That's exactly the kind of movie you should see in 3D. At least they know it's a stupid gimmick
― Number None, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:38 (twelve years ago) link
3D's been collapsing in terms of box office for 18 months.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:41 (twelve years ago) link
what's so wrong is it cost $250 M before promotion.
yeah, this is sadly true. it shouldn't have cost anywhere near that much.
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:43 (twelve years ago) link
have heard this, but haven't seen the stats. any links you know of?
70% of Avatar's sales come from 3D; 40% of Harry Potter 7.2 came from 3D. Not a bubble as much as cyclical, I think.
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:45 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jeffrey-katzenberg-why-hollywood-is-196616
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:50 (twelve years ago) link
Not 18 months - 9.
i almost feel bad when i'm completely blasé about these incredibly expense visual effects they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to put on the screen. like, they're trying so hard, good for them, but i can't remember the last time i looked at CGI in a live action movie and felt like the money spent was remotely worth it.
― some dude, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:53 (twelve years ago) link
everybody's sick of artificially inflated spectacle, i think. it ain't a barnum and bailey world any more; throwing vast fantastical expanses and computerized pyrotechnics and digital establishing matte shots at the screen just leads to fatigue.
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:56 (twelve years ago) link
what's astounding to me is the that CGI at one point was considered a way to bring costs down, no? virtual worlds costing pennies on the dollar compared to models etc
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:57 (twelve years ago) link
watching buck rogers episodes on netflix with the kids and still totally enjoyable even though they spent five bucks an episode. 3 of that went to guest stars like jack palance and roddy mcdowell and one dollar for spandex and one dollar for fx.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:59 (twelve years ago) link
I can't remember the last time i was intrigued or impressed by the CGI-exaggerated scope/scale of a world. Maybe 'How to Train Your Dragon'? It's a sad state, when the basically limitless possibilities of world-building and fantasy representation afforded by new techology elicits, like, a jaded shrug.
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:00 (twelve years ago) link
It's a failure of imagination and creativity, i.e., "Ooh, we can put basically anything on screen. So let's do a regressive sword and sandals epic but make the monsters bigger and uglier."
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:02 (twelve years ago) link
longstanding lament of mine:
When Is Someone Gonna Make A Sci-Fi Show Or Movie Without Any People In Them?
― scott seward, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:21 (twelve years ago) link
ss: i have referenced that thread in real life conversations. the asesthetic of fantasy and sci-fi movies/tv seems to be locked in a '70s airbrushed van art groove, but lamer.
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:24 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, this is a fair point. imagine that a lot of that CGI money went to generating boring, barren martian landscapes (which looked pointedly dull in comparison to the gorgeous and obviously real shots of the ride down the river iss) and unimpressively "grand" interiors. there were some nice ruins here and there, but they were briefly glimpsed, unexplored. sort of wondered why they didn't have carter travel way, way back in time as well as across the solar system, even if that meant deviating from ERB. would have allowed for a more visually interesting mars.
and it's not like it's impossible to create interesting world-visions w CGI. i recently watched this super shitty french sci-fi flick called renaissance, which managed to create an intriguing (if clearly blade runner-derived) world on what was probably less than a 10th of john carter's budget.
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:55 (twelve years ago) link
Slate has had several good death of 3D pieces. This may be the best, and it's two years old:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2010/08/is_3d_dead_in_the_water.html
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:00 (twelve years ago) link
I can't remember the last time i was intrigued or impressed by the CGI-exaggerated scope/scale of a world.
Zodiac.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:01 (twelve years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8Kk
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:02 (twelve years ago) link
was not at all impressed by the very obvious CGI in zodiac. took me completely out of the movie. everything seemed weird and fake, most gratingly the overhead shot of the cab ride.
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:03 (twelve years ago) link
Seriously? So you saw all the scenes above and knew it was all CGI at the time? Or did you go into the movie knowing it was CGI? Because I had no idea.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:04 (twelve years ago) link
Seriously? haha xp
― butvi wouls (Phil D.), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:04 (twelve years ago) link
Were you actually like, "Fuck this bullshit, I can no longer enjoy this gripping crime thriller because they CGI'ed a cab instead of rebuilding 1969 San Francisco and renting a helicopter!!!"
― butvi wouls (Phil D.), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:05 (twelve years ago) link
Zodiac cgi was fantastic.
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:06 (twelve years ago) link
nah, i mean, i probably missed a lot of the more "ordinary" looking stuff, but the cab ride scene really threw me and after that i was looking for (and finding, no suprise) fakeyness everywhere.
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
plus i just didn't dig the movie, overall. been meaning to rewatch it for quite some time because i seem to be in the minority on this, love downey and loved the social network.
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:12 (twelve years ago) link
contenderizer contending
― mh, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:14 (twelve years ago) link
Robert Downey Jr. was an entirely CGI creation. You didn't know that?
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago) link
Rango was all right as a world, but the visual style was hardly new or exciting.
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago) link
whoa i had no idea there was cgi in zodiac, that video just blew my entire mind
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 19:01 (twelve years ago) link
it has that effect on people
― Number None, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 19:04 (twelve years ago) link
See? Awesome. I rest my case.
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 19:12 (twelve years ago) link
the cgi in zodiac is great, but sometimes i wonder why they can't just find a two lane highway at night.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 19:51 (twelve years ago) link
bcz david fincher
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:04 (twelve years ago) link
they should have cgi-extravagandapted c.s. lewis' out of the silent planet.
― the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:14 (twelve years ago) link
or as it no doubt would have been called, out of.
― the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:15 (twelve years ago) link
in case of potential confusion with Disney flop Treasure Planet
― Number None, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:16 (twelve years ago) link
i keep hearing that's good.
― the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:18 (twelve years ago) link
Treasure Planet? No, it was really by the numbers.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:23 (twelve years ago) link
lol a friend of mine did some of the CGI shots for Zodiac (specifically the Transamerica pyramid going up + the aerial shot that goes over the ferry building) - easily the best thing he was ever involved in, nice to see that work get some love
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:29 (twelve years ago) link
actually i guess out of the silent planet would have been called ELWIN RANSOM, which sounds like an ealing heist.
― the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:31 (twelve years ago) link
Shakey - Mr Veg lived in SF for abt 15 years through college etc, late 80's-late 90's, and he STILL talks about the Transamerica sequence and the aerial shots in Zodiac. I think those sequences were almost 100% of why he loved the movie! Well, those and the SF TV station/Melvyn Belli footage, he said it looked exactly the way he remembered it. Pretty sure your friend contributed to the adoring nostalgia of a lot of 40-something & older San Franciscans :)
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 20:44 (twelve years ago) link
david denby review in the new yorker is ugh. he is so ugh. he says that nobody could possibly understand what is going on in the movie. actually, i'll quote the line cuz i can't find the whole thing online:
"I wouldn't trust the sanity of any critic who claimed to understand what goes on in this movie."
i also think this line is actually racist somehow:
"The Therns, the Tharks, Dejah Thoris? You can't speak the names aloud without sounding like Daffy Duck."
David Denby is an interplanetary racist. There, I said it.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:27 (twelve years ago) link
they're all color-coded!
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:39 (twelve years ago) link
yeah the civil war parallels are REALLY hard to pick up on. wtf.
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:42 (twelve years ago) link
i hope he never has to review a bollywood movie. those CRAZY character names! how do they come up with them? american movie critic in stupid-ass stupid face shocker.
(sorry i hate that guy. not like i wish him harm or anything many blessings to him and his just his writing and his thoughts. and his stupid-ass stupid faceness.)
― scott seward, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:47 (twelve years ago) link
no, no, it's good. denby's sole purpose at the new yorker afaict is to make all the other writers look good by comparison. he's like the dero of movie writers.
― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:51 (twelve years ago) link
I would fight denby tbh
― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:54 (twelve years ago) link
he's like the derpy of movie writers
http://images.wikia.com/mlp/images/7/73/Derpy_id.png
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 23:05 (twelve years ago) link
this movie was very easy to understand, btw
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 20 March 2012 23:06 (twelve years ago) link