and I understand that now. What's your problem? If you believe that we are all morons and fools because we think one thing based on the evidence we've seen, why are you not a moron or fool because you think the opposite based on the same evidence.

Thanx for your time.

< Message edited by crazymoviesdude -- 1/11/2010 9:25:10 PM >
Post #: 35
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 1/11/2010 10:21:56 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Pete, you have grown a number of fans and haters here.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to crazymoviesdude)
Post #: 36
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 1/11/2010 10:28:20 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
It is nothing to go with the quailty of the effects, but rather the style that is being used. I had hoped it would be a lot more stylised,but heck - Spielberg, Jackson and a script by Steven Moffat? I'm interested. 

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 37
RE: prejudice - 2/11/2010 12:53:35 AM   
Quentin Black

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/10/2005
Having gotten over my initial feelings of cynicism towards Spielberg and Jackson, who while being good filmmakers are also two of the most overrated ones, I waited for these images with hope and excitement. However these images have not delivered and as per usual I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. What is going to happen is Empire and the rest of the media is going to hype this project up, the films are going to make a lot of money and a lot of cinema goers are going to be dissapointed.

Spielberg, Jackson, Lucas and Cameron belong to a group of filmmakers who can seemingly do no wrong in the mass media, even though their recent output is pretty mediocre (admittedly Avatar just about gets away with it by providing amazing visuals, even if the film itself was pretty standard). What's worse is that they're leading the 3D/digital/mo-cap/whatever bandwagon in Hollywood and Empire has jumped right on without thinking. When this technology is used right it can be brilliant, like the way Nolan uses IMAX or Fincher uses mo-cap. However the guilty parties are just churning out projects that are completely style over substance, pushing out their films on the back of the latest technology craze. Just as 3D didn't make my viewing of Avatar any more enjoyable (in fact the out of focus backgrounds got pretty irritating) I don't think throwing a load of CGI at TinTin will improve the film in anyway (in fact it looks really creepy).

Just out of interest...

Indiana Jones and the Alien People - 4 stars
War of the Worlds - 4 stars
The Terminal - 4 stars
AI - 5 stars
King Kong - 5 stars
Revenge of the Sith - 4 stars
Attack of the Clones - 5 stars (changed to 3 since a whole heap of backlash)
Phantom Menace - 4 or 5 stars (again changed to 3 with the benefit of hindsight)

...can anyone honestly say that these very flawed films would get these ratings from Empire if they weren't made by these big names? This is not objective journalism and film fans deserve better, especially since we all know these filmmakers are capable of better. Empire needs to stop being lazy and take a stand against their mediocrity because it's quickly gaining a reputation for being just another celebrity-centric magazine that hypes up whatever Hollywood spoon feeds it.

These people and the 3d/mo-cap craze they brandish like a toy is not the future of film. The future of film lies with Scorsese, Thomas Anderson, Coen brothers, Nolan and the many others who put the film first (even if they aren't to everyone's tastes and don't make billions of dollars) and gimmicks second. The ones you could describe as artists.
Post #: 38
RE: prejudice - 2/11/2010 2:30:13 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:


...can anyone honestly say that these very flawed films would get these ratings from Empire if they weren't made by these big names?


Dunno, but I hope so, as I liked Indy 4, AI, War of the Worlds (I still find it very tense), The Terminal and King Kong. And I'm not sure how objective one can be when reviewing a film. A director I like will always get something of a preference from me.



_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 39
RE: prejudice - 2/11/2010 4:44:55 AM   
oui3d


Posts: 648
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Bedford UK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

Having gotten over my initial feelings of cynicism towards Spielberg and Jackson, who while being good filmmakers are also two of the most overrated ones, I waited for these images with hope and excitement. However these images have not delivered and as per usual I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. What is going to happen is Empire and the rest of the media is going to hype this project up, the films are going to make a lot of money and a lot of cinema goers are going to be dissapointed.

Popular isn't overrated. This is cinema, for entertainment. Do you remember entertainment?

Spielberg, Jackson, Lucas and Cameron belong to a group of filmmakers who can seemingly do no wrong in the mass media, even though their recent output is pretty mediocre (admittedly Avatar just about gets away with it by providing amazing visuals, even if the film itself was pretty standard). What's worse is that they're leading the 3D/digital/mo-cap/whatever bandwagon in Hollywood and Empire has jumped right on without thinking. When this technology is used right it can be brilliant, like the way Nolan uses IMAX or Fincher uses mo-cap. However the guilty parties are just churning out projects that are completely style over substance, pushing out their films on the back of the latest technology craze. Just as 3D didn't make my viewing of Avatar any more enjoyable (in fact the out of focus backgrounds got pretty irritating) I don't think throwing a load of CGI at TinTin will improve the film in anyway (in fact it looks really creepy).

Just out of interest...

Indiana Jones and the Alien People - 4 stars
War of the Worlds - 4 stars
The Terminal - 4 stars
AI - 5 stars
King Kong - 5 stars
Revenge of the Sith - 4 stars
Attack of the Clones - 5 stars (changed to 3 since a whole heap of backlash)
Phantom Menace - 4 or 5 stars (again changed to 3 with the benefit of hindsight)

...can anyone honestly say that these very flawed films would get these ratings from Empire if they weren't made by these big names? This is not objective journalism and film fans deserve better, especially since we all know these filmmakers are capable of better. Empire needs to stop being lazy and take a stand against their mediocrity because it's quickly gaining a reputation for being just another celebrity-centric magazine that hypes up whatever Hollywood spoon feeds it.

These people and the 3d/mo-cap craze they brandish like a toy is not the future of film. The future of film lies with Scorsese, Thomas Anderson, Coen brothers, Nolan and the many others who put the film first (even if they aren't to everyone's tastes and don't make billions of dollars) and gimmicks second. The ones you could describe as artists.



No really do you understand cinema? You obviously don't love it. You seem to have a very limited view of the variety of films being made out there. (and the people making them, old white men only, really?)How does having an interest in emerging technologies exclude a filmmaker from the future of cinema? Do you think we should have stopped at stereo sound? After all we do only have the two ears.

I constantly hear the "CGI is shit, practical is best" brigade bleating on about being taken out of the film by effects. and all i can ask is.

a) Sure you were paying attention?

b) Were you really convinced by the original King Kong? Were Harryhausen's skeletons in Jason & the Argonauts flawless? In fact, watching at the Thing did you have trouble separating effects from reality?

Did you knackers....

If you knew the slightest about film you'd argue story first and if Jackson / Spielberg don't know enough about story for you then you need to stop listening to the voices, they're lying to you. Film is allowed to be fun.

_____________________________

No French, German, Spanish or Scandinavian film company is allowed to release a film in America. No British film company is allowed to release a film in America. And yet we allow America 100% access to our domestic market.

The best Star Wars film was directed by a 55 year old journeyman. Mental isn't it?

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 40
RE: Shrek ? - 2/11/2010 10:14:44 AM   
crazymoviesdude

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 16/12/2005
I don't really think the style is bad, its just isn't the photo-realism we were promised. Yes they do have a whole year so that may come. I stull can't figure why they needed big name actors when not even a fleck of them is on screen. 135 mil (according to wikipedia) seems very cheap for this movie, but surely getting unknowns for the cast would have been much cheaper and the characters would look the same.
Post #: 41
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 2/11/2010 4:08:37 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Pete, you have grown a number of fans and haters here.


I know Dev! What the fuck? I'm turning into you!   In fact, I'm turning this Pete bashing into my signature accordingly! 
 
And Merlin! I didn't say anything negative about the poxy shoulders, animation or 3D ! I'm one of the few who seems to like these pictures.
 
Just for the record I'm not an animator but I illustrate and do digital art, so I'm pretty familiar with the human form and the way it moves. But the point stands, unless I was sleep typing, I don't remember saying anything about the shoulders so take your petty grievances up with someone else. I've just checked back through this thread and I definitely never mentioned shoulders. I have been positive about those shots since my first post.
 
Oh Merlin, you are pretty far from a happy little pig! Quite a negative, standoffish and rude one actually.

< Message edited by pete_traynor -- 2/11/2010 4:18:29 PM >


_____________________________

EXTREMELY LIMITED 1/1 FILM DIRECTOR HAND DRAWN ORIGINALS COMING SOON - http://lomierart.blogspot.co.uk/

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 42
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 2/11/2010 4:21:28 PM   
JIm R

 

Posts: 9185
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Surrey
quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Pete, you have grown a number of fans and haters here.


I know Dev! What the fuck? I'm turning into you!   In fact, I'm turning this Pete bashing into my signature accordingly! 
 
And Merlin! I didn't say anything negative about the poxy shoulders, animation or 3D ! I'm one of the few who seems to like these pictures.
 
Just for the record I'm not an animator but I illustrate and do digital art, so I'm pretty familiar with the human form and the way it moves. But the point stands, unless I was sleep typing, I don't remember saying anything about the shoulders so take your petty grievances up with someone else. I've just checked back through this thread and I definitely never mentioned shoulders. I have been positive about those shots since my first post.
 
Oh Merlin, you are pretty far from a happy little pig! Quite a negative, standoffish and rude one actually.


I'd get out Pete and head back to the Batman Future Film thread where your views are wanted and meet approval

(in reply to pete_traynor)
Post #: 43
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 2/11/2010 4:24:47 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Pete, you have grown a number of fans and haters here.


I know Dev! What the fuck? I'm turning into you!   In fact, I'm turning this Pete bashing into my signature accordingly! 
 
And Merlin! I didn't say anything negative about the poxy shoulders, animation or 3D ! I'm one of the few who seems to like these pictures.
 
Just for the record I'm not an animator but I illustrate and do digital art, so I'm pretty familiar with the human form and the way it moves. But the point stands, unless I was sleep typing, I don't remember saying anything about the shoulders so take your petty grievances up with someone else. I've just checked back through this thread and I definitely never mentioned shoulders. I have been positive about those shots since my first post.
 
Oh Merlin, you are pretty far from a happy little pig! Quite a negative, standoffish and rude one actually.


I'd get out Pete and head back to the Batman Future Film thread where your views are wanted and meet approval


En route!

_____________________________

EXTREMELY LIMITED 1/1 FILM DIRECTOR HAND DRAWN ORIGINALS COMING SOON - http://lomierart.blogspot.co.uk/

(in reply to JIm R)
Post #: 44
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 2/11/2010 4:49:58 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

I know Dev! What the fuck? I'm turning into you! In fact, I'm turning this Pete bashing into my signature accordingly!


Long way to go maaaaaaan.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to pete_traynor)
Post #: 45
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 2/11/2010 4:55:53 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

I know Dev! What the fuck? I'm turning into you! In fact, I'm turning this Pete bashing into my signature accordingly!


Long way to go maaaaaaan.



Just over 20,000 posts to go… I will endure! 

_____________________________

EXTREMELY LIMITED 1/1 FILM DIRECTOR HAND DRAWN ORIGINALS COMING SOON - http://lomierart.blogspot.co.uk/

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 46
RE: We aren't haters because we are unimpressed. - 2/11/2010 5:04:09 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Go back to your student quality animation on 3rd rate commercials.

I am disappointed on the pics shown here there, after some 4 years of work I expected something spectacular looking, like a live-action comic strip (guess I'm going to have with Dick Tracy for that), instead all I got here is a another 3D animated film.

I'll have to stick with Dick Tracy then....


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to pete_traynor)
Post #: 47
RE: prejudice - 3/11/2010 2:11:51 AM   
Quentin Black

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: oui3d


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

Having gotten over my initial feelings of cynicism towards Spielberg and Jackson, who while being good filmmakers are also two of the most overrated ones, I waited for these images with hope and excitement. However these images have not delivered and as per usual I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. What is going to happen is Empire and the rest of the media is going to hype this project up, the films are going to make a lot of money and a lot of cinema goers are going to be dissapointed.

Popular isn't overrated. This is cinema, for entertainment. Do you remember entertainment?

Spielberg, Jackson, Lucas and Cameron belong to a group of filmmakers who can seemingly do no wrong in the mass media, even though their recent output is pretty mediocre (admittedly Avatar just about gets away with it by providing amazing visuals, even if the film itself was pretty standard). What's worse is that they're leading the 3D/digital/mo-cap/whatever bandwagon in Hollywood and Empire has jumped right on without thinking. When this technology is used right it can be brilliant, like the way Nolan uses IMAX or Fincher uses mo-cap. However the guilty parties are just churning out projects that are completely style over substance, pushing out their films on the back of the latest technology craze. Just as 3D didn't make my viewing of Avatar any more enjoyable (in fact the out of focus backgrounds got pretty irritating) I don't think throwing a load of CGI at TinTin will improve the film in anyway (in fact it looks really creepy).

Just out of interest...

Indiana Jones and the Alien People - 4 stars
War of the Worlds - 4 stars
The Terminal - 4 stars
AI - 5 stars
King Kong - 5 stars
Revenge of the Sith - 4 stars
Attack of the Clones - 5 stars (changed to 3 since a whole heap of backlash)
Phantom Menace - 4 or 5 stars (again changed to 3 with the benefit of hindsight)

...can anyone honestly say that these very flawed films would get these ratings from Empire if they weren't made by these big names? This is not objective journalism and film fans deserve better, especially since we all know these filmmakers are capable of better. Empire needs to stop being lazy and take a stand against their mediocrity because it's quickly gaining a reputation for being just another celebrity-centric magazine that hypes up whatever Hollywood spoon feeds it.

These people and the 3d/mo-cap craze they brandish like a toy is not the future of film. The future of film lies with Scorsese, Thomas Anderson, Coen brothers, Nolan and the many others who put the film first (even if they aren't to everyone's tastes and don't make billions of dollars) and gimmicks second. The ones you could describe as artists.



No really do you understand cinema? You obviously don't love it. You seem to have a very limited view of the variety of films being made out there. (and the people making them, old white men only, really?)How does having an interest in emerging technologies exclude a filmmaker from the future of cinema? Do you think we should have stopped at stereo sound? After all we do only have the two ears.

I constantly hear the "CGI is shit, practical is best" brigade bleating on about being taken out of the film by effects. and all i can ask is.

a) Sure you were paying attention?

b) Were you really convinced by the original King Kong? Were Harryhausen's skeletons in Jason & the Argonauts flawless? In fact, watching at the Thing did you have trouble separating effects from reality?

Did you knackers....

If you knew the slightest about film you'd argue story first and if Jackson / Spielberg don't know enough about story for you then you need to stop listening to the voices, they're lying to you. Film is allowed to be fun.


Oh god you're one of those people. You're one of those people who leaps to Hollywood's (and by proxy Empire's) defense using the tired argument "films are all about escapism and should be fun" or "Spielberg/Jackson/Lucas made some great films so every mediocre film they've made since is just as great and you just don't understand film and story like they do".

If Spielberg was half the master of narrative people hype him up to be he wouldn't have had shitty looking CGI aliens ruin both Indiana Jones and AI or pander to audiences with cop out, saccharin endings that don't make sense (seriously, how did Tom Cruise's son survive the explosion in War of the Worlds and find his way back to his dad?).

If Jackson really understood story he wouldn't need twelve endings to end Return of the King or have used the first hour of King Kong to introduce subplots and intrigue that never gets explored because he's too busy spending the next two hours playing out repetitive monster fights.

If Lucas knew anything about story telling he wouldn't have written the Star Wars prequels.

Look I'm all for fun films. Tron for example looks like it's going to be awesome and comic book films are a guilty pleasure of mine. However watching Spielberg and Lucas crowbar shitty looking CGI aliens into a great franchise isn't my idea of fun. Neither is watching a senate hearing about intergalactic trade my idea of adventure. The problem with Spielberg and co is that they have the money and power to do what they want and as a result they just prat around with technology, making films that sacrifice creativity and artistic merit for polished mediocrity that people will pay money for. All hype and no delivery. Sadly people like you will always lap it up thinking polishing a turd is the same thing as being creative.

If you'd actually bother to read what I wrote you'd understand I'm not saying that films aren't supposed to be fun or shouldn't use emerging technology. The filmmakers I listed there used all this technology (Nolan uses IMAX, Fincher uses mo-cap, Scorsese is filming his latest in 3D) and Nolan in particular makes movies that appeal to a broad audience. Examples of younger or foreign directors who are pushing the artistic and technological boundries of film include Duncan Jones and Tarsem. Regardless of background (I don't even know why you brought up age or race...oh wait I know...because your argument doesn't really have a point) the one thing they have in common is that they are all adamant about using the technology to enhance the story, themes and characters of the film rather than replacing them with the effects.

The Tin Tin pictures look neither ground breaking or exciting. They just look creepy and distracting.

PS Spielberg himself admitted that if he had the technology at the time, he would have had as much of the shark as possible in Jaws. Instead of being the suspenseful thriller that changed cinema that it was it would have ended up as a dated predecessor to Deep Blue Sea. Cramming as much technology into your film isn't necessarily a good thing.

(in reply to oui3d)
Post #: 48
RE: prejudice - 7/11/2010 6:15:07 PM   
haldir

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 29/9/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

quote:

ORIGINAL: oui3d


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

Having gotten over my initial feelings of cynicism towards Spielberg and Jackson, who while being good filmmakers are also two of the most overrated ones, I waited for these images with hope and excitement. However these images have not delivered and as per usual I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. What is going to happen is Empire and the rest of the media is going to hype this project up, the films are going to make a lot of money and a lot of cinema goers are going to be dissapointed.

Popular isn't overrated. This is cinema, for entertainment. Do you remember entertainment?

Spielberg, Jackson, Lucas and Cameron belong to a group of filmmakers who can seemingly do no wrong in the mass media, even though their recent output is pretty mediocre (admittedly Avatar just about gets away with it by providing amazing visuals, even if the film itself was pretty standard). What's worse is that they're leading the 3D/digital/mo-cap/whatever bandwagon in Hollywood and Empire has jumped right on without thinking. When this technology is used right it can be brilliant, like the way Nolan uses IMAX or Fincher uses mo-cap. However the guilty parties are just churning out projects that are completely style over substance, pushing out their films on the back of the latest technology craze. Just as 3D didn't make my viewing of Avatar any more enjoyable (in fact the out of focus backgrounds got pretty irritating) I don't think throwing a load of CGI at TinTin will improve the film in anyway (in fact it looks really creepy).

Just out of interest...

Indiana Jones and the Alien People - 4 stars
War of the Worlds - 4 stars
The Terminal - 4 stars
AI - 5 stars
King Kong - 5 stars
Revenge of the Sith - 4 stars
Attack of the Clones - 5 stars (changed to 3 since a whole heap of backlash)
Phantom Menace - 4 or 5 stars (again changed to 3 with the benefit of hindsight)

...can anyone honestly say that these very flawed films would get these ratings from Empire if they weren't made by these big names? This is not objective journalism and film fans deserve better, especially since we all know these filmmakers are capable of better. Empire needs to stop being lazy and take a stand against their mediocrity because it's quickly gaining a reputation for being just another celebrity-centric magazine that hypes up whatever Hollywood spoon feeds it.

These people and the 3d/mo-cap craze they brandish like a toy is not the future of film. The future of film lies with Scorsese, Thomas Anderson, Coen brothers, Nolan and the many others who put the film first (even if they aren't to everyone's tastes and don't make billions of dollars) and gimmicks second. The ones you could describe as artists.



No really do you understand cinema? You obviously don't love it. You seem to have a very limited view of the variety of films being made out there. (and the people making them, old white men only, really?)How does having an interest in emerging technologies exclude a filmmaker from the future of cinema? Do you think we should have stopped at stereo sound? After all we do only have the two ears.

I constantly hear the "CGI is shit, practical is best" brigade bleating on about being taken out of the film by effects. and all i can ask is.

a) Sure you were paying attention?

b) Were you really convinced by the original King Kong? Were Harryhausen's skeletons in Jason & the Argonauts flawless? In fact, watching at the Thing did you have trouble separating effects from reality?

Did you knackers....

If you knew the slightest about film you'd argue story first and if Jackson / Spielberg don't know enough about story for you then you need to stop listening to the voices, they're lying to you. Film is allowed to be fun.


Oh god you're one of those people. You're one of those people who leaps to Hollywood's (and by proxy Empire's) defense using the tired argument "films are all about escapism and should be fun" or "Spielberg/Jackson/Lucas made some great films so every mediocre film they've made since is just as great and you just don't understand film and story like they do".

If Spielberg was half the master of narrative people hype him up to be he wouldn't have had shitty looking CGI aliens ruin both Indiana Jones and AI or pander to audiences with cop out, saccharin endings that don't make sense (seriously, how did Tom Cruise's son survive the explosion in War of the Worlds and find his way back to his dad?).

If Jackson really understood story he wouldn't need twelve endings to end Return of the King or have used the first hour of King Kong to introduce subplots and intrigue that never gets explored because he's too busy spending the next two hours playing out repetitive monster fights.

If Lucas knew anything about story telling he wouldn't have written the Star Wars prequels.

Look I'm all for fun films. Tron for example looks like it's going to be awesome and comic book films are a guilty pleasure of mine. However watching Spielberg and Lucas crowbar shitty looking CGI aliens into a great franchise isn't my idea of fun. Neither is watching a senate hearing about intergalactic trade my idea of adventure. The problem with Spielberg and co is that they have the money and power to do what they want and as a result they just prat around with technology, making films that sacrifice creativity and artistic merit for polished mediocrity that people will pay money for. All hype and no delivery. Sadly people like you will always lap it up thinking polishing a turd is the same thing as being creative.

If you'd actually bother to read what I wrote you'd understand I'm not saying that films aren't supposed to be fun or shouldn't use emerging technology. The filmmakers I listed there used all this technology (Nolan uses IMAX, Fincher uses mo-cap, Scorsese is filming his latest in 3D) and Nolan in particular makes movies that appeal to a broad audience. Examples of younger or foreign directors who are pushing the artistic and technological boundries of film include Duncan Jones and Tarsem. Regardless of background (I don't even know why you brought up age or race...oh wait I know...because your argument doesn't really have a point) the one thing they have in common is that they are all adamant about using the technology to enhance the story, themes and characters of the film rather than replacing them with the effects.

The Tin Tin pictures look neither ground breaking or exciting. They just look creepy and distracting.

PS Spielberg himself admitted that if he had the technology at the time, he would have had as much of the shark as possible in Jaws. Instead of being the suspenseful thriller that changed cinema that it was it would have ended up as a dated predecessor to Deep Blue Sea. Cramming as much technology into your film isn't necessarily a good thing.


The quote about lord of the rings needing 12 endings made me laugh, i take it you tried to remove that comment after seeing how stupid the comment was.It does make me laugh when peeps think they know what there talking about but really they have no idea at all.You clearly havent seen LOTR ROTK there fore its advised not to comment on things you havent seen.

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 49
RE: prejudice - 8/11/2010 12:40:21 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: haldir

The quote about lord of the rings needing 12 endings made me laugh, i take it you tried to remove that comment after seeing how stupid the comment was.It does make me laugh when peeps think they know what there talking about but really they have no idea at all.You clearly havent seen LOTR ROTK there fore its advised not to comment on things you havent seen.



I'm a huge fan of the trilogy and think what Jackson accomplished was a cinematic miracle but the issues with the latter stages of RotK are warranted to a certain extent. Even though the whole Scouring of the Shire plot was removed the film suffers the same fundamental problem as the book. You've just invested an awful lot of reading/viewing (hell of a lot if we're talking the EE's) on a journey that is, at its core, about ridding Middle Earth of the One Ring and thereby destroying Sauron himself. After that happens everything that follows it is inherently a 'tad' anticlimactic. If you haven't read the book you could be forgiven for thinking that the film was finished a few times before the credits actually roll. And at the end of the day having not read the book is hardly a crime, as this should be judged simply on the merits of telling its story cinematically because it is not the book, it's a film. I'm familiar with the book but having heard they had altered the ending there were a few shots when I thought they had finished it, with a view to giving it a more ambiguous tone to its finale. The fade out after the 'I'm glad you're with me at the end of all things' line certainly felt like a closing shot! As they had confirmed the Souring of the Shire was gone I though they may not have shown them going home, so the crowds bowing to the Hobbits at Minith Tirith also felt like it could have been the final shot. Anyone just gauging the story within the context of the film may not have realised just how important and focussed on Sam it is, so Frodo departing for Valinor again could have been the end as it's the resolution of the principle characters story arc.
 
Now there are certainly not 12 examples, I assume that number was merely used to be emphatic. But I feel the point is somewhat warranted for certain viewers. I personally love the ending and given the sheer amount of time, love and effort everyone put into the films I understand it would have been extremely hard to let go and just OK the final cut. I love the film and the ending but would be hard pushed to argue with true conviction if someone said that  the ending overstays it's welcome a little, as there are problems there.

< Message edited by pete_traynor -- 8/11/2010 12:45:55 PM >


_____________________________

EXTREMELY LIMITED 1/1 FILM DIRECTOR HAND DRAWN ORIGINALS COMING SOON - http://lomierart.blogspot.co.uk/

(in reply to haldir)
Post #: 50
RE: Meh... - 8/11/2010 11:40:47 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1896
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

If Spielberg was half the master of narrative people hype him up to be he wouldn't have had shitty looking CGI aliens ruin both Indiana Jones and AI or pander to audiences with cop out, saccharin endings that don't make sense (seriously, how did Tom Cruise's son survive the explosion in War of the Worlds and find his way back to his dad?).


No Aliens in A.I. They are advanced mecha (ie robots). Probably not wise to criticise narrative you aren't following?

It doesn't matter HOW the son survived the explosion in WOTW. It DOES matter that the WOTW novel featured a main character thinking he'd lost someone forever, and then was reunited with them at the end, that is one of the most important things that happens and the perceived loss of someone close has an effect on what the character does from then on until the reunion. SS was, after all updating a story, so used updated means to portray the same events, being somewhat tied to trying to convey the narrative points of the source material so some event had to happen to make the protagonist THINK there was no chance of his loved one ever being seen again. Oldest movie trick in the book: you don't see em die, they aint dead. Movie viewers know that kind of scam, but the character in the movie is usually not aware they're in a movie, any more than the young soldier talking about getting home to his sweetheart when his tour is over knows he just made himself guaranteed toast.

And re the criticism of the the stills, holy shit, dudes they're stills, maybe in motion and with character voices audible the point of using big name actors will be more obvious, ie the nuances of the facial movements they've animated on top of should be more obvious at least?

Take a still from moving footage and you can easily get shots that can look 'unnatural' since they aren't posed single shots and all kind of proportions shenanigans can seem to be going on, when they really aint at all.

Got no plans at the moment to actually see Tin Tin at all, but judging by the reactions so far, some people seem to be reacting like Jackson and Spielberg are personally pissing in their eyes

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 8/11/2010 11:41:33 PM >
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: forgotten Herge' last will Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.066