Cool News
THEjuice pours in on THE MUMMY! Warning... SPOILERS!
SPOILER ALERT !!
I've heard that the scoundrel / evil genius, MORIARTY will be seeing THE MUMMY (again, remember the first time he was suffering the rigors of Time Travel) and he wants a chance to reevaluate the film. Plus, he's taking in an entire SWAT team of fellow spies, so get ready for THE MUMMY to be unwrapped soon... and ya know... from the sound of this review, I can't wait to unwrap it myself.
Hey Harry, The Juice here. Caught a screening on The Mummy on this
fine friday night (which happens to be the eve of my 19th birthday). Anyhow
this movie is basically what we have all come to expect out of summer movies,
its not a future classic and its not quite up to Indy's par (although it does
give you an idea to how badass a new Indy would be!) but it is an enjoyable
ride of great effects and John Woo style 1930's action.
The movie starts you off in Ancient Egypt (wonderful CGI). We are
soon introduced to the Pharaohs high priest and the Pharaohs mistress. When
the Pharaoh learns of their affair he tries to kill them but instead he is
killed by the two lovers. On the escape the mistress is killed as well. The
high priest leaves her behind after promising his lover that he will revive
her, but he is ultimately captured and mummified alive as a punishment, to
become the undead. This really isnt spoiler material considering it all
happens in the first five minutes. Brenden Fraser was actually pretty
enjoyable. This movie also has a few good one liners (the biggest action
movie cliche' of our day) that actually got a laugh out of me. And the female
lead (didnt catch her name) in this movie is a strange combination of cute
and sexy, needless to say i liked her alot (my girlfriend had to manually
shut my jaw for me at times). Some of the acting was really bad (pay
attention to the guy on the right when the Americans are oppening the box
with the book of the dead) and for some reason they wouldnt lay off making
fun of Americans, stupid americans! greedy americans! selfish americans!
filthy americans! etc. etc. (amusing the first five times, but gets old
quick).
My favorite was all of the CGI mummies, they are awesome, they move
very fluidly and real. You want some more plot? Ok well there are two parties
looking for the hidden city of the dead yada yada yada, they awake the mummy
yada yada yada, mummy unleashes plagues, well you get the hint. Plot is
pretty predictable but not bad it kept me interested. Anyways go see the
Mummy, it has kinda snuck up on us and i havent heard much talk about it (its
hard to hear any talk about anthing other than SW1 which i will see sometime
early may before its release), its a good experience and will hold you over
for a couple of weeks.
Till my Instinct review on sunday, later Harry
THEJuice
-
+ Expand All
-
Well, I'm still hyped on this one. I really dig Brendon Frasier and the totally unique, monster-movie and cartoon filmography he's built so far as an actor. They said God's & Monsters was a departure for him, but he just laughed.
-
Well, Eternel, I'm glad you think you know what the finished SW movie effects will look like. But that's another arguement. CGI is not overrated. The truth is Harryhausen effects looked fake TOO! So did the blue screen models(those cute little squares around tie fighters et al.) CGI's flaws are different, and less irritating than what has come before. And the best thing, CGI is the most likely to correct these little-I repeat L-I-T-T-L-E problems! CGI has been improving for the last, um what FIVE years! Past effects have moved a lot slower, and aren't likely to ever be perfect.
-
Well, Eternel, I'm glad you think you know what the finished SW movie effects will look like. But that's another arguement. CGI is not overrated. The truth is Harryhausen effects looked fake TOO! So did the blue screen models(those cute little squares around tie fighters et al.) CGI's flaws are different, and less irritating than what has come before. And the best thing, CGI is the most likely to correct these little-I repeat L-I-T-T-L-E problems! CGI has been improving for the last, um what FIVE years! Past effects have moved a lot slower, and aren't likely to ever be perfect.
-
I agree with you in some ways Eternal. Like when CGI first came out i hated it sucked, it was so fake to me. But it is improving so fast that its only a matter of time when CGI is picture perfect. All movies comming out now adays are a projects to improve our CGI skills. But seriously some of the CGI effects like the sand storm and the guard mummies at the end of this movie are very good, they move fluidly and you can barely pick out the fact that their not really there. In some ways i agree with you about Jar Jar but ill have to wait till i see the whole movie to judge it. I can tell you this if Jar Jar was a guy in a rubber suit, he would be much worse.
-
Now, admittedly, I live in a small(er) area, so I don't know much about this stuff. However, I was under the impression that basically no one was going to be able to see Episode 1 early, like this chap says he's going to do. How's that to be accomplished?
-
CGI quality issues aside, will film makers quit using CGI to prop up poorly concieved plots, non-existant Character arcs, and start to do the hard work of making great films, in which CGI will not be a distraction.
-
Actually, I'd argue that CGI is NOT as obvious as people think. It's actually used a hell of a lot more these days than most people realize.. but the only times you complain are where you CAN tell. For instance, very often, buildings in the background now are filled in with CGI instead of traditional static matte paintings, and that chair in the pod in Contact was CGI in many scenes (something I didn't notice at ALL and had to read about). The truth is, only bad CGI is noticed, so people think bad CGI is all there is, but there actually is quite a bit of truly photorealistic CGI out there, and there will be more and more of it as time goes on.
-
As a 58-year old fan of sci-fi/horror films, I'd always considered "The Mummy" as the weakest. Who would be afraid of a one-armed one-eyed limping firetrap? The CGI potential of this new (1999) film at least adds the potential of biblical-scale plagues and threats. Plot? The dead threaten the living--that sums 'em all up. It ain't what they say it's the way that they say it...with the possible exception of Frankenstein (the book). I look forward to The Mummy with the same enthusiasm I enjoyed when ever improving effects raised the bar on werewolf and vampire films (while admitting that there have been some pretty crappy CGI horror films, there have been even more crappy non-CGI ones) so that I have seen things I never believed possible before the '70s.
-
I don't know the age of everybody in these debates (I'm 25,) but I think it's safe to say that we all came of age in the post-STAR WARS era of film, where the sophistication of f/x work has advanced, it seems, nearly monthly since the debut of Lucas' space opera. When I look at the quality of the f/x in the previews for TPM, or THE MUMMY, I am, as I was in '91 with T2, and in '93 with the dinos, amazed at what these magicians have pulled off. The sad thing, though, is that, since I've started to work in the film industry, it has become increasingly more difficult to lose myself in the world which these groundbreaking f/x help create. I guess I'm voicing that familiar lament that, in some ways, the magic has gone out of the movies for me. The odd thing, though, is that when I revisit the films of my childhood, the illusion largely remains complete, save for a few obvious exceptions (I can't believe there was a time when I viewed BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY with the same mouth-agape awe that I did STAR WARS; although, as a robotic duo, I still think Twiki and Dr. Theopolis give R2 and C3 a run for their money. Folks, I'm kidding.) Still, when the story is well-told, I'm likely to buy the crudest of effects just 'cause my imagination has been engaged. And, as long as he's an organic extension of the story, that will include our dear, beloved Jar-Jar.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble kids, but I have also seen THE MUMMY and it is without a doubt the most disappointing film of 1999.It is badly directed and features leads with no charisma or charm whatsoever. Of course, without a decent script even the most talented actors can only do so much. Brendan Fraser is plain and simply AWFUL in this film. Half the time he plays it like Harrison Ford as Indianna Jones and half the time falls back on his George of The Jungle / Encino Man "I am so cute and adorable when I act goofy" persona.There is no shortage of effects and action after a very dull set-up, but you know there's something wrong when you find yourself daydreaming in the middle of a multi-million dollar special effects sequence. I am not a lone opinion- I found very little positive reaction at the screening I saw. This is CONGO 1999!!
-
Yeah, I know, the subtitle puns are getting worse !!!!!!
I have NO idea when we'll get this in the U.K. but if the production sketches and paintings shown in this month's Starlog centrefold are anything to go by.......this is an absolute must see !
Hey, maybe it'll even revive the old Universal Monster line-up. -
I think Brendan Fraser is an excellent actor, which is the main reason I will be in line for the Mummy. He has a wonderful mix of self-mocking humor and he's handsome without beating you over the head with how handsome he is(a la Brad Pitt). Plus, as evidenced in films like Blast From the Past and George of the Jungle, he has a true gift for comedy, both physical and otherwise. Therefore, I think he is the only man to cast if you're going to bother making a new Superman film. He could be buff and studly for the Superman stuff plus he could nail the Clark Kent stuff. He is the only choice. I will see this film on opening day and I will probably see it at least twice while attempting to see Phantom Menace (if it's at all good, that is). By the way, the best use of special effects is in movies like Twister and True Lies. In True Lies I didn't think for an instant about the special effects, I was too busy picking my jaw up off the floor. The minute you recognize something as an effect, it ceases to be special. remember the guy in Forrest Gump with no legs? How many of you guys knew the first time you watched it that it was an effect? That is where CGI is best used. The effects in the Mummy look cool, Jar Jar Binks looks pretty fake, and any movie that claims to be a cross between Raiders of the Lost Ark and Army of Darkness is fine by me.
-
IN PHANTOM MENACE the spaceships definitely look like graphics.LUCAS is so obsessed with showing off "look how many SFX i'm using",he's forgotten the simple fact that CGI must look real,otherwise we might aswell play computer games.PS no more INDIANA JONES!!!FORD looks so old these days,how the hell is he gonna fight and run.Only RAIDERS was any good,the other 2 were inferior crap which no one watches now!
-
The real problem so far with CGI has been, yes, an attempt to boost sales and cover up lame plots... Virus, anyone? Still, there are additional problems from both sides of the viewing process. From our, the viewers' side, the problem lies in our instant recognition as an effect anything onscreen that would be impossible in "the real world"... space ships, fake cities, etc. Sure, we know Jar Jar Binks isn't real, but a lot of that stems from knowing that he just couldn't be real. On the other side of the issue, the real problem I have with the CGI lies in the focus of the effects. For an example, take out the recent issue of Time magazine that has all the Prequel coverage. Flip to the two-page picture that has both Liam Neeson and Jar Jar looking toward the camera. Now compare the focus of each. Liam, while real, is slightly fuzzy, and thus is somehow believable. Jar Jar, on the other hand, is *perfectly* in focus, and thus seems fake next to Liam. This is a bad FX shot. How come I notice this, yet the geniuses at ILM do not? Am I the only one? Oh, and if rubber suits are such a problem, why hasn't anyone ever protested Chewbacca?
-
I agree w/ RaistlinX about the focus thing. It's the "shiny penny" effect - CGI just looks a little too perfect sometimes and it really juts out. The other problem I have w/ CGI is animate objects in daylight. They still just don't have it right just yet. Something's always just a little not quite right - and again, you pick up on it right away. Otherwise, CGI looks good, IMO. Inanimate objects usually look very realistic - in daylight or at night (although night is usually still better). However did anyone notice in Trailer B the shot where the Naboo N-1s (?) are in space and then one of them blows up. Look at the fighter that is not blown up as it lights up from the explosion of the other ship. It looks HORRIBLE. Anyway, I think CGI does animate objects at night nicely as well. Whenever the dinosaurs in JP or JP2 are seen at night, they look great - almost perfect. When you switch over to the daylight - boom! You can tell it's fake. This all being said I think we can only expect CGI to get better and better - It will be interesting to see if the effects in Ep. 3 are that much better to Ep. 1 as ROTJ was to ANH.
-
In my mind, the real problem is with respect to CG characters -- Jar-Jar being the best example. Consistently we've seen how well CGI works in realizing non-character objects -- as Contact, Titanic, the Fifth Element, What Dreams May Come, Armageddon, Twister, and several others exemplify. For the most part, the effects in those shows become seamless to the audience, because of the nature of the objects themselves. Inanimate objects, water, people from a distance, asteriods, tornados all lend themselves very well to CGI. As someone mentioned, CGI is too perfect almost. It's a glossy, razor-sharp image which simply looks wrong when it's applied to things that shouldn't look that way. That's why Jabba the Hutt and Jar-Jar look so bad, in comparison to a CG stormtrooper, for example. The nature of the stormtrooper's armour makes realizing it through CGI perfect. When organic texture is required, however, CGI seems to fall flat. It's saving grace is the range of motion permitted -- otherwise, a man in a rubber suit might often look better. Jar-Jar, as so many of you have pointed out, looks ridiculously out of place in a frame with real actors. It's difficult to say precisely what's wrong with the image -- it's a glossy perfection that just seems wrong, in part because it almost seems too bright. I was convinced by character animation in The Lost World and Godzilla (excluding the horrid Babyzillas, mind you) largely because the darkness of the photography lended its own texture to the CG creatures, of sorts. At the same time, however, I think it's inappropriate to condemn CGI by any means. In five years, everything will be perfect. The only thing that worries me is, once special effects have advanced to a point of perfect photo-realism, it's going to be exceedingly difficult for film-makers to keep wowing their audiences with amazing new imagery, after a while. Once CGI is perfect, can there be any more ground-breaking effects? Or will the ground be long since broken?
-
By the way, I agree that they should nail the lid on the Indiana Jones coffin. If everyone keeps complaining that Sean is too old to be running around in Entrapment, then why do they want an old fart like Harrison Ford pretending he hasn't aged since 1989. Indiana Jones was fun, but we don't need another. The first two were awesome, but the third was far too jokey. Make it serious, if you must make it. you can throw in the humor, but it isn't a comedy. Action and comedy are still two separate genres, far as I know.
-
In STAR WARS the spacsships were all dirty looking models and they looked fantastic,but in PHANTOM the spaceships look the same as BABYLON 5.The spacebattles are just gonna look like a cheap crap computer games,and this is gonna make STAR WARS like all those lo budget tv series.The myth of STAR WARS is gonna be destroyed!!!!!LUCAS has gone over the top,without dirty models STAR WARS is not the same!!!!!!
-
Since everyone is talking about CGI instead of the Mummy, I will throw my two cents in. I feel that CGI technology is still in it's infancy. Jurassic Park and T2 were'nt that long ago. The ability of CGI to improve is much faster than that of old world optical compositing techniques. Software always upgrades faster than real world hardware.The most important thing alot of you people miss is that all of these cool CGI effects are only as good as the digital artists who create them. For every Mark Dippe' or Steve Williams, there are many hacks who know just enough to get an effect " almost there". The artist has to be even better than the technology for the industry to improve and really WOW today's audiences.
-
There's a scene in the trailor when battledroids are engulfed by fire,and the fire looked completely fake!In ID4 all the explosions looked like graphics and this ruined the battles.WOO doesn't use CGI in his movies, cos he invents new action styles whereas people like LUCAS think if they include a new SFX,THEY'RE BEING INNOVATIVE. PHANTOM MENACE IS GONNA LOOK TOO MUCH LIKE BABYLON 5.
-
Wow, there really are a lot of ignorant people out there as far as CGI goes. I've been working in the FX industry for the past seven years and the statements coming from people who claim to know what they're talking CG-wise are stupid and ridiculous. The quality of CG imagery eventually comes down to one thing. The quality of the artist. If someone paints a picture that doesn't look ANYTHING like the subject, you wouldn't blame the medium like most of you are doing here, you'd blame the bad artist. The same with CG. Just because you've seen some bad CG in the past doesn't mean that the whole fucking artform should be condemned. Of COURSE the only CG you're going to notice is the bad stuff. Honestly, the audience doesn't even NOTICE more than half the CG enhancements in most films these days. That's because they're done so PERFECTLY that you overlook it. Let's take The Matrix for instance. Did anyone know that all the city sky shots were augmented with CG? The movie was filmed in Sydney where the skies are blue most of the time but the directors wanted an overcast look so the FX company changed every sky shot in the film. And during the "bullet-time" sequences, did anyone know that with the exception of the actors hanging in mid air, that everything in the shot was CG? That's right, all the rotating backgrounds were CG (with one exception).
I also see a lot of people saying, "Well, I just KNEW the Dinosaurs in Jurassic were an effect." Of course you knew, moron! Did you think they captured real dinos and filmed them? Like you actually thought that Harryhausen's stop motion crap is more believable? Gimme a break. If you all think Jar Jar looks fake then blame it on the people at ILM, don't generalize and say CG's to blame 'cause it's not. The tools are there, people just have to know hwo to use them.
-
This is a personal message to Bombay who posted an incredibly stupid remark about the CG explosions in Independence Day. Wow, you're a real idiot. If you'd have read the CInefex article you'd know that all the explosions in that movie were REAL FILMED ELEMENTS!!!! That's right, real fire you fucking loser, not CG. I mean, JESUS, when people start claiming that REAL stuff doesn't look real, then you gotta wonder if they were dropped on their heads a few times as children. A lot of you guys should learn a shitload of stuff about the process of CG FX before you go shooting your ignorant mouths off. Don't talk about stuff you know nothing about 'cause you'll end up looking as stupid as Bombay does. Idiot.
-
Hey, how's about paying attention to the most important thing? THE STORY!!!
-
From what I've seen in trailers the mummy effects look pretty good, whether CGI or not.
As far as the trailers for Star Wars, which of you doofuses could not tell that Yoda was a muppet from the first second on screen? He even had a Sesame Street characters voice. And the Ewoks! How come only the baby ones (which were obviously puppets)were the only ones who could blink?! But guess what? Those movies were very enjoyable and successful, and my guess is you twerps that are making all the fuss about Jar-Jar will be sleeping on some sidewalk waiting to buy tickets to the first showing of Ep1 and will probably be seeing it multiple times so you can come to a forum like this to bitch about how lousy Lucas and his digital effects are. Critics can pick things apart , but show me one that can actually create something on their own.
Movies are all make believe and intended to entertain. If you don't realize maybe you belong in a galaxy far, far away. -
I agree--it's about time that sci-fi movies quit having aliens that are obviously humans with plastic stuck on their skulls. "StarTrek-itis"...ugh! But CGI can be good or bad--I guess it depends on the artist(s). Good CGI: Usually subtle things, like backgrounds, sets, and mechanical things (come on folks, the 3-legged droids in the TPM trailer looked awesome! Although I admit the N-1 fighters were less impressive.). Bad CGI: Close-up shots, usually of organic things. The 2 alternatives to creature CGI are animatronics (sometimes superior, esp. for closeups) and stop-action (for walking-around kind of movement--admit it, CGI stomps ass all over that herky-jerky crap.) Of course, when CGI looks bad, I can never put my finger on exactly why it doesn't look "quite right". Something about the depth; the real characters look 3-d, and the CGI looks 2-d. Maybe the transition to digital cameras will help CGI blend better?
-
Anybody who dares to link Bombay with descriptions like ignorant, stupid, idiot, and children dropped on their heads, has clearly been reading too many of Bombay's self-impressed posts, perhaps the most asinine in the history of AICN. Nothing personal Bombay, (you're a human being and are therefor entitled to your opinions) but please do us all a favor and go to school (kindergarten would be a good starting point) and come back here when you have something useful to add to our discussions. CGI should be judged on the same level as all other forms of FX... they have all started humbly and gradually progressed to higher levels. The talented craftsmen (and women) as well as the hacks, do justice to their field the same as any other film workers. Nobody's perfect, but hopefully they will all continue to improve and enhance their skills, and Hollywood's execs, producers, directors, and writers will do the same so that the stories will deserve the glossy budgets and acting paychecks. Just look back at "Lawnmower Man" and those endless Gate-To-The-Mind's-Eye videos for a reminder of how humble CG was at the start of the decade. Only a few years later, crap movies like "Judge Dredd" and "Jumanji" were overflowing with numerous mouthwatering images. "Lord of the Rings" will be a real mind-blower. The best directors of CG seem to be Zemeckis (the most vastly overlooked pop-cinema genius of our generation) and Cameron -- whose "True Lies" had some of the most subtle "hidden" FX I've ever witnessed. Now, for LaneMyers, back to "The Mummy." The only fair way to judge this film is whether or not it's FUN. We KNOW "The Mummy" CANNOT be as respectable as "Raiders," just as we knew that "Stargate" had to be weighed on its own peculiar Centropolis merits. Stephen Sommers may have started in a less-than-stellar fashion ("Huck Finn"), but despite how much I did not want to endure his subsequent efforts (the typically-marketed-to-crap-by-Disney) "Jungle Book" and "Deep Rising..." I was pleasantly suprised by both of those movies and enjoyed them a great deal, grinning my head off for 2 hours at how much FUN they were...pure cinematic pleasure. Sommers seems to have his head on straight as to how to handle his subjects with all the correct influences...not only Spielberg and Lucas (which Centropolis shames) and Woo, but also Tomb Raider and Pitfall. With that much coolness (and Arnold Vosloo), "The Mummy" will easily be worth its ticket price, providing 2 hours of dazzling smirky entertainment, even if its awkward blend of campiness prevents it from attaining trophy status ala the "serious" Lucasberger masterpieces.
-
Big T here. I just want to say that I am not totally against CGI as long as it is done good which honestly I havent seen in a long time. Personally I like animatronics a little bit more to me the best use of animatronics was used in Aliens and Gremlins because they looked cool. Also I think the best ever done with what was obviously low budget cg was the tv film Merlin which used effects extremely effectively. So in the end I will watch a Muppet movie before something like ID4 if you get my meaning. The Big T
-
GO TO WWW.3D-DESIGN.COM AND LOOK FOR THE MARCH 1998 ISSUE. LOOK FOR A COVER PICTURE OR AND ARTICLE CALLED "MAYA UP CLOSE". NOW I HAVENT SEEN A CLIP OF THE CLOWN ANIMATION, BUT IT SUE AS HELL LOOKS GOOD. ALSO REMIMBER THAT IT CAN ALSO BE LIMITED IN CERTAIN MOVIES WITH THE RESOURCES (RENDER FARM TIME) AVAILABLE AND DEADLINES. THERE IS STILL THAT IDEA CALLED THE WILLING SUSPENSION OF DIS-BELIEF. I REALLY DOUBT ANY OF YOU WILL BE SITTING IN THE THEATER WATCHING TPM AND THINKING "MAN, THESE EFECTS ARE TERRIBLE".
ALSO, TRY READING HARRY'S LAST REPORT ON AVATAR. -
GO TO WWW.3D-DESIGN.COM AND LOOK FOR THE MARCH 1998 ISSUE. LOOK FOR A COVER PICTURE OR AND ARTICLE CALLED "MAYA UP CLOSE". NOW I HAVENT SEEN A CLIP OF THE CLOWN ANIMATION, BUT IT SUE AS HELL LOOKS GOOD. ALSO REMIMBER THAT IT CAN ALSO BE LIMITED IN CERTAIN MOVIES WITH THE RESOURCES (RENDER FARM TIME) AVAILABLE AND DEADLINES. THERE IS STILL THAT IDEA CALLED THE WILLING SUSPENSION OF DIS-BELIEF. I REALLY DOUBT ANY OF YOU WILL BE SITTING IN THE THEATER WATCHING TPM AND THINKING "MAN, THESE EFECTS ARE TERRIBLE".
ALSO, TRY READING HARRY'S LAST REPORT ON AVATAR. -
i thought that guy liam was talking to in the junkyard looked pretty cool.
-
For whoever was questioning how i would see Star Wars early it has to do with this fact...It is georgia state law to screen a movie to theater chains before it is released in the state. Lucas maybe powerful but he isnt above the law yet...who knows after this movie.
-
I guess the real problem with the whole thing and the reason we are having this discussion, is because we know to much. If you guys (and girls) are like me, people hate to watch movies with you. We notice the effects, the lighting, the camera angles, the editing, the script...etc, and that is what we see when we watch movies. And that drives the people I know crazy. They always ask why I can't just "watch the movie". Why must we ridicule it like we do? I'll tell you why. Because we have too much information. We know how these magicians, that we call movie-makers, do their tricks. When Star Wars came out in '77 no one knew anything about the f/x that were used. All that they knew was that that movie was COOL. Back then no one noticed any flaws in the movie because they knew nothing except what they saw on the screen. Now days we know all the tricks which is fun, but I don't think any of us will ever be able to watch any movie with virgin eyes and not pass judgement on it past the opinion of liking it or not.
-
Responding to RobertK: I actually enjoy movies MORE now that I know the inside tricks. When a team of collaborators actually pulls together well and delivers, I admire and appreciate their efforts, enthusiasm, and painstaking diligence to a far greater extent than I could in my naive elementary-school days. The trick in not annoying your acquaintances with your filmic tidbits is NOT to discuss such info around them, unless they ask you for details. As long as you're with them, PRETEND to be a normal person and keep your feelings to simple "yes"'s and "no"'s, smiles and frowns, while saving your passionate details for your more appreciative pals. Just button down, keep it inside to rant about elsewhere. Harry wisely decided to do so on the Net and opened his social circle to the whole world, thus we all gab here freely like the geeks we are. Meanwhile our non-obsessed friends are saved from having to endure such discussions. My stepsisters still think Star Trek and Star Wars are the same thing, and have never seen a single Spielberg or Lucas film. Titanic is as close as they'll approach the sci-fi-fantasy-action-adventure Cinescape genre. Be thankful that your friends are at least more filmic than that.
-
I've been waiting for the Mummy since it was first announced. One of the things that amazes me about any of these talk back is the fact that the Star Warsy naysayers always seem to creep in no matter what. If you don't want to see TPM, don't see it! If you don't want to see The Mummy, don't see it! If you don't want another Indiana Jones movie and it does eventually get made, don't see it! No one's forcing your hand here folks. It amazes me the length people will go to to criticize movies that haven't even been released. Hell, you'll criticize movies that have no script, no director, no greenlight. Lighten up. CGI is still at a point where it still looks very much like CGI. You know what though? At the time Empire Strikes Back was released puppetry was at a point where Yoda looked like a puppet. No one can force you to see a film. Use your dollar votes wisely. If you don't want to see a movie, DON'T!!! Otherwise, don't go out and gripe about how much it stinks. I think that everything deserves a fair chance. There is entirely too much opinion masquerading as fact on the Web. Be a true fan of cinema. Support the stuff you love and stiff the stuff you don't. It's up to you!!!
-
Forget about the CGI! What about the film, Toby Damnit!
-
First off, don't diss Chewbacca and anthromorphic aliens! Who would you rather hang with? a squidy, silvery glop or ol' Chewbacc! CGI is just a tool to use and how its used affects what we perceive. For the Special Editions they scanned in images of the original models, which is kinda what I wished they would do for the prequels. Design it on a fucking computer if you want but build a real world hard copy. I hate the N-1 with its BatWing shape, the way artoo sticks out like a gorilla riding on a VW Bug, and its swept back chrome shape. By the way, supposedly r-2 retracts his legs into his body to fit in the butt hole of the N-1. A CGI solution? Ha! Think about it, the actual look and feel of Star Wars as we love it has actually always been a compromise between Lucas' vision, his Artist slaves' vision, capabilities, and the tools available at the time. I'm not saying CGI is evil at all, I just think that its more than a little antiseptic, and requires the artist to bring more artificial imperfection to the table to pull the curtain on our disbelief. By the way, I haven't seen the Mummy, but the toys I've seen for it are ridiculous, like a preschool toy maker attempting their first foray into older territory. I'll give it a chance though. By the way, where's my Evil Dead 4? Phantasm Oblivion blew so hard, even my forgiving nature was bested. Over and out-
-
I think a valid point could be made in stating that how cool & interesting we find a character, space ship or whatever is how much we fall for it. Like Lucas stated, it's all an illusion, it's all fake.
Most 'cute' characters are created entirely for economic reasons. They are shallow and are often written in to fill a niche. They are not 'real' in the hippest sense of the word. Hip filmgoers' see through this, we don't fall for it. We turn in disgust. It is ironic that ewoks could easily be considered the worts of the star wars universe. Ewoks aren't CGI created (atleast not yet) but they do stick out.
Jar-jar atleast for the time being, seems to be created out of this mentality. He's the comic relief, the good hearted side-kick, plus he's kinda' cute in a puppy dog sorta' way. We see through this. Maybe he'll grow us after we all finally see the movie in a kitschy pop-culture sorta' way (kind of like chewie). Watto on the other hand is for some reason more believable (as someone has stated)Why? He's cool looking (I like the scruff under the chin), has a great voice and he appears to have been well written. He's also believable. Most of us probably have dealt or know a 'Watto' type.
The new Yoda & Jabba as well as the new spacecraft are a totally different issue. They are imposters because they not only are different creations in the physical sense (Jabba is no longer a giant rubber worm but an untangible series of zeros and ones and Yoda is basically a different puppet). The CGI created space craft suffer from the same phenomenom.
-
I think the whole point is - POINTLESS (caps added for my own intrinsic enjoyment). Optical effects may look cool (or we may be stuck on them, having grown up with ILM's fantastic creations), but the fact is they are still models, and each shot represents hundreds of man-hours of work.
People are afraid of CGI because they do not know jack about it, to be precise. Nobody really knows what the new star wars movie will hold for them. And in the end, it's just a movie, and it's just entertainment. If jar jar binks is annoying, then that's how he was intented to be.
To set the matter straight, I like Lucas's vision of star wars: good is good, bad is bad, and not once does anybody say "nigga" or "muthafucka". I hope these new star wars movies inspire a new generation of filmmakers who can explore the full potential of digital filmmaking. -
I think the problem is not so much with the actual *execution* of a CGI shot as with the original *design*. Sure, we know what's possible & what's not, but we can accept the *impossible* as real so long as it follows certain physical rules/principles. Yes, we haven't seen dinosaurs or aliens, but we HAVE SEEN the laws of physics/nature in action that they & their behaviour will have to conform to (gravity, momentum, etc.). The alien in Lost in Space looked awful because it looked like a cartoon character; and the same applies to the flying whatever in TPM (at least based on the trailer). All creatures, large or small, follow certain principles in their development (loosing certain features w/ maturity, gaining new ones, etc.) that make them FUNCTIONAL in their environment; if you eliminate or ignore those features, you eliminate realism. Granted, we don't know how aliens may develop on a different planet, but it's immaterial since we can only successfully relate to something if it incorporates at least a *minimum* of elements known to us. Look at ALIEN, for instance: a lot of people marvel at how 'otherworldy' it is, yet in fact it is little more than a combination (albeit a superb combination) of already known elements & behaviours borrowed from the insect world, as well as from various animal species. The problem w/ Lucas is that, since Return of the Jedi, he's thought his imaginary universe can incorporate *anything* in *any shape or form*. Personally, I hate the ewoks, and I LOATH the 'blue elephant', because they were clearly dysfunctional *in the environment where they were placed*. The same applies to the flying creature in TPM (big eyes & nose... arrgghhhh), not to mention the idiotic 'comic sidekick' (don't know its name... the one that is shown w/ its fellow creatures marching as an army), or Jabba in *any* of its incarnations (though I'm more likely to buy into the original Jabba than his CGI version). But enough ranting... I still love SW, & will probably drool over its details for the rest of my life...;-)
-
I'd rather see a rubber Jar-Jar suit (a REAL OBJECT masquerading as a lifeform) than CGI (an
expensive drawing attempting to only LOOK like a real object masquerading as a lifeform.)
My main objection to CGI, as simply as possible, is this: Filmmaking is photography. That's what always fascinated me about special effects: PHOTOGRAPHING the impossible. The camera never lies, so somebody has to think of a way to lie to the camera. Like the Cottingley fairies: to this day there are people who believe they're real, simply because it's been proved that the film wasn't tampered with. CGI is film tampering, and that can be detected. Build a puppet; tamper with REALITY. Then point and shoot. You're DONE.
One of my favorite creature effects is from a truly horrible
movie called "HyperSapien: People from Another Star." There's an alien creature which doesn't conform to the shape of any known lifeform, yet it walks around, in the open, by itself, with all the fluidity of a hand puppet. No bluescreen, no CGI (it was the early 80's.) Once you realize how it was done, it's so simple it seems almost stupid, but when you first see it it blows you away. It was a clever trick, and I worry that that kind of creative thinking will soon be abandoned. (If it hasn't been already.)
Another objection I have is that I've been waiting for the rebirth of the old Harryhausen-
style movies for years. "American Werewolf in London" made me think, "Cool! Now we can
remake fantasy and mythology movies without those obviously fake-looking stop-motion
creatures! A better technology is finally here!" But very few such movies were made in the 80's. Then CGI comes along (which is still the most expensive FX technique around),
and suddenly, finally, there's a Hercules series, a Sinbad series, etc. Hello? You've SKIPPED a whole technology! Waiting for the "right" technology to come along is no excuse for keeping cool ideas off the screen.
As for those who say CGI made "Jurassic Park" possible, watch TNT's "Arthur Conan Doyle's
Lost World" pilot movie. (Pause while the laughter dies down...) The running T-Rex at the end was a simple puppet shot against a bluescreen and flawlessly composited into the shots. And yet, it could run around, and there was one fabulous moving jump-over-the-camera shot. I admit the puppet could have been more realistically sculpted, and the movements more carefully choreographed, but that's a matter of skill and craftsmanship. The TECHNIQUE
works. You CAN have complete freedom of movement with a mere puppet. And at least we can
tell that the puppet is a REAL OBJECT, unlike CGI. This type of thing could have been done
20 years ago; why is it so rare?! --Billy (who is now studying special effects at an art school) -
I'd love to indulge Lane with a post about The Mummy, but I think the problem is that not many people have seen it yet. The CGI issue is however relevant to The Mummy so... I'm really impressed by the number of CGI experts who post here, except that guy who works in the effects business, he obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about. (Just kidding) My thoughts are that some of Star Wars Episode One will look less than "photo-realistic", just like some of the effects from the first three films were less than fully convincing. When we were kids we believed it all, including Buck Rogers and Battlestar Gallactica. But as we grew we became more perceptive. For me the rancor doesn't do that well at blending seamlessly. Did I say to myself "Wow, I was wrong, Star Wars sucks!" FUCK NO! Why doesn't Buck Rogers work that well? Because it didn't tell a very compelling story. (And, of course, the effects were never up to contemporary Star Wars standards) Even as it's been outdated Star Wars still inspires us because of more than just effects. Most people seem to be pissed off to no end that they can find any flaws in the trailer at all. Well guess what? Star Wars wasn't "absolutely perfect" either. I just watched the trilogy again (letterbox, good quality TV and VCR) and there are all sorts of effects that don't look "Photo-realistic". What do you want? Do you want to smell the cordite and blood in Saving Private Ryan? You aren't really in a galaxy far far away! You're in a theater for god's sake! So sit back, suspend your disbelief (and your cynicism), and enjoy. And get used to the CGI stuff, it's the future.
-
If you look really closely at frame no. 012564 in the first 'Phantom Menace' trailer, you can clearly see a zipper on the back of Jar Jar's costume. Also, in the second trailer, in frame no. 032325, one of the spaceships can clearly be seen dangling from a length of five-pound test fishing line...
:) -
Yes everyone, bombay is the biggest moron to ever post on this sight.
-
Your right, it all depends on the artist, but your wrong about the picture looking like the subject. The subject has to look like the picture. The subject's personality and essence has to be communicated to the viewer ( Some children's painting have more truth and honesty than some technically photo-realistic paintings I have seen by trained adults.) Honestly, the oil effects in What Dreams May Come(the movie itself was disappointing)wowed me even more than the effects in Godzilla. ps. Long live montage!
-
Apr 26, 1999 2:34:53 AM CDT
Hey, I LIKE the way the CG in Episode I doesn't look perfect!
by martin q blank
The visuals in the ads have a real stylized comic-book feel. Star Wars isn't about photo-realism, it's not Jurassic Park. One of the reasons there hasn't really been a totally realistic CG film yet is that no one has really tried to replicate life. If you create fanciful characters/locations, of course they won't look photo realistic!!
-
So Americans don't like being portrayed as greedy and stupid on film. We English have for years on end suffered negative stereotypes and attitudes being thrown at us in crap like Braveheart and Titanic. I know they're only movies but... learn to take as much back!
-
People are expecting too much of CGI. In the old days, pre jurassic park, most effects shots looked fake no matter how they were done but people accepted that 'cos that's as good as it got, jurrassic park instantly upped the standard there was no curve of gradual improvement - boom! it was suddenly much better, this does'nt happen often it was an amazing feat by ILM. but even they are'nt miracle workers. 100% real is an unnacceptably high expectation, of course it does'nt look totally real 'cos it is'nt! Just be happy that it looks as good as it does.
I've been working on a CGI intesive project for the past 18 months & I've discoverd thet there are many factors thet can make or break a shot but a crucial factor is the compositing, the same model animated,textured & lit the same way can look real or fake depending on the composite.it's really tricky subtle stuff & if the deadline's tight there's no time to tweak it endlessly to make it 100%. -
If you look at TPM trailer on the big screen you will see just how well rendered he is. Oh yeah... Star Trek can suck my ass... go see eXistenZ if you want to see a badass cgi two-headed lizard thing. Cronenberg rules!
-
For the people who are talking out of their ass without being informed please hear this!I read first hand in an interveiw in a magazine that STATED FOR A FACT that for the TPM that they did create and use models for the ships and they also did use some CGI ships but not for the close up or detailed shots.
You people are so caught up in your hatred or should i say disdain for CGI that you blind yourself to the facts and the line becomes blured as what is CGI and what is not and you convince yourself that it doesnt look right wether is does or dosent is subjective.but if your out to find fault you will find it 99% of the time. -
Here's my two cents worth in this heated forum: computer generated graphics are a bore. Here are a few titles: twister, blade, godzilla, armageddon, deep impact, lost world, starship 'braindead' trooper, talking animal films, all those animated movies. Eegah! The list goes on and on and on... All of these terrible movies wouldn't have been made if CG weren't so important or popular with the moviegoing public. I probably won't see the mummy not only because there'll be toooo much CG in it but also because it simply looks like your typical 90s action film: throw everything in it but the kitchen sink. Computer FX always, I repeat, always look plastic. I've never been convinced of anything that was made with computer generated FX. The funny part of all of this is does anyone out there know how they transfer the FX from the computer to film? Because CG fx don't exist in reality, how can they shoot something that's not real? Well, once the FX and actors are combined, they basically put a camera in front of a high definition monitor and film it!!! Amazing. People go to movies to see something on the big screen and in actuality they basically watch images from what amounts to a glorified TV screen! I like stuff that's actually shot in front of the camera, that's real, where one gets all the nuances and textures and mistakes that goes with real stuff, not the striving to be sooo perfect effects generated by computers. Why not combine the best of both worlds? Film real stuff and enhance it with computers? I remember a very unmemorable movie that did just that: Dragonslayer! The film is a bore but the FX of the dragon are great, much better than the recent Dragonheart. The drangon in the 1982 film was a puppet, detailed and textured and was filmed with the help of computer technology. The scene where it appears from the lake of fire and attacks the hero is unforgettable. It looked convincing. Nothing made with computer generated fx even comes close to the realism of that scene. It's unfortunate the film is forgettable and didn't make an impact on Hollywood. Another example of real stuff being more interesting than CG FX: the original Alien. The Alien costume from the first film is so much more terrifying than the grasshopper like monsters we've seen in the boring sequels which were made with computers. Nothing compares to real stuff. The art of filmmaking is an illusion and if what you're watching simply screams out computer fx, then the illusion or the film simply doesn't work.
-
slag off tecniques you don't understand,& you end up looking pretty stupid. Most people have'nt a clue how CGI is done, if you did know just how massively labour intensive it was you'd appreciate it a bit more. contrary to popular belief, you don't just hit a button on the computer labelled 'alien monster'!
-
I agree with stitch's comments, but a couple of factual errors. Alien 4 was the only one to
use CGI for the creatures. And they don't just "point a camera at the monitor"; the animation
is saved to digital videotape and then transferred back to film. I do realize how labor-
intensive CGI can be, so that the artist has ultimate control over every detail. But the
same can be said about using a toothbrush to wash the kitchen floor, or reproducing a
photograph by hand with a pencil one dot at a time. It's an interesting achievement, but
why go to all that trouble? I remember an article in Variety last year, about movies like
"Titanic" and "Godzilla" being delayed because the CGI wasn't done yet. CGI artists
vented their frustration with directors who mistook CGI for a quick and cheap solution to
all filmmaking problems. (Does anybody know the date of this issue, so people can look it up?)
I respect the art of animation, but we already know anything is
possible with animation, so why should we be amazed? I'm more amazed when real objects defy
the laws of nature than I am when animated ones do. That's why stage magic is still popular; no film trickery, just creative misdirection. Push the boundaries of reality; that's what amazes me. CGI exists outside reality, where there are no boundaries to push. Merely getting the image onscreen is not enough; make us wonder HOW! -
So how do they get the "digital videotap', which is a tape that has information magnetised to it in a series of zeroes and ones transfer it into full color images to film? You need to DISPLAY, RENDER the billions of zeroes and ones in order for a film camera, you know, like your kodak camera, in order for it to capture it. Film and digital technology are completely different medias and in order for one (digital) to appear in the other (film), it needs to physically 'exist' in reality or else a film camera won't be able to capture anything. It's the same process they use when they transfer film to videos, or when you want to transfer your family's old 8mm films to video: they play the film with a projector and capture the projected image with a video camera! Computer generated FX or video are electronic technologies; film is a chemical, physical technology. Sorry to burst your bubbles guys...
-
... er, an optical printer, perhaps? Which, instead of displaying the image on a monitor screen, projects it directly onto unexposed film. I don't know much about the hardware, but it's just a guess. I mean, they must have specialized equipment for professional use, right? If they used a regular TV, they'd have to keep using Windex to make sure it's smudge-free, maybe keep the camera slightly out of focus so you can't see the phosphor dots... :) This probably should have been an e-mail, but what the heck, nobody's reading this page anymore. Last post! Woo-hoo! :)
-
When I wrote a 'glorified monitor' I was being sarcastic. What they do is they shoot with a film camera a high definition screen, ONE FRAME AT A TIME!!! The process is, as you can imagine, is long and time consuming, and demands extreme precision. That's why Lucas said that the next Star Wars pictures will probably be shot entirely with digital cameras.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts