Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

#33113
vfx fan wrote:The twist ending of SPLIT put the biggest smile I've ever had on my face. It is taking every ounce of my being to not spoil it.

As for the rest of the movie, I'm kinda having mixed feelings. I will have to watch it again.


Seems like Shyamalan finally has another box office hit too. Been a while.

edit: I just looked it up and it looks like it is going wide in Europe this weekend and then some other territories to follow so it should do very well especially considering it only has a reported budget of $10 million.
#33135
Ian has a nice retro look at Dante's Peak's large scale miniatures with the film's vfx supervisor(and ILM alum) Pat McClung. This movie is still one of those things I will stop and watch if I'm flipping through and it's on. Call it one of those guilty pleasures.

https://vfxblog.com/2017/02/07/the-race ... years-ago/

DD's work on this was terrific. Still enjoy it.

Twenty years ago. :eek: Jesus.
#33142
Jedi wrote:Didn't he just supervise work on Star Trek Beyond? Or am I thinking of someone else?


That's possible. I saw that in theaters and don't remember seeing his name but…there were lots of them. :)

I do know DNeg veteran Peter Chiang supervised the vfx work.
#33166
GET OUT joins the ranks of one of the great horror movies, even though the critics liked it for different reasons...

I found it to be genuinely chilling and atmospheric throughout, made better with brilliant performances.

I want Jordan Peele to make more horror flicks. In fact, I want him and James Wan to team up.
User avatar
By ShaneP
#33172
ninja turtle wrote:Is Storaro the cinematographer?

Sadly Bertolucci is on a wheelchair and he dosen't work anymore(he made his last movie in 2011 if i remember right).


Yes Storaro is the DOP. Frequently worked with Bertolucci in the 70s and 80s. I love their collaborations and this film is a visual masterpiece.

I'm a huge fan of The Last Emperor too.
User avatar
By vfx fan
#33184
So I spent my St. Patty's Day seeing BEAUTY AND THE BEAST...and today, I am drinking it off. This movie made me cry, just as the 1991 version did, but not because I'm forever alone, unlike the titular characters of said movies, but because of Disney's trend of live-action remakes...especially this one. Thus far, they only managed to make a good (even great) remake out of PETE'S DRAGON. MALEFICENT backfired, I forgot CINDERELLA existed, and THE JUNGLE BOOK was boring AF.

BATB '17 wasn't boring or poorly made...it was just everything I expected. No risks taken. Whatever new idea this live-action version had was too much of a pussy to explore them. And whatever new song it had was nowhere near as catchy...even the new Celine Dion song played during the credits...and Emma Watson is not that great of an actress, she's just better than Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint. If anything, this movie made me love the animated verson even more.

The Beast was very well-done, and the movie is nice to look at, but it was nothing I'mever going to remember -- the dance in the animated version was far more breathtaking -- and some of the other CG characters, such as the wardrobe and the harpsichord thing, looked awkwardly terrifying.

Overall: C-
User avatar
By ShaneP
#33185
Yeah I really don't see what the point is with these live action films if they're going to lock themselves into the previous animated story template and rigorously follow it. Why do it then if you're not going to add anything new or cinematic to it? Money. That's all it is. I hate to be cynical about it but if you're going to make a live action film do something at least a bit different. The Jungle Book was different enough. Maleficent at least tried to tell that story from a different point of view.

But so far these live action films are a very mixed bag. Pete's Dragon was good. But it was very different from the original from what I remember.

These films and the Marvel films overall are just not that interesting. With the Marvel films it's down to the individual directors for me and my interest level in what they can bring to those stories. That's why I'm interested to see what Ryan Coogler can bring to The Black Panther. But even the Russos managed to make a very boring third Captain America film after really delivering a great film with The Winter Soldier.
#33186
ShaneP wrote:Yeah I really don't see what the point is with these live action films if they're going to lock themselves into the previous animated story template and rigorously follow it. Why do it then if you're not going to add anything new or cinematic to it? Money. That's all it is. I hate to be cynical about it but if you're going to make a live action film do something at least a bit different. The Jungle Book was different enough. Maleficent at least tried to tell that story from a different point of view.

But so far these live action films are a very mixed bag. Pete's Dragon was good. But it was very different from the original from what I remember.


I haven't seen BATB'17 yet, but I agree with the sentiment. Be different. Change things. It was sort of cool seeing the first trailer's footage side-by-side with the original movie to see how they imitated shots and angles, but after a while it got boring. If I wanted to watch the original, I'd just watch the original.
User avatar
By ShaneP
#33187
TylerMirage wrote:
ShaneP wrote:Yeah I really don't see what the point is with these live action films if they're going to lock themselves into the previous animated story template and rigorously follow it. Why do it then if you're not going to add anything new or cinematic to it? Money. That's all it is. I hate to be cynical about it but if you're going to make a live action film do something at least a bit different. The Jungle Book was different enough. Maleficent at least tried to tell that story from a different point of view.

But so far these live action films are a very mixed bag. Pete's Dragon was good. But it was very different from the original from what I remember.


I haven't seen BATB'17 yet, but I agree with the sentiment. Be different. Change things. It was sort of cool seeing the first trailer's footage side-by-side with the original movie to see how they imitated shots and angles, but after a while it got boring. If I wanted to watch the original, I'd just watch the original.


Did you ever see Gus Van Sant's shot by shot remake of Psycho? That's another example although even more preposterous.

But look at the box office numbers. 170 million in NA alone this weekend. $350 million worldwide. They clearly know how to deliver the formula. But that's all it is: formulaic, paint by numbers.
#33189
ShaneP wrote:Did you ever see Gus Van Sant's shot by shot remake of Psycho? That's another example although even more preposterous.

But look at the box office numbers. 170 million in NA alone this weekend. $350 million worldwide. They clearly know how to deliver the formula. But that's all it is: formulaic, paint by numbers.


I haven't, but I've been told by a few people that it's one of the more ridiculous remakes because of how...well, remakey it is. :lol:

Oh yeah, there was no doubt in my mind that this movie was going to make mad bank. We view the whole "it's the same thing"-thing as a negative, but let's face it, everyone's going to it that up. (Heck, I'm going to see it next weekend.) It's entire marketing is aimed at HEY EVERYONE REMEMBER THE ORIGINAL WELL WE HOPE YOU LIKED THE ANIMATED VERSION BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING IT TO YOU EXACTLY HOW YOU REMEMBER IT EXCEPT WITH LIVE-ACTION.

My buddy and I have a saying: "I respect a risky failure over a safe success", and that's kind of how I feel about some movies these days (in particular, something like BATB'17 or most Marvel flicks).

And it's such a double-edged sword, too. If they changed it up and made it unique, people would complain. If they didn't change it up, people would complain. That's the danger of reboots and remakes.
#33191
Yeah safe and risk adverse is really understandable when you consider that these are huge corporations with shareholders to satisfy. They really don't have a choice.

Most of the edgier and riskier, and middle-budgeted film projects, have migrated to television and streaming now anyway. We are left with pure indie small budget films and massive vfx known-branded tentpoles. There are exceptions but they are just that.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27