Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 14, 2004, 09:17:06 am
-
Who's seen the trailer? Who thinks it's going to rock
-
I downloaded the trailer yesterday. It looks pretty damn good. One thing, though and I'm hoping it was the download, spiderman looked 10 times more computer generated than the last movie.
But it looked bad ass
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
spiderman looked 10 times more computer generated than the last movie.
Gotta agree. I wonder why they make it look that way - surely technology can do better nowadays.
-
Never cared about all that superhero sh1t.
Except for X2. That was somewhat cool.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Gotta agree. I wonder why they make it look that way - surely technology can do better nowadays.
Maybe it's aiming for an intentional cartoony effect? I think Hulk went for the same idea, didn't it?
-
What he said. X2 was the only halfway decent one. I never even bothered to see Spiderman 'cause I didn't want to ruin my fond memories. The Hulk was also, well, atrocious. Except for that one part when Nick Nolte goes crazy and throws a tantrum. That was awesome :D:D
-
One of the main things I hate about new movies is the over-reliance on special effects. For example, the first and second Matrix movies. First one - awesome special effects, with ingenious new camera techniques and green-screen stuff. Second one - purely CG-ed fight scenes (eg the Neo vs. Smiths scene), with no actual people in them at all. What's the point? You can tell it's not real. Even if the film has a completely daft plot, I still want it to look convincing.
And the LOTR movies as well - they CG-ed characters rather than shooting them with green-screen.
I think it's just producers being lazy. Rather than set up tricky or large-scale scenes, they'll just stick it all through a computer 'cos it's cheaper or easier, even though it looks patently stupid (go and watch the trailer for the Mask sequel - you'll see what I mean). Can't stand it.
Having said all that, I've seen neither the S2 trailer or the first film, so I can't really comment on it. :D
-
But with LOTR, the CG was superb. I mean, you can't very well have 40,000 actors. The way it was done, all the close up soldiers were actual people, and everything in the background was CG. So really, anything that was close enough to see clearly was probably real-life.
Also, the WETA Digital Cg system (forget what its called) was designed to make the soldiers and orcs and such look and move like real people. They had an insane amount of sricpting and AI in there to simulate a real battle. You could just hit a button and all the CG charcters would have a real-looking battle with flanking, retreats, blocking and all that good stuff.
-
The only thing I can think of with the Spider Man trailer is that they haven't finished optimising the spider CGI for the trailer. Sure, they put him in there, but maybe they have to do touch-up to give it the "real" look.
The reason movie companies are using CGI is because it's a lot cheaper and more dynamic than filming real people in real environments. I have to agree, though, that movies are becoming too dependant on the CGI and losing touch with the actual story telling.
-
Don't base LOTR's CG usage - it was necessary - and they really busted their butts to make things sweet looking as rictor said
-
LOTR had great film work done on all aspects of that movie. Some real professional work they did on that movie and I agree...CGI was entirely necessary for everything that they did. You can't build that stuff...
As for Spiderman 2...loved the first and I hope they do a great sequel. Lots of potential....X-Men 2 was a great movie too. So lets hope! Also keep in mind that trailers often have CGI that isn't finished yet....
-
LOTRs' best use of CGI was probably the 'invisible' stuff - like managing to turn the tallest actor in the cast into a dwarf, without it ever being obvious.
-
Though I wouldn't say I'm an expert, I know my way around the X-Men universe. I'm pretty pissed at the director who botched it in a few areas. Its little things, but they account for a large portion of why I like X-Men. I mean, the whole humans vs mutants angle was oversimplified and dumbed down for the masses. You've got a potentially deep character like Magneto and the role is squandered (nothing to do with Ian McKellan, he did a good job). Same with Xavier. Also, making Rouge, Iceman & Co teenagers was a bad move.
Alright, I'm starting to sound like a fanboy, so I'll just stop myself right here. :D:D
PS: Visually, the characters suck. The art director couldn't find his/her bunghole with both hands
-
If only Jack Nicholson had been 20 years younger, you would have had the ultimate Wolverine :(
As for Spiderman 2, I haven't seen the trailer but I shan't hold my breath, I've yet to see a live action adaptation of a comic that does the comic justice, and as for 'Fists of the Northstar'..... Worst.Film.Evar. ( Though I think this was from an Anime, not a Manga ).
-
Actually, I think Hugh Jackman is a very good Wolverine.
I recently saw Fight Club again, and I think that bartender, Irving I think his name was, would make a great Wolverine. He's got the bigass sideburns going :D:D
-
Peter is still gay, but Spiderman vs. Doc Oc will rock.
-
Well, I suppose they did the lotr thing here, they tried to turn a 6'2 Australian into a 5'0 Canadian.
In my own opinion they failed. He was good, but the Wolverine I read about was about 35-40 years old, full of bad habits, often scruffy, and one wisecracking egotistical s.o.b. i.e. He was 'real', he could screw up. That was what always made me like Wolvy most out of all the comicbook characters.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Peter is still gay, but Spiderman vs. Doc Oc will rock.
I thought Toby Maguire nailed the role of Peter in the first flick. I've been reading Spider-Man comics as far back as I can remember and I thought Maguire was perfect for the role.
Yeah, the CGI effects do seem a bit blatant, but I can live with that. I've been looking forward to this movie for two years. Only a horendous catastrophe could screw it up for me.
And yes, Spidey vs. Doc Ock will indeed rock. :)
-
Peter Parker is still gay. On the same level as Clark Kent.
-
So's Magneto/Gandalf and Neo. You don't see anyone making fun of them, do you?
-
:wtf: I'm not talking about actors. Besides, Magneto and Gandalf are above sex and Neo got his skank on a few times IIRC. *shudder*
-
As far as the LOTR movies go, of course they couldn't film a pitched battle or build Minas Tirith, and the vast majority of it is done incredibly well, but there were some really annoying bits where CG was used. There's a bit in the first 'un where they're all running across the top of a ridge (just after coming out of Moria I think), and it looks obviously CG - the characters aren't moving quite right. And there's a dream/vision scene (either Strider or Arwen) with a little kid running through a ruin and a really bright white light, and the kid is obviously CGed.
-
I have to agree with the CGI. However, they could still be un-finished footage, so they might look better in the actual film. They did look kinda rubbery. However, the film looks like its gonna rock. Though I was kinda annoyed that they exposed so much of the plot, to the point of knowing the whole thing. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Peter Parker is still gay. On the same level as Clark Kent.
Let me see if I get this straight. Peter Parker married (and banged) Mary Jane and Clark Kent married (and banged) Lois Lane and you accuse those two guys of being gay? How does that work?
Originally posted by Knight Templar
:wtf: I'm not talking about actors. Besides, Magneto and Gandalf are above sex and Neo got his skank on a few times IIRC. *shudder*
Let's see, Magneto and Gandalf are both played by the same actor (I've heard several times that Ian McKellan is gay, BTW) but Magneto and Gandalf are "above sex." Uh-huh...
KT accused two married superheroes of being gay, but the non-attached and "sexless" male characters of Magneto and Gandalf get a pass.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Gotta agree. I wonder why they make it look that way - surely technology can do better nowadays.
they did the same (if you remember) with the original Spiderman trailer... "Spiderman" looked completely CG. however in the movie he doesn't, only in the trailer.
i assume it's probably because in the trailer he is CG? remember the trailer for Spiderman 1 (with the robbers at the bank and the helicopter on a web between the two towers?)... i think they don't give much effort into making the trailer (like filming it and stuff) but i'm pretty convinced the whole movie won't look CGI ;)
-
i rember reading that for Spider-man 2 they'll be using a new, more advanced ATI shader for skin rendering, so me thinks it should look better.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Let me see if I get this straight. Peter Parker married (and banged) Mary Jane and Clark Kent married (and banged) Lois Lane and you accuse those two guys of being gay? How does that work?
NOT IN THE MOVIES!!!!!!!
-
IMHO, his portrayal of Spiderman was horrible. He made him come off as an over-emotional wimp who suddenly had super powers. This description also would work for Clark Kent in Smallville. Neither of them really seem to fit the mold of a superhero. They seem more like what some stupid teenage girl would like.
-
Personally, I think they're building Clark up to be the uber-pussy for when he 'goes Kalel' and snaps.
Lana will be all "Clark, why won't you tell me what's wrong?" and he'll be all "Y'know what, **** it. I'm an alien with super-powers and I'm sick of your ****ing whining. Let me do my **** and save the world, then maybe, MAYBE, I'll let you have sex with Chloe for my amusement".
-
That'd be the best plot twist they've had in any show in years. The FCC would murder all of the WB executives and Smallville writers with mafia hitmen shortly afterwards, but it'd be worth it.
-
peter parker WAS a whiney ass nerd before he became spider man - they're still developing out very early on
IIRC at first in the comic he kept MJ at a distance for the same reason as he did in the movie... or my memory is flawed - no matter what it fits the character of spider man
-
Still doesn't make for very good entertainment. I mean, if I want to see someone act like a nerd, I'd go hang out at a Star Trek convention or something.
-
if you cannot handle having a full range of characters in movies then you'd sadly uncultured
-
It's more or less that I find the characterization present in the first Spiderman movie incredibly annoying. I don't mind nerds. Most of my friends are nerds. But his was what seems to be what Hollywood thinks nerds are, and it annoys me immensely.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
It's more or less that I find the characterization present in the first Spiderman movie incredibly annoying. I don't mind nerds. Most of my friends are nerds. But his was what seems to be what Hollywood thinks nerds are, and it annoys me immensely.
A characterization of nerds consisting of being awkward around women? Of being uncomfortable with large groups of people? Of being tormented by brainless jocks? Of feeling that no one understands you?
As a nerd -- excuse me, as a FORMER nerd ;) -- I can heartily understand that Hollywood's characterization of nerds seems to be spot on. Hell, I can even offer a testimonial to that effect. :D
-
... To me, in the movie, Parker seems more like a jerk than a nerd, to be honest. Something in the character makes him look like he's considering everybody to be not worthy of his time.
-
That and his stupid woman-like games of "love me!- I don't love you!" with MJ.
-
Originally posted by Nico
... To me, in the movie, Parker seems more like a jerk than a nerd, to be honest. Something in the character makes him look like he's considering everybody to be not worthy of his time.
See, Parker was never a nerd. He was just a geek.
Especially so after he got his powers. Sure, he'd tinker with technology, but he was also out partying with the in crowd and hanging with Harry Osbourne and all his porn-star girlfriends.
He's boned some of the best looking women in the Marvel universe: Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, Felicia Hardy, Deborah Whitman.......
If he'd managed to bed Sue Richards he'd have been an absolute legend.
-
Originally posted by an0n
If Parker had managed to bed Sue Richards he'd have been an absolute legend.
He would be even more of a legend if he managed to get away from reed Richards and his wandering/stretching hands.... :wtf: :nervous: :D
-
yeah I don't know why she would want to when her husband can elongate any part of his body to unnatural proportions at will.
-
[ SPAM ] http://www.b3ta.com/spidermanwillmakeyougay/ [ /SPAM ]
-
Haha. Cool.
-
hem.
-
In smallville didn't clark kent already turn bad? I think I remember seeing that... He went to Metropolis and started to do bank robberies on his own... He had this big ass scar on his chest too that kept glowing red. I think it had to do with some red ring he wore or something. He kept Lana on a string...
In regards to Spidey: I personally didn't like him in the movie for the simple fact that he seemed too... too... I don't know, not smart ass enough. I think it would have been better with Freddy Prince Jr.
-
Red kryptonite. Does crazy things to Kryptonians. Other varieties of kryptonite, excluding the common green, are gold (strips Kryptonians of their powers permanently) and blue (only affects Bizzaro Kryptonians). Unfortunately, he went back to being a wimp afterwards.
-
This discussion made me wonder a few things. Could someone fill in the linguistically challenged, the difference between nerd and geek. Apparently, seven years of cruising the intardnet hasn't made me realise the difference yet.
I guess I had it coming, being a former soviet republican.
-
Nerd = WWF Fan, checked shirt, smells funny, talks about quarks and Napoleonic Campaigns.
Geek = Member of the AV Club, watches Star Trek, has friends, knows about quarks but doesn't talk about them in public.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Nerd = WWF Fan, checked shirt, smells funny, talks about quarks and Napoleonic Campaigns.
Geek = Member of the AV Club, watches Star Trek, has friends, knows about quarks but doesn't talk about them in public.
Aside from the AV club thingie (what the heck is that, anyway?) I qualify as a geek, not a nerd. And I sure as hell don't smell funny.
Thank God for my cologne. :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
Nerd = WWF Fan, checked shirt, smells funny, talks about quarks and Napoleonic Campaigns.
Geek = Member of the AV Club, watches Star Trek, has friends, knows about quarks but doesn't talk about them in public.
Where do you get WWF fan? :wtf:
-
By the bus stop. You can sneak up through the ****es and catch them by surprise.
-
AV club = audio/video club?
-
Yup.
-
Subsitute RPGs and overclocking for AV Club, and I fit your definition of a geek.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Nerd = WWF Fan, checked shirt, smells funny, talks about quarks and Napoleonic Campaigns.
Geek = Member of the AV Club, watches Star Trek, has friends, knows about quarks but doesn't talk about them in public.
since the only thing I share with those definitions is having friends, I guess I'm neither a nerd or a geek, yey!
-
WWF = Stoners and Redneck hicks.