|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 12, 2005 15:03:21 GMT
Ive heard of all the critics about acting, editing etc
When I looked at some of the PP stills I cant help but feel in a lot of stills theres a strong sensitivity to colour.
This is very exciting to me. This pushes it towards the impressionist style of art rather than the real life interpretation we get from hollywood. Ive always loved films with a strong sense of style.
I know from Speilberg were going to get gritty realism. He says so and I know it will be! I hope in this case what we see from Hines is deliberate limited use of colou in scenes to create atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 12, 2005 17:31:37 GMT
I like the way the color looks as well, makes it look artsy and kinda old. Reminds me alot of Sky Captains coloring and I dont know why. I dont doubt that there is talent at PP, I just question the commitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 17:41:03 GMT
To me it look cheap and nasty. You guys like it, thats cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 12, 2005 17:42:31 GMT
I don't think you can get color to look that old cheaply lol. Funny thing is, everytime you try and make something look older and less hi tech, the price seems to go up.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 17:44:45 GMT
I don't think you can get color to look that old cheaply lol. Funny thing is, everytime you try and make something look older and less hi tech, the price seems to go up. This must be costing a fortune, it all looks low tech. |
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Feb 12, 2005 17:49:23 GMT
lol now now motile,...................umm........yeah uh be nice? Uggh Ive used up all my wit for today.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 18:18:34 GMT
Ok dude, im just in a jovial mood.
On a serious note if they are trying to make that effect on purpose and half of us will see it as cheap and nasty I cant see the point of doing it, in the teaser it all looks normal but in the effects shots it goes all "old and lo tech" but if all the way through is constantly changing from normal to "stylised" wont that get a little obvious and a bit annoying?
|
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 12, 2005 18:28:46 GMT
the effects that we've seen so far are not hollywood standard. but, when watching the movie as a cohesive whole, with all of the effects scenes in place, i'm sure it will be at least entertaining. unlike a lot of other peeps, i think the acting is as good as anything else. mrs. elphinstone is a little stiff, but we've only seen her deliver one line.
in order to enjoy this movie, it is going to be required that we lower our standards of what we are used to expecting regarding FX. i think that when its finished, based on the material from the 3 trailers we have seen, that it will be a decent movie. it will be FAR from perfect... SS could have realized our dreams for us... but i'm confident that it will be a solid telling of the story on the screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 18:43:01 GMT
Im not talking about the effects malf, im on about the subject of this thread. Look at the effects shots compared with the normal shots in the teaser, its like switching channels to different programes, surely that will be pretty blatent through the film, like when Al walked into the room in Quantum leap, you could tell when he was going to walk out again, that kind of obvious difference but on a much grander scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by thed0ct0r on Feb 12, 2005 18:46:38 GMT
The reason it looks so colourful and sharp is because it was shot on video. The article taken from Animation Reporter indicates that Hine's may use software such as "Magic Bullet Sweet" to soften the picture and "Black Diffusion" give it a film-like appearane. Apparently though he doesn't seem to like this idea and believes eventually high-def video will take over film. (I recall Burt Reynolds' character in "Boogie Nights" being told this by up-n-coming porn producers and we all know how that didn't happen!) It seems unlikely the finished product will resemble something that was shot on a camcorder. Of course if the finalized video is transferred to film it will have a more or less professional feel to it anyway (a la 28 Days later).
|
|
|
|
Post by epicdream on Feb 12, 2005 19:00:04 GMT
The thing is, when Hi-Def is shot right (with a good Director of Photography), you can give it a look that resembles film.
IMHO a good example of well shot Hi-Def is "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" (love it or hate it...). Otherwise it looks like video and all of the filters in the world wont help you...
Neill
|
|
|
|
Post by malfunkshun on Feb 12, 2005 19:24:11 GMT
Im not talking about the effects malf, im on about the subject of this thread. Look at the effects shots compared with the normal shots in the teaser, its like switching channels to different programes, surely that will be pretty blatent through the film, like when Al walked into the room in Quantum leap, you could tell when he was going to walk out again, that kind of obvious difference but on a much grander scale. and thats what i meant when i said that when we see the movie as a whole, with live action shots interspersed with effects, that it would not be hollywood quality, but it also, most likely, be cohesive enough to be watchable and entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 12, 2005 19:50:04 GMT
I hope he does use some technique to harmonise the effects in to the live action. Its my one gripe I really have. When I looked at the hi-res images in eve of the war they look so much better than the quality in the trailer and did help to further boost my hope that this film will be something I look forward too.
However it is very obvious where the effects end and the live action meets. At the very least the focus of the CGI needs to be softened even if he was going to leave it in it's original format.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cylinder on Feb 12, 2005 23:07:28 GMT
Why should we lower our standards as film audiences just cause some schmuck doesn't know how to manage a 40m dollar budget properly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Feb 12, 2005 23:15:02 GMT
Why should we lower our standards as film audiences just cause some schmuck doesn't know how to manage a 40m dollar budget properly? And the reason you call Mr. Hines a schmuck would be...? Please refrain from calling people names. -Gnorn |
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 23:27:32 GMT
Personaly I think maybe it was to early in Tims career to take on a project that had so much importance with its fan base, he should have had a couple of projects under his belt that actualy made it to cinema or at the very least DVD, now dont get me wrong im not talking about the film here im talking about the management of the whole thing, if it had better managment I personaly would have had a better out look for this film, foe instance if they only released one trailer that was half as long with no effects shots just some better acting and better music along with a much better poster I now might sit on the other camp.
Its NOT a dig at Tim, just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 12, 2005 23:43:29 GMT
Personaly I think maybe it was to early in Tims career to take on a project that had so much importance with its fan base, he should have had a couple of projects under his belt that actualy made it to cinema or at the very least DVD, now dont get me wrong im not talking about the film here im talking about the management of the whole thing, if it had better managment I personaly would have had a better out look for this film, foe instance if they only released one trailer that was half as long with no effects shots just some better acting and better music along with a much better poster I now might sit on the other camp. Its NOT a dig at Tim, just my thoughts. Maybe he just wants to please so you get three trailers. I was hopeful with the first one and second but I do admit that Big Ben shot needs improvement. Even I noticed a lot of detail was missing and Im from up north. I see as much as anyone outside the UK. As for the PR I dont know what to think. Ive found little for other films and lots for others. For example Peter Jackson goes on and on and he admits he hasn't even seen the model of King KOng yet. I do get frustrated by the lack of chat or responce but then... ...I'm currently developing my own thing, yet I waste so much just havin a peep at the forums, responding to other peoples thoughts etc. It does take time off your work time. Then you have personal commitments etc and pro commitments. I suppose we should commend his discipline that he can resist the temptation of responding to everycrit he recieves on the posts. There are a few on tinternet. Lets give the guy a chance. I like some of his style and I was not impressed when I thought he had $40 million but he may have had less... |
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 12, 2005 23:54:10 GMT
LOL you talk like hes all on his own, does he not have a team? The whole thing has been shoddy from the start, its out next month and still nothing, he promissed the trailer "in cinemas" this month, well erm.....not in my local cinema there not, any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacs on Feb 13, 2005 0:08:19 GMT
How much of other films do we actaully see? Star wars shows some.
I watched Riddick today and fell a asleep. But the effects WOW!
A lot of monster trailers show nothing. Jurassic park showed sweet FA!
Hines did say the trailer would show glimpses of FX. But he did also say he would keep the martians out of sight until the film was released. We also know hes dropped some the water scenes cause of the tsunami.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 13, 2005 0:38:09 GMT
Im gonna just keep my mouth shut until i have seen what he can produce.
|
|
