Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Posting on Upcoming Stephen King movie projects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Teriw View Post
    I liked the origin story in Man of Steel except his dads death. I call a big WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?! on that one. Back to the main topic...I am glad ben affleck will not be in the stand if it ever gets made. I like lesser known actors to take roles in book movies, someone who fits the part rather than just the biggest name they can manage. That being said though, I have no idea who Scott Cooper is or if he can act his way out of a paper bag or not. Just glab it's not Ben. Altho I think i'd rather see ben in the Stand than as Batman. But preferrably neither.
    Exactly! There are many up and coming or lesser knowns who can do just as good a job. Plus, for me at least, it almost the movie more believable. I am there to watch the movie, not the actor(s).

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by T-Dogz_AK47 View Post
      Without mentioning any spoilers, there is an epic smack down between Superman and General Zod, in which half the city gets wasted in the process.

      Although there are many people who have disliked this movie because of the amount of carnage and obvious loss of life that occurs in Metropolis, in my opinion the fight scene is a very realistic depiction of what would happen if two people with super powers were to actually slug it out for real.

      Interestingly, the Superman comics themselves depict an even greater level of violence and destruction...
      Perhaps, but not done on Superman's part. He will always try to save everyone, not smash a building filled with citizens to get the bad guy.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Theli View Post
        Perhaps, but not done on Superman's part. He will always try to save everyone, not smash a building filled with citizens to get the bad guy.
        I agree, but I also think the comics never really gave a accurate description of how he began as a hero. There's no way he had full control over his power that early on in his career, there had to be some collateral damage during his learning phase. So I feel the movie actually portrayed a more accurate description of what would happen if a rookie Superman fought someone like Zod in Metropolis.
        CD Email: danhocker@cemeterydance.com

        Non-Work related social media and what not:
        Instagram

        Buy my stuff! - https://www.etsy.com/shop/HockersWoodWorks

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Dan Hocker View Post
          I agree, but I also think the comics never really gave a accurate description of how he began as a hero. There's no way he had full control over his power that early on in his career, there had to be some collateral damage during his learning phase. So I feel the movie actually portrayed a more accurate description of what would happen if a rookie Superman fought someone like Zod in Metropolis.
          I would agree with you on that 100%. Thus would make it more believable, more of a human feel, in a sense.

          Comment


            #35
            Maybe. But I still liked the 1978 version of Superman a WHOLE lot better.
            "I'm a vegan. "

            ---Kirby Bliss Blanton , The Green Inferno (2013)

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by srboone View Post
              Maybe. But I still liked the 1978 version of Superman a WHOLE lot better.
              And I still prefer Terrence Stamp's portrayal of General Zod in Superman II.
              "I watched Titanic when I got back home from the hospital, and cried. I knew that my IQ had been damaged."
              - Stephen King

              Comment


                #37
                I never liked the original movies, to cheesy. I always felt like they where made in a time where the technology to portray superman properly just didn't exist and the movies suffered for it.
                CD Email: danhocker@cemeterydance.com

                Non-Work related social media and what not:
                Instagram

                Buy my stuff! - https://www.etsy.com/shop/HockersWoodWorks

                Comment


                  #38
                  I agree with Dan, however, if we had been around and saw them in their time then we may have a different perspective.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    What it comes down to for me is that before CGI, special effects were 3D effects rendered into a 2D format. CGI, as good as some of it is, is a 1D effect made to look 3D by technology renered into a 2D format. Most CGI looks flat to me.
                    "I'm a vegan. "

                    ---Kirby Bliss Blanton , The Green Inferno (2013)

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by srboone View Post
                      What it comes down to for me is that before CGI, special effects were 3D effects rendered into a 2D format. CGI, as good as some of it is, is a 1D effect made to look 3D by technology renered into a 2D format. Most CGI looks flat to me.
                      Exactly! Like the laughable CGI 'leaf monsters' in the TV remake of The Shining.
                      "I watched Titanic when I got back home from the hospital, and cried. I knew that my IQ had been damaged."
                      - Stephen King

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by srboone View Post
                        What it comes down to for me is that before CGI, special effects were 3D effects rendered into a 2D format. CGI, as good as some of it is, is a 1D effect made to look 3D by technology renered into a 2D format. Most CGI looks flat to me.
                        I can understand that. I don't really see that myself though, it's gotten to the point where I can't even tell it's CGI in movies where it's done well, at least for me. Also those little details like that don't really bother me. I don't go to a action movie like that expecting anything else, so when I do notice it doesn't change how I feel about the movie. I actually typically go into one of those movies with a "glass half empty" attitude, which I think lets me overall enjoy the movie more as they are almost always better than I expected them to be.
                        CD Email: danhocker@cemeterydance.com

                        Non-Work related social media and what not:
                        Instagram

                        Buy my stuff! - https://www.etsy.com/shop/HockersWoodWorks

                        Comment


                          #42
                          I agree with Dan again. And whoever used the tv movie of the shining to show how shitty CGI is really shouldnt have used a low budget tv movie to make their point. Larger budget movies do fantastic things with CGI. I'm talking huge budget and over the top CGI like Transformers, Avatar and that stupid Robot one that just came out this summer(I forgot what it's called becuase it looked stupid to me but the effects looked good) The superhero movies although they have a big budget sometiems to lack in the CGI department like Superman which is why Squire brought up. Much of that just look rediculous to me. Still haven't made up my mind on this one other than that it was 100% better than the last one.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Confirmed. After debating between PG-13 and R ratings for the Carrie remake, the MPAA as has settled on R.

                            http://collider.com/carrie-remake-tv...ating/?_r=true
                            "I'm a vegan. "

                            ---Kirby Bliss Blanton , The Green Inferno (2013)

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Why too much CGI is a lazy director's replacement for plot and narrative drive

                              Originally posted by Teriw View Post
                              I agree with Dan again. And whoever used the tv movie of the shining to show how shitty CGI is really shouldnt have used a low budget tv movie to make their point. Larger budget movies do fantastic things with CGI. I'm talking huge budget and over the top CGI like Transformers, Avatar and that stupid Robot one that just came out this summer(I forgot what it's called becuase it looked stupid to me but the effects looked good) The superhero movies although they have a big budget sometiems to lack in the CGI department like Superman which is why Squire brought up. Much of that just look rediculous to me. Still haven't made up my mind on this one other than that it was 100% better than the last one.
                              I used the TV mini series of The Shining as an example of bad CGI purely because, as a Stephen King product, it was relevant to this thread.

                              However, I will now exemplify just how shit CGI is in big budget films as this, for me, is a much easier and indeed fun task...

                              Scooby Doo (2002)

                              Budget: $84,000,000

                              The "special" effect: Any time Scooby appears on screen.

                              Why it's shit: So blatantly superimposed upon reality, Scooby doesn't even look like he’s in the same universe as his human counterparts, let alone the same room. Even the distraction of Sarah Michelle Geller as Daphne, cannot save this film from being a badly thought out CGI monstrosity.

                              The Mummy Returns (2001)

                              Budget: $98,000,000

                              The "special" effect: So many to choose from as the entire movie is just a rancid CGI mess, but the clear "winner" must be the finale with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as the Scorpion King.

                              Why it's shit: Clearly worried about exposing the join between CGI scorpion body and live-action torso, the film makers elect to present the Scorpion King as a fully animated creature. The result is so shockingly laughable, it looks like they had a "bring your kid to work" day when this scene was created.

                              Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)

                              Budget: $115,000,000

                              The "special" effect: Jar-Jar Binks, unconvincing at the best of times, but particularly shit when forced to interact with his human co-stars.

                              Why it's shit: To be honest, Jar-Jar Binks's appearance is probably the least offensive thing about him, but even so, he remains a remarkably shit piece of CGI. Every scene in which Liam Neeson or Ewen McGregor attempt to speak to him seems as though they’re staring straight through him. Which of course, they are. This CGI "character" was so offensively shit in every way, that he managed to single-handedly bring the Star Wars franchise to it's knees.

                              Hulk (2003)

                              Budget: $137,000,000

                              The "special" effect: Whenever Bruce Banner gets "Angry."

                              Why it's shit: The green giant in this film is so blatantly bad, the film makers had to completely reboot the film after a period of only 5 years. Check out the ridiculous shorts that the Hulk wears. They look as though they have been painted on using Photoshop as an afterthought, like a TV "censored" logo designed to keep the viewers from seeing anything they shouldn’t. Utter shit!

                              Die Another Day (2002)

                              Budget: $142,000,000

                              The "special" effect: James Bond escapes a melting ice-cap by surfing down it with the aid of a canoe and a parachute.

                              Why it's shit: First of all, the collapsing ice looks fake. Then there’s the fact that you can see the join between the canoe and the rolling wave. And then there’s the horribly obvious contrast between Bond and the water behind him. Because of all this bollocks on screen, they were forced to completely reboot the then 40 year old franchise after only 4 years. Utter, utter shit!

                              Transformers (2007)

                              Budget: $150,000,000

                              The "special" effect: The robots.

                              Why it's shit: In a film called Transformers one would hope the transforming is made to look pretty slick. However, there is no sleekness, no design, no artistry to the transformations, just a bunch of textures and polygons flipping around like Rubik's cubes in the blink of an eye. There isn't even a half hearted attempt to actually show the "machinery" at work. Then they had them moving so quickly that trying to follow one of them in a battle is a bit like trying to keep your eyes fastened on a single bee in a swarm. I got bored shitless!

                              Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

                              Budget: $185,000,000

                              The "special" effect: It’s difficult to pick a "winner" from the fourth Indy movie, what with it's shit CGI ants, shit CGI gophers and shit CGI aliens, but the worst bit has to be Shia LaBeouf swinging through the trees with some shit CGI monkeys.

                              Why it's shit: The monkeys look fake, the forest looks fake, and the whole thing looks like the sort of novelty photography you might take part in at a theme park. What makes this film particularly offensive is that it was "directed" by Steven Spielberg, a man who could do so much better if he could be arsed. But no, he clearly couldn't be arsed. Instead he made this steaming pile of shite, and in turn, violated my fond childhood memories of growing up with Indiana Jones back in the 1980's. Beyond shit, this film is Fu**ing appalling!

                              Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

                              Budget: $200,000,000

                              The "special" effect: Every robot, again!

                              Why it's shit: Look! There's some blurred metal fighting! Zzzzzzzzzzzz. The CGI was so shockingly awful that even the film's director, Michael Bay, has admitted it was shit.

                              King Kong (2005)

                              Budget: $207,000,000

                              The "special" effect: The dinosaur stampede.

                              Why it's shit: As this is one of the most expensive films ever made, there is absolutely no excuse when the human actors are clearly running in front of a green screen and the dinosaurs crudely pasted into the background. So badly superimposed, even the sound effects are not in sync. This scene is lazy film making at it's very worst.

                              Avatar (2009)

                              Budget: $237,000,000

                              The "special" effect: The whole movie, but particularly the Smurf, square nosed aliens with USB port hair braids.

                              Why it's shit: Breathlessly overhyped, James Cameron's "the future of cinema" is one overlong exposition of CGI as a replacement for any coherent level of plot, acting, characterisation or narrative drive. Eager to show off new technology, James Cameron's 3-D presentation, performance-capture technique and computer animation is so overdone, it make you think you are actually watching a cartoon made by Pixar, only without the fun. This is ground-breaking, next-level technology apparently, and I was bored shitless.

                              Movies are supposed to suspend disbelief and transport the viewer into a sense of awe and wonder. Who can forget the sheer brilliance of James Cameron's Aliens, or the wonder installed when experiencing the Star Destroyer cruising across the screen in the opening scene of the original Star Wars. These films never had any CGI and it is a shame that today's movie-goers will never again be able to experience such gems. Watching a film riddled with CGI, is like watching someone else play a video game. Ever since the introduction of CGI, films have grown increasingly expensive and self-important. Men like James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Robert Zemeckis now seem incapable of telling a story without having to invent entirely new technologies to do so. All of these directors once crafted shrewd, economical entertainments—only to disappear up their own CGI assholes.

                              The golden rule of CGI: Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.
                              "I watched Titanic when I got back home from the hospital, and cried. I knew that my IQ had been damaged."
                              - Stephen King

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Interestingly enough I really enjoyed 7 of the movies on that list. So you your list doesn't really prove a point to me. That said I do agree that just because you can doesn't mean you should, but I do feel that with a movie like a Superman movie, you should, pretty much no matter what. It's a movie about a man that has super human powers, using conventional special effects it'd look even worse and cheapen the overall experience. Again though I think the whole CGI thing is really a generational thing, just like the whole hating the Star Wars prequels is.

                                Edit: That said what makes most of those movies "bad" per say isn't just the CGI, that's the least of those movies problems.
                                CD Email: danhocker@cemeterydance.com

                                Non-Work related social media and what not:
                                Instagram

                                Buy my stuff! - https://www.etsy.com/shop/HockersWoodWorks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X