What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer Films)

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Good catch Stings. I figured someone would eventually catch that. Thanks. 

 

I am glad its before CGI or the mine car sequence would be very different. 

[Wojo 2,453]

This is why Plan 9 from Outer Space is better than Toy Story. 

 

Plan 9 has zero CGI. 

Toy Story is all CGI. 

 

QED. 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Yeah, practical effects and compositing can look just as bad as CG; and CG can look just as good as practical effects.

 

What matters is the end result: if it looks good, it looks good.

 

And really, the less preoccupied we are with these superficial elements of film, the better. There are way more important aspects to how films are crafted.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And really, the less preoccupied we are with these superficial elements of film, the better.

 

😂

[SteveMc 2,674]

These elements are not superficial.  They can be used superficially, but also integrally.  It is more than just looking good.  

 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

@SteveMc is absolutely right. The use of the visual FX can in some cases be used to fill in the holes in the background of a shot. However, their usage can pass beyond minor and, as mentioned, "superficial" when they are involved in a way that makes a large impact in the film. Par exemple, the visuals of the dinosaurs in the Jurassic films, even today where CG looks more real than ever, are integral and essential to the films. Directors, such as Colin Trevorrow and J.A. Bayona as far as I know, have noted that if the Dino's don't work, the film doesn't work. Now this is all an example, but the visual effects still play an important role along side the overarching craft that the production team, director, and cast create for the film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

32 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah, practical effects and compositing can look just as bad as CG; and CG can look just as good as practical effects.

 

What matters is the end result: if it looks good, it looks good.

 

And really, the less preoccupied we are with these superficial elements of film, the better. There are way more important aspects to how films are crafted.

Yeah who needs those special effects in King Kong 1933.

[Chen G. 3,949]

And yet, even though most contemporary audience members can see through those effects - the film can still work.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Yes, but it may lose some of the initial effect that it could have delivered if something like a "monster" didn't look all that real. The plot may be a real thriller, the script may be superb, but at the end of the day the "monster" ought to be scary, which may or may not mean appearing to be realistic.

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And yet, even though most contemporary audience members can see through those effects - the film can still work.

In some cases, we look back on films from the 70s and 80s, heck even further or nearer to present day, and we recognize that certain visual aspects are really poorly delivered. However, I'd say that we simply brush them off with a casual "Well, it was ahead of its time, but it was so and so a year. What can you expect?" while still liking the film. Especially in the case of something like Jurassic Park, where the dinosaurs looked so real to us back then simply because, well, that was the best we had back then. Now that animation has evolved and CG has become more developed we have a new standard, so the technology is there and we are given an even more real image. I wouldn't think that too many people see through effects today, depending on the film of course, but more on the films of the past. Nonetheless, those films most definitely still work. So it's quite interesting with the quality of animation increases while some might say that the quality of films is decreasing. I keep using the Jurassic example, but any of these new ones are not nearly as good films as the original, but the animation is no doubt "more realistic". Curious concept Chen.

[Chen G. 3,949]

12 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I keep using the Jurassic example, but any of these new ones are not nearly as good films as the original, but the animation is no doubt "more realistic".

 

That's actually a great example: They're lesser films because their narratives, characters and themes suck; because the way they're directed sucks, because of how they're cut together - NOT because of the quality of the effects.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

53 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's actually a great example: They're lesser films because their narratives, characters and themes suck; because the way they're directed sucks, because of how they're cut together - NOT because of the quality of the effects.

They really are terrible. I watched Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom for the first time since theatres (and the last!) last night. Yeesh! Actually I meant to point out one really nice shot that I liked, but other than that it was a popcorn flick, but one of those popcorn flicks where your microwave stops working and then blows up once you think you've fixed it. Disposable filler material, but it was better than the tiresome predecessor Jurassic World. And people said The Force Awakens was copy-paste! Hohoho! The only remotely comforting scene is Jeff Goldblum's cameo in JWFK, however I'm reminded that it's still in the same category with the "We're throwing more nostalgia in!". Jurassic Park was an awesome film, especially put up against these rink-a-dink money grabs.

[John 2,032]

Eh, I'd say Jurassic World is better than Fallen Kingdom. The former isn't terrific or anything, but I'd take it over one of the worst scripts for a big-budget blockbuster in recent memory.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

And yet, even though most contemporary audience members can see through those effects - the film can still work.

Not can. DOES. It is a masterpiece. 

5 minutes ago, John said:

Eh, I'd say Jurassic World is better than Fallen Kingdom. The former isn't terrific or anything, but I'd take it over one of the worst scripts for a big-budget blockbuster in recent memory.

I completely disagree.  Fallen Kingdom is a serious Improvement over Jurassic World which is for me utterly horrible. Chris Pratt isn't really good in either. 

[John 2,032]

The direction and camerawork are certainly better in the sequel, but the writing is absolutely awful, IMO. It feels like two different films haphazardly stitched together.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The effects and the camera work in both pale significantly from the original. Its amazing that the original from 1993 still mesmerizes. 

I have the 4k to FK and will give it a spin soon. Got it for 8 bucks.

2 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Yes, but it may lose some of the initial effect that it could have delivered if something like a "monster" didn't look all that real. The plot may be a real thriller, the script may be superb, but at the end of the day the "monster" ought to be scary, which may or may not mean appearing to be realistic.

In some cases, we look back on films from the 70s and 80s, heck even further or nearer to present day, and we recognize that certain visual aspects are really poorly delivered. However, I'd say that we simply brush them off with a casual "Well, it was ahead of its time, but it was so and so a year. What can you expect?" while still liking the film. Especially in the case of something like Jurassic Park, where the dinosaurs looked so real to us back then simply because, well, that was the best we had back then. Now that animation has evolved and CG has become more developed we have a new standard, so the technology is there and we are given an even more real image. I wouldn't think that too many people see through effects today, depending on the film of course, but more on the films of the past. Nonetheless, those films most definitely still work. So it's quite interesting with the quality of animation increases while some might say that the quality of films is decreasing. I keep using the Jurassic example, but any of these new ones are not nearly as good films as the original, but the animation is no doubt "more realistic". Curious concept Chen.

The effects of JW and JWFK look unreal.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

"Unreal"?

Er...guys...they're dinosaurs 

[SteveMc 2,674]

43 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

The effects of JW and JWFK look unreal.

There is something about CGI that does this.  Sometimes this is a bit of strength, like when you want something really out of this world.  Practical effects are tangible, so our brains react more naturally to them, especially the more they are realistic.

 

3 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

However, their usage can pass beyond minor and, as mentioned, "superficial" when they are involved in a way that makes a large impact in the film

They are not automatically superficial if they make a large impact on the film.  They are superficial if the film exists just to serve the effects, if the intention is only to wow on a shallow level.

Still, relying too much on CGI in live action movies does seem to be problematic, at least to me.

Rush, that movie would be much better with real, tangible F1 cars, for instance.  

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2 hours ago, Richard said:

"Unreal"?

Er...guys...they're dinosaurs 

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked absolutely real.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

3 hours ago, SteveMc said:

They are not automatically superficial if they make a large impact on the film.  They are superficial if the film exists just to serve the effects, if the intention is only to wow on a shallow level.

Still, relying too much on CGI in live action movies does seem to be problematic, at least to me.

The over-reliance on CGI in films, especially action and fantasy, seems to be a quite a deterrent in terms of the quality of the film. You state yourself, and you do so with good judgement, that this is problematic. So if the visual effects have that much of an effect, right, on a film and how it is perceived by an audience when does it surpass superficiality and upfront endless and simply become a recurring trend, a norm, and to some, an annoyance? These are curious questions.

 

1 hour ago, JoeinAR said:

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked absolutely real.

It's not neccesarily about the visual as much as the kinesthetics (select movements however) that give a sense of that falsity.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

That's actually a great example: They're lesser films because their narratives, characters and themes suck; because the way they're directed sucks, because of how they're cut together - NOT because of the quality of the effects.

Well, the superior storytelling of the old films is directly connected to the demand of CGI animation. Spielberg uses special effects sparingly - that's why a film from 1993 has more convincing effects than a film from 2018. The goal is to use effects in order to tell a story, not to tell a story in order to use effects.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

 

In the past I've analyzed films a lot more ciritically and professionally, but in this instance I am giving the welcome opportunity to jab Jurassic World: Fallen Franchise with a very hot satirical skewer. That I do enjoy every now and again. 

 

The Jurassic saga is tired. It doesn't have the creative team to pull out as many films as they've already managed and planned. 

[Wojo 2,453]

3 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

The Jurassic saga is tired.

 

Then they should stop right now and plan the Cretaceous saga. 

 

Let George Lucas plan the Triassic saga. 

[publicist 4,643]

9 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

I completely disagree.  Fallen Kingdom is a serious Improvement over Jurassic World which is for me utterly horrible. Chris Pratt isn't really good in either. 

 

It's a piece of shit but given the love and dedication this board lavishes on such dreck all the time it unfortunately is a contender.

[A24 4,336]

10 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

It's a piece of shit but given the love and dedication this board lavishes on such dreck all the time ...

 

Include me out, because I don't even watch them. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

6 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked absolutely real.

Sorry, Joe, but...how would you know?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

8 hours ago, Richard said:

Sorry, Joe, but...how would you know?

 

For godssake, Richard, we're talking about dinosaurs here: we have real evidence of how they would look! It's not like we're talking about some total fantasy like the moon landing. 

 

Also, regardless of how accurate they may or may not be to the real deal, they look like they're really a part of the scene they inhabit.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

31 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

It's not like we're talking about some total fantasy like the moon landing. 

Is that going to be a new running gag?

9 hours ago, publicist said:

It's a piece of shit but given the love and dedication this board lavishes on such dreck all the time it unfortunately is a contender.

Contender for what?

[Wojo 2,453]

That's a good way to describe it. Even though no living person has seen a living dinosaur, not since Noah decided to leave them off the Ark, these animals look real. They cast shadows, they catch the rain, they interact with the environment and actors, and they inhabit and own the scenes they're in. They aren't just giant lizards projected on a green screen behind the actors, and they aren't cutsey stop motion puppets. 

40 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

It's not like we're talking about some total fantasy like the moon landing. 

 

So when a doctor fits a patient with a broken foot into a plastic shoe that we call a moonboot, if we had never been to the moon, what else would we call it? 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

9 minutes ago, W0$ said:

So when a doctor fits a patient with a broken foot into a plastic shoe that we call a moonboot, if we had never been to the moon, what else would we call it? 

 

One of its major functions is to offload weight, so we can call it the ALF boot.

 

(American Labor Factory)

[Wojo 2,453]

39 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

One of its major functions is to offload weight, so we can call it the ALF boot.

 

I'd like to order a BLT: Bacon, Lucky, and Tomato. Ha! I kill me. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

1 hour ago, Nick Parker said:

 

For godssake, Richard, we're talking about dinosaurs here: we have real evidence of how they would look! It's not like we're talking about some total fantasy like the moon landing. 

 

Also, regardless of how accurate they may or may not be to the real deal, they look like they're really a part of the scene they inhabit.

Ah! The Wankosaurus. Died 65 million years ago, recreated 1.4.2019.

So...they look what could be described as "photorealistic"? Would that be better?

As for TLW/JP:III ("Alan!)/JW/JW:FK, the filmmakers were so concerned with whether they could, they never stopped to think whether they should.

 

 

Nick, I agree: the SFX, in JP, are still the best of the series, mostly because they are used sparingly, and with great imagination.

And now, I'm turning off the light on this particular conversation, and bidding it goodnight.

 

Ps, the Moon landings were real...unfortunately.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

1 minute ago, Richard said:

Ps, the Moon landings were real...unfortunately.

 

Dammit!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

1 hour ago, W0$ said:

 

So when a doctor fits a patient with a broken foot into a plastic shoe that we call a moonboot, if we had never been to the moon, what else would we call it? 

You know old Russian fairy tale, Cinderella? If shoe feets, wear eet.

[publicist 4,643]

3 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

Contender for what?

 

People's best of lists...spare time, affection etc.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

38 minutes ago, publicist said:

People's best of lists...spare time, affection etc.

Spare time maybe - but not affection - and I'm gonna leave this place forever, when anyone puts it in their best of list.

2 hours ago, Richard said:

Nick, I agree: the SFX, in JP, are still the best of the series, mostly because they are used sparingly, and with great imagination.

And now, I'm turning off the light on this particular conversation, and bidding it goodnight.

TLW looked even better.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

4 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

For godssake, Richard, we're talking about dinosaurs here: we have real evidence of how they would look!

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

Well done, Marian! Post of the week!

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Why is that so funny?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

It just is.

To get you it, you have to be either weird, or me. Fortunately, I qualify, on both counts 

[Romão 2,274]

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

 

In my view, this was easily the best Marvel movie I have ever seen. And one of the very few 3d animation movies in recent years that looks unique. I wish comic book adaptations would follow this route, serves the source material much, much better. If only WB would do an animated Batman movie in a similar vein, adapting something like The Long Halloween, perhaps. Not perfect, but very enjoyable, very engrossing and much better than any live action superhero movie in recent years.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

We just watched Bad Times at The El Royale. Dave and I really enjoyed it.

[A24 4,336]

That title ... somehow it sounds like a Tarantino movie to me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It didn't get very good reviews.

[Jay 37,364]

We watched that, I didn't like it too much overall.  Great cast, good music and score, interesting premise, decent direction, set design, overall production values.... but fairly non-interesting script, and way too slow pacing.  The film was 2 1/2 hours and could have been a lean 100 minutes.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

9 hours ago, Stefancos said:

It didn't get very good reviews.

Incorrect. It got 163 good reviews against 57 bad and Alex's comments was not the first to say that it seemed Tarintino-ish.

 

I disagree with Jay that it should haven been a lean 100 minutes. I loved its slow burn. I think Jeff Bridges gave a fantastic performance. There is one moment of Jeopardy in the film with Bridges unable to remember that broke my heart.

[Jay 37,364]

Bridges was great

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He's pretty much always solid right? Even if a film isn't.

[Jay 37,364]

I can't recall seeing a bad performance from him

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

Tru, dat. He is among a very small group of actors who are able to transcend the script, and make the lines sound like something special.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

He's pretty much always solid right? Even if a film isn't.

This wasn't just solid.