The last movie you saw...

[bobbystills]

well there were these really, really, really shit 'ultimate' bad guys and they were just these crap robot spiders that ate metal... it was really pathetic.

replicators rock

& they dont eat metal
their more like the borg
their the coolest thing abut the series next to sams rear

...... and the oh so obvious Stan Lee bit parts (ie. running from rubble, in the background during the parker slow motion strut ) but everyone knows what stan looks like) like the "you'll have to get through us" repeated line.

stan lee rocks
as do his cameos
u should take a deep breath get up & dance 4 the man :happy: :banana: :happy:

[spudthedestroyer]

Stan Lee does indeed rock in his cameos... like the one on the simpsons at comic book guys store

Replicators on the other hand, were just plain crappy... but I've never been into Stargate that much, but they were the crapest things after those grey alien fellas

[maxpayne2409]

u should take a deep breath get up & dance 4 the man

wrong, you should take up rock & roll to stick it to the man

[maxpayne2409]

oh incidently last film i saw school of rock (for the 14th time) great movie

[spudthedestroyer]

oh incidently last film i saw school of rock (for the 14th time) great movie

I thought that was a pretty crappy movie to be honest, the worst I've seen Jack Black in at least (that i recall)

[maxpayne2409]

lol well to be honest i kind of expected you wouldnt like it, its the kinda pattern we have , incidently found this on a site i use and thought ti might interest you

http://www.80stees.com/products/Olde_Sc ... -shirt.asp

[spudthedestroyer]

now that is cool!

Except for the price

[dinky]

Catwoman. hey, at least it was better than the trailer. if you somehow missed the trailer and are thereby still interested in the movie, some non-spoilers: (1) they f&^*ing took Spider-Man and (literally) changed the thing from spider and man to cat and woman. That's f*&^ing it! OK, they sucked a lot of minor things out too, but the fecking story.... (2) The CGI is quite possibly the worst I've EVER seen in a major motion picture. Yes, Hulk was better. This stuff was everything that was bad about the first Spider-man (CGI wise) but magnified ten times more. (3) I don't think Halle Barry has ever looked hotter. EVER. (4) What I said to myself about Daredevil was that if Batman didn't exist, this could be a great character/franchise. Well, there is such a thing as Batman, and even Joel Schumacher, Ahnuld and Adam West couldn't alter that fact. Likewise, Catwoman might have had a hook if there wasn't such a thing as SPIDER-MAN! OMG! why did they make this movie????

[El Mariachi]

CGI spiderman
CGI catwoman
CGI Daredevil ?
CGI Hulk
They better not do a CGI Batman or a CGI Superman

that would totally suck.
CGI characters always jump like there's no gravity.

[Blade Runner]

CGI spiderman
CGI catwoman
CGI Daredevil ?
CGI Hulk
They better not do a CGI Batman or a CGI Superman

that would totally suck.
CGI characters always jump like there's no gravity.

Isnt that the point though, they would have to defy gravity to be able to do the things they do. If you want to jump 100ft into the air, you would have to get some real speed up to reach that hieght. Take spiderman for example, have you ever watched those little spiders that jump, boy do they move fast but it dosnt look wrong because of its size. when you translate that into human size, it appears wrong because of your own perception of 'the bigger things get the slower it moves.'

[maxpayne2409]

or possibly your just losing the whole focus that... THEYRE NOT REAL, theyre just figments of someones imagination (in the case of daredevil & catwoman somes crap imagination), anyway what would be the purpose of a cgi batman? superman, the hulk etc are all superhuman/mutant things where as batman is jsut someone who got a bit ticked off when someone killed his parents, he has no special powers to jump far high fast etc

incidently if you havent seen the 1943 and 1949 batman then you really have no clue as to what the real batman is all about

[dinky]

incidently if you havent seen the 1943 and 1949 batman then you really have no clue as to what the real batman is all about

try Detective Comics if you really want the "core character"

In regards to the CGI and looking fake, I think the size argument doesn't hold up simply because the CGI in Spider-man 2 was noticibly better than in the first movie. Secondly, I don't even want</i> to see all this stuff. Regardless of the movie, the shots look better in close-up and quick cuts and, yes, slowing the action down rather speeding it up. For example, the scene in the first Spider-man where Spidey dodges the blades that Goblin hurls at him in the burning building. Impossible for a human to move like that, but done in slow motion. I also noticed quicker cuts and more close ups during the second movie, particularly in the CGI swinging scenes, which is why I think that's the answer there. Now as for Hulk...well...that CGI was a big, impossibly green living thing (i.e., inorganic and extremely little variation in shade & texture); I think that was what most people complained about. plus, an oversized, rabid poodle does seem awfully silly. However, NONE of these things is what made the Catwoman CGI so bad (although it certainly suffered from all the same shortcomings). It was just bad. The CGI character looked</i> different from the real person - different from Halle and her stunt double. the thing was glossy. it was only two tone. no shading whatsoever. and the movements were inorganic. and hey, a human making those moves isn't much different from a cheeta or leopard (comparative size and speed), and both big cats move comparably to a domestic cat (movements and speed). what makes the CGI in Catwoman even more embarrassing is that it's all in the dark, which makes it infinitely easier than daylight scenes.

now this wasn't a cgi shot, but early in Spider-man 2, Spidey leaps up into the air before he shoots his web, and it looks pretty fake. the initial reaction is 'hey, it looks fake cuz it's not something a human can do.' and yeah, that's certainly a valid explanation. but when you look at the scene again, you can actually see where the harness points were on the actor. his arms and, especially, his legs bend back. perfectly normal, except they never come forward. why? well he's being pulled forward from his torso, and his limbs are being dragged along behind. You'll notice that Spidey's signature web slinging shot has one leg bent/cocked and more or less tucked into his body and the other kicked out, forward looking:

some others:
http://www.tommycastillo.com/chrismoren ... derman.jpg
http://stockimg.free.fr/wallpaperlinks/ ... derman.jpg
http://www.marvel.com/bios/xtras/bio_im ... derman.jpg

that's cuz he's not being yanked by a harness. think of it like swinging a chair as a kid - which way do your legs point in relation to the direction you're moving?
even in a shot where he's just jumping, there's a vector or sense of direction with the articulation of his legs rather than the whiplash appearance you get from the harness in the movie:
http://www.cyber-cinema.com/spiderman/s ... RTICAL.jpg

so to sum up: yes, it IS a bit disorienting/weird to see a person do things that people can't do, BUT there are more important factors influencing whether or not a particular action shot (CGI or otherwise) looks real or believable.

[maxpayne2409]

The CGI character looked different from the real person - different from Halle and her stunt double

thats a good thing coz halle berry is a fucking mutant dog

incidently has anyone seen thunderbirds? thats a prime example of why you should never let american movie makers get theyre hands on anything good coz theyll fuck it sideways into retardville, I Mean who in theyre fucking right mind lets commander riker make films, the guys teh worlds biggest knob jockey, he should be thrown into a prison in iraq

[Blade Runner]

Thunderbirds
Cert PG

Peter Bradshaw
Friday July 23, 2004
The Guardian

What a travesty. What an insult. What a very, very bad idea. We all remember the much-loved 60s puppet TV show about the hi-tech crime-busting Tracy family with their jaunty Andy Pandy movements and visible strings. I particularly treasure the memory of so many of them actually smoking: Lady Penelope through her elegant cigarette holder, of course, but Scott and Virgil would occasionally have fags going too, as they relaxed in their magnificent modernist home of an evening en famille after a hard day's international-rescuing.

But their adventures are here transformed into an unfunny and unexciting live-action feature that doesn't know whether to reinvent the original lovingly, like Mission: Impossible or send the whole thing up as a naff bit of Brit-kitsch. So it tries to do both - and rips off Spy Kids into the bargain. And what's particularly unforgivable is the way the theme music is ruined. Thunderbirds are not go. Thunderbirds are very much stop. Not FAB at all.

[spudthedestroyer]

thats a good thing coz halle berry is a fucking mutant dog

:rofl:

As for thunderbirds, I always hated the original and care about that live action crap even less.

[maxpayne2409]

i totally agree bladerunner, thunderbirds 2004 is an atrocity to man, some of my friends said "but theres finally no strings and the effects look good" SO??? id rather see the strings then this bloody crap, and what on earth have they done to lady penelopes car FAB1???? it looks like barbies dildo, and parker just looks like a wussy alcoholic, oh oh and what have they done to thunderbird 2???? the wings go in the middle not at the back fucking retards, and tb2 only has 1 pod at a time not 8, and what have they done to brains??? he just looks like hes mentally retarded now instead of a genius and wtf has happened to "ladies man" virgil tracey? he looks about 12!!!

infact jonathan frakes just made the top of my hitlist of people to bring about the destruction of

and just quickly back onto the bad cgi topic, anyone remember the scene in matrix re-whatever shitrix 2 was where neo fights the millions of agent smiths, it was terrible cgi, you could tell when ti switched from mr reeves to cgi as it suddenly went into jerky slow looks nothing like him bollocks and believe me concidering how terrible matrix 2 was its difficult to tell teh difference between the crapp cgi adn crappy rest of the film

[dinky]

and just quickly back onto the bad cgi topic, anyone remember the scene in matrix re-whatever shitrix 2 was where neo fights the millions of agent smiths, it was terrible cgi, you could tell when ti switched from mr reeves to cgi as it suddenly went into jerky slow looks nothing like him bollocks and believe me concidering how terrible matrix 2 was its difficult to tell teh difference between the crapp cgi adn crappy rest of the film

I thought the flying scenes were the worst of the Neo bunch. the cgi ones from far away at the beginning where he twirls around in the sky above the city. ugh. and what's worse, it really served no purpose whatsoever to the plot development, just a showcase for bad CGI.

[maxpayne2409]

imo the only good matrix film was the original, the 2 sequels were pants

[spudthedestroyer]

hey lets not get carried away there max, 'credible' would have been a better word than good

Just yanking your chain, the first one was alright

[maxpayne2409]

lol dont worry, matrix certainly isnt something i would bite your head off for saying credible rather then good coz it sthe best of the 3 but still a bit arse