 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 10:42 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
fisch
(Member)
|
MONDAY, APRIL 28
GODZILLA---new photo released showing more detail of the rebooted monster.
THE STRAIN---FX released a poster from the Guillermo del Toro series about a CDC team battling an ancient vampire plague in New York.
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY---new photo released showing Karen Gillan (DOCTOR WHO) as villain Nebula.
Also, Stan Lee filmed a cameo despite saying earlier that he wouldn't have a cameo in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, "I did, already, I can't tell you what it is, but I can tell you I do not understand what it was or why I did it. It has me with a girl — a very pretty girl — that's all I can tell you."
JUSTICE LEAGUE---Warner Bros. confirmed the movie is officially underway with Zack Snyder as director.
THE BFG---Steven Spielberg will direct this DreamWorks live-action movie based on the Roald Dahl children's book about a Big Friendly Giant who befriends an orphan girl. The screenplay is by Melissa Mathison (ET: THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL).
SMILEY'S PEOPLE---Gary Oldman is now pessimistic about the sequel to TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY, "I would like to... There was talk of SMILEY'S PEOPLE, and then it all kind of... So, I'd like to do another. Yeah. I'll get him.
But [Director Tomas] Alfredson is now doing something again with [studio] Working Title. I think he at least wanted to make' they wanted him to sort of almost do back-to-back, and he said, "I don't know, I want to do something else first, or do something in my own language." Because you forget that he's Swedish."
MARVEL---writer/producer Simon Kinberg said 20th Century Fox might expand into tv series for its Marvel properties which include X-Men, the Fantastic Four, X-Force, Deadpool and New Mutants, "It makes sense to tell some of these stories in TV, partly because there’s just not enough screens to do all these characters, and also because the serialized format of comic books is better suited for TV."
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2---Dean DeHaan commented on the new look for The Green Goblin, "We went through a couple incarnations of it and ultimately tried to make it more and more organic and more real and made sure it tied in with Harry's storyline. There is still a lot of Harry in the Goblin, and we wanted to honor what the Goblin's always looked like. But we knew I couldn't be walking around in a purple skirt and tank top and a skull cap.
We went to great lengths to make sure we honored it, and those shapes are still there. The hair is still in the same shape that the cap is in. The smile. The ear tech represents the ears."
X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST---director Bryan Singer denied Scarlet Witch is in the sequel after photos showed Quicksilver with a young girl, "Is that the Scarlet Witch? No, that's his little sister. I even had a line which I cut, where Quicksilver's mother says to the little girl, 'Go up and bug your sister,' and the little girl says, 'She bugs me!' You never see the older sister, but it was to imply that there is an older sister for comic book fans. I ended up cutting it."
GRIMSBY---James Bond parody movie underway starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Mark Strong and Annabelle Wallis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
And to think the director said they rendered a hundred different designs to get the right look. I've made my thoughts very clear more than one time on the new Zilla! LOL. Digital artists may know how to use the software and push the buttons, but have no background in forms, shapes or composition.
Where'd you get that? Digital artists are like artists in any other medium - there are good ones and bad ones, and they get training in all those aspects of design. Pick out any artist's name out of the credits of any CG-laden contemporary blockbuster, and 9 times out of 10 or better that person will have years of experience with traditional media as well, and a portfolio full of pencil and ink drawings, etc. They go to art school, and learn all the same stuff about background, shapes, composition, and all that that artists have been learning for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 2:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
Where'd you get that? Digital artists are like artists in any other medium - there are good ones and bad ones, and they get training in all those aspects of design. Pick out any artist's name out of the credits of any CG-laden contemporary blockbuster, and 9 times out of 10 or better that person will have years of experience with traditional media as well, and a portfolio full of pencil and ink drawings, etc. They go to art school, and learn all the same stuff about background, shapes, composition, and all that that artists have been learning for years.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that those artists ended up being any better at it than when they first began their training. Statistically, it's possible that some of them just suck.
(Conversely, someone that may have had no formal training may simply be gifted in that particular form of art.)
Keep it simple, I say. A man in a G-suit would probably have sufficed just fine. Just because one CAN use supercomputers to make images doesn't necessarily mean one should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 2:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
And to think the director said they rendered a hundred different designs to get the right look. I've made my thoughts very clear more than one time on the new Zilla! LOL. Digital artists may know how to use the software and push the buttons, but have no background in forms, shapes or composition.
Where'd you get that? Digital artists are like artists in any other medium - there are good ones and bad ones, and they get training in all those aspects of design. Pick out any artist's name out of the credits of any CG-laden contemporary blockbuster, and 9 times out of 10 or better that person will have years of experience with traditional media as well, and a portfolio full of pencil and ink drawings, etc. They go to art school, and learn all the same stuff about background, shapes, composition, and all that that artists have been learning for years.
In theory yes. I saw a lot of students who had no artistic sense, even when they were taught the basics. But they get jobs because they know how to push the buttons. Perhaps the artist isn't the problem, but the studio heads who control everything, and tell artists how to "design". I had a boss or two who would "design over my shoulder" and the end results were disastrous. No I shouldn't brush all designers with a broad stroke. But when I see designs like the new Enterprise and Godzilla I really have to wonder what they are smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 2:39 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
And to think the director said they rendered a hundred different designs to get the right look. I've made my thoughts very clear more than one time on the new Zilla! LOL. Digital artists may know how to use the software and push the buttons, but have no background in forms, shapes or composition.
Where'd you get that? Digital artists are like artists in any other medium - there are good ones and bad ones, and they get training in all those aspects of design. Pick out any artist's name out of the credits of any CG-laden contemporary blockbuster, and 9 times out of 10 or better that person will have years of experience with traditional media as well, and a portfolio full of pencil and ink drawings, etc. They go to art school, and learn all the same stuff about background, shapes, composition, and all that that artists have been learning for years.
In theory yes. I saw a lot of students who had no artistic sense, even when they were taught the basics. But they get jobs because they know how to push the buttons. Perhaps the artist isn't the problem, but the studio heads who control everything, and tell artists how to "design". I had a boss or two who would "design over my shoulder" and the end results were disastrous. No I shouldn't brush all designers with a broad stroke. But when I see designs like the new Enterprise and Godzilla I really have to wonder what they are smoking.
Sure, but the horrible design of the new Enterprise has nothing to do with its being digitally rendered. Any Enterprise can be seen in CG (and indeed, all the major versions - pre-B and post-C - now have been) and still look as good as the designs allow, which for most of them is pretty darn good. The new one is just ugly, though (IMO, but I gather yours as well), and that doesn't change whether one looks at a physical version or not - you can go and buy a toy or model of it, and it's still just as ugly as it is on screen. The ship's design isn't a function of the effects techniques used to realize it on screen, and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 3:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
I don't care to see that movie again ever. But a few shots do not a movie make. Look, I'm as critical as anyone of sloppy CG, of taking advantage of CG animation to ignore physics, etc. I harp on that all the time when I'm reviewing movies. But a person in a suit doesn't exactly convey the physical reality of a multi-ton beast tromping through a city either. The quality of the effect is not a function of whether it's a digital or a practical effect, but of how well done the end result is, and the physics of city destruction can be achieved much more realistically digitally than practically, unless you've got Michael Bay-sized budgets and can afford to actually build and then demolish a city.
On this I think we all agree.
But it must be emphasized that no one watches a Godzilla movie and expects the creature design to be scientifically plausible, anatomically. The kid in us already buys into the suspension of disbelief, but at the same time, the design (and the size thereof) has to make at least a little sense, laws-of-physics-wise.
Let me put it this way. I think this new design is awful, but it seems to be rendered beautifully. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 28, 2014 - 3:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
Sure, but the horrible design of the new Enterprise has nothing to do with its being digitally rendered. Any Enterprise can be seen in CG (and indeed, all the major versions - pre-B and post-C - now have been) and still look as good as the designs allow, which for most of them is pretty darn good. The new one is just ugly, though (IMO, but I gather yours as well), and that doesn't change whether one looks at a physical version or not - you can go and buy a toy or model of it, and it's still just as ugly as it is on screen. The ship's design isn't a function of the effects techniques used to realize it on screen, and vice versa.
Absolutely. This is sort of what I was saying. That it's not a problem with the rendering, it's a problem with the fundamental design that they started with--whether it's the 1701 or Godzilla.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
