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

Moderator: malducin

#33198
So LIFE lost the coin toss to POWER RANGERS tonight, but I really do want to see it.

But anyway, POWER RANGERS: It is essentially Diet IRON MAN, Diet TRANSFORMERS, Diet PACIFIC RIM, and Krispy Kreme.

I found the fx underwhelming. They had a certain TV show quality, and if that's what the filmmakers were going for to pay homage (which doesn't make sense since the source material was composed of stock footage made by a retarded Kaiju film director), then this is an example of what you shouldn't do.

The film was tonally a mismatch between YA, '80s John Hughes (and some of '90s John Hughes), and mockbuster MCU. It seemed to try being like the show when action set in, which didn't mesh well with the character bits.

Digital Domain was the primary vendor, as they were listed first in the credits, but I think Scanline had the most names.
#33306
vfx fan wrote:So yeah, FAST 8. It had a baby that looked so ugly, I wondered if it was CG or just really ugly.


Maybe I was just distracted the Shaw brothers teaming up and flying friggin' jetpacks into the loading dock of a C-17 to then have a Jackie Chan-styled fight, but I can't say I noticed anything off about the baby. I mean, I can kind of remember the odd mouth movement looking slightly altered, possibly, but nothing jumped out at me as being overly fake. Guess I'll just have to watch this astronomically insane and over-the-top fun movie again when it comes out on Blu-Ray. :D

vfx fan wrote:GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 2 was groot. Thought it was better than the first one. Unlike the first movie, this one I wouldn't mind seeing again...and I was totally jerking off to Weta's porn.


Agreed, vfx fan. I enjoyed the sequel far more than the first one. GOTG2 felt more like a self-contained story, rather than something that was trying really hard to fit into a universe. I laughed way more in this one than the first, and Drax and Yondu both stole the show for me, even if it was just another generic meal served up by McMarvel's.
#33313
I really enjoyed Guardians 2. But I still think they are nothing truly groundbreaking or memorable beyond just summer fun.

I will say though that Lola's young Kurt work was, as their work always is, spectacular.

But would these movies please stop showing shots of people able to hang on behind fast moving spacecraft, slamming into things or having incredible grips of steel, even while hitting things. That was some seriously naff stuff.
#33318
ShaneP wrote:But would these movies please stop showing shots of people able to hang on behind fast moving spacecraft, slamming into things or having incredible grips of steel, even while hitting things. That was some seriously naff stuff.


Are you referring to Drax's apparent immortality when being dragged behind the ship and smashing into trees? :lol:
#33322
TylerMirage wrote:
ShaneP wrote:But would these movies please stop showing shots of people able to hang on behind fast moving spacecraft, slamming into things or having incredible grips of steel, even while hitting things. That was some seriously naff stuff.


Are you referring to Drax's apparent immortality when being dragged behind the ship and smashing into trees? :lol:


Exactly! His and Zoe's was completely ridiculous.
#33340
As I've gotten older I don't get to the cinema as much as I used to. My wife and I recently saw WONDER WOMAN, which I thought was entertaining, but not great. I watch most movies at my giant home cinema and just watched A CURE FOR WELLNESS, which was appropriately creepy and visually stunning, and ALLIED, which I found to be a great piece of entertainment, with the usual Zemeckis flair...And of course, JOHN WICK 2...
#33341
A CURE FOR WELLNESS would've been decent if they hired an editor, but instead, it was obvious they spent the budget on the cinematographer. The movie is perhaps a little too breathtaking to look at.

I am so not interested in WFTPOTA. ROTPOTA was pretty good but DOTPOTA was boring. And I am growing to hate people who credit Andy Serkis for his performance and shafting the vfx crew.

As for the CG apes, I must say I'm kinda underwhelmed based on what's in the trailers, I seem to recall them looking a lot better in the second movie.
#33413
Trades today are reporting Box Office is heading for its lowest numbers in NA in a quarter century.

What is bringing this on in your opinion?

Is it bad movies? Is television and other media(like games) taking a bite out of the share of people going to theaters?

Last week it was reported that numbers were the lowest for a summer in a decade but now it's 25 years.

What are your thoughts?

What could turn it around?

Here's a piece:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/In-a ... 816776.php
#33414
vfx fan wrote:I am so not interested in WFTPOTA. ROTPOTA was pretty good but DOTPOTA was boring. And I am growing to hate people who credit Andy Serkis for his performance and shafting the vfx crew.

As for the CG apes, I must say I'm kinda underwhelmed based on what's in the trailers, I seem to recall them looking a lot better in the second movie.


While I agree with you on Andy Serkis being kind of a dick to VFXers, I can tell you right now that there's shots in the new Apes that are, to be blunt, FUCKING MIND BLOWING. Every shot with "Bad Ape", Maurice, most of Caesar..... and the shot design throughout the film is just perfect.

It's very much slower paced than something called "War..." would imply, but its an amazing western/revenge film with good character development, and good plotting. I think it's worth a shot at the theaters.
#33415
You know, I would like to see Andy Serkis play a CG baby in a remake of BABY'S DAY OUT. I'm being serious here.

I saw WOTPOTA in the theaters, and you're right on all counts, Jedi. But I thought it was just good, not great. It isn't a movie that I would see again unless I perhaps stumble upon it on television.
#33417
ShaneP wrote:Trades today are reporting Box Office is heading for its lowest numbers in NA in a quarter century.

What is bringing this on in your opinion?

Is it bad movies? Is television and other media(like games) taking a bite out of the share of people going to theaters?

Last week it was reported that numbers were the lowest for a summer in a decade but now it's 25 years.

What are your thoughts?

What could turn it around?

Here's a piece:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/In-a ... 816776.php


My initial reaction is that it's franchise fatigue (over the past few years you can see it for several franchises (X-Men, TMNT, Night at the Museum, Star Trek, and this year it's Transformers, Pirates, Apes, and F&F [domestically]). But then again, those boring-@$$ and repetative Marvel movies that keep getting pumped out continue to make mad bank, so it's not affecting every franchise. It's not even the whole "bad movies are finally getting what they deserve"-schtick that some internet folk keep toting, because otherwise Apes would've done way better.

I'm sure there's been plenty of discussion about how the economy, Netflix, home media sales, etc. also come into play.

Jedi wrote:
vfx fan wrote:I am so not interested in WFTPOTA. ROTPOTA was pretty good but DOTPOTA was boring. And I am growing to hate people who credit Andy Serkis for his performance and shafting the vfx crew.

As for the CG apes, I must say I'm kinda underwhelmed based on what's in the trailers, I seem to recall them looking a lot better in the second movie.


While I agree with you on Andy Serkis being kind of a dick to VFXers, I can tell you right now that there's shots in the new Apes that are, to be blunt, FUCKING MIND BLOWING. Every shot with "Bad Ape", Maurice, most of Caesar..... and the shot design throughout the film is just perfect.

It's very much slower paced than something called "War..." would imply, but its an amazing western/revenge film with good character development, and good plotting. I think it's worth a shot at the theaters.


I've said this before and I'll say it again, Serkis is the one actor on the planet who should be mentioning/praising the VFX artists who help turn his great performance into something just a little bit more, but he keeps wording his responses and quotes so poorly. Every time I see him lately it's all "everything comes from teh actor", "it's 100% me", etc..

But yeah, every shot of Maurice blew me away and most of Ceasar's work was phenomenal. :omg:
#33454
Blade Runner 2049.........what a long & boring film. Looks good set & FX wise but man did they really mess the film up. Its a simple story just poorly edited the scenes do not flow it takes 1.5 hours to really kick into gear then after a few brief action sequences it goes back to walking through treacle mode! Shame as it looks so good & shows a harsh & believeable future earth.

Makes STMP editing look like MTV :eek2:
#33456
PaulILMFan wrote:Blade Runner 2049.........what a long & boring film. Looks good set & FX wise but man did they really mess the film up. Its a simple story just poorly edited the scenes do not flow it takes 1.5 hours to really kick into gear then after a few brief action sequences it goes back to walking through treacle mode! Shame as it looks so good & shows a harsh & believeable future earth.

Makes STMP editing look like MTV :eek2:


Haven't see the movie yet, but Deakins is one of my favorite cinematographers and he is getting Oscar talk for this.
#33457
I remember thinking on first screening that the original didn't get 'into gear' till he was searching for the origin of the snake scales ... and that it went back to slow mode shortly thereafter. Still thought it was a great movie, and within five or six more viewings it became a classic for me. I've probably seen it ... maybe 120 times by now? Pretty good, considering I also like the novel and figure a good movie could be made from it that didn't owe much to the Scott film.

I haven't seen 2049 yet, but I'm very interested in it, as I keep thinking it is its own thing rather than a by-the-numbers sequel. And BR deserves that kind of approach. Plus (and this might be due to all the David Lynch exposure I'm getting lately), I'm starting to really get into s-l-o-w movies ... it may have started with STALKER about 10 years back. Anyway, if I can find a decent theater up here showing it in 2D, I'm going as soon as I am out from under a lot of writing deadlines. I remember a particular theater showing GRAVITY that was about a half-hour away and that looked good, so I'm hoping BR turns up there in a non3D form. I have seen maybe three movies in the theater since GRAVITY (which I saw three times, JUST to marvel at the visuals), so you understand this is a BIG deal for me.

Does anybody think the Academy is going to feel ashamed enough to award Deakins this time round? I've covered several of his films for ICG and HDVP, and except for HAIL CAESAR, every time I thought, 'this one is going to be it.'
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29