300 is Amazing.

Saw it last night - a nice entertaining cartoon.

But I really hate this trend of using computer animation for every little thing! For example, movie blood effects should be red liquid, not animation dammit! - it just looks so fake. They could learn a thing or two by dusting off Conan the Barbarian to see how it's done.
 
Anyone who has worked at a hospital could tell you that no action movie ever gets blood - nevermind the results of car accidents, fights or bullet wounds - right.

(An exception may be Mad Max, as George Miller worked in a hospital for many, many years)
 
I've seen a whole lot of movie blood and a whole lot of the real thing, and though there are varying levels of 'right', computer animation is completely wrong for things like that. It's not limited to blood though, just compare the slime in Alien and Aliens to the computer crap in Alien 3 and 4. In the first two films, it looks like there is actually some substance hanging off of the actors' fingers - because there is. In the last two, it looks like a drawing - because it is.

Computer animation is awesome for some things like making it seem as though battle scenes have way more people than they actually do (Gettysburg could have really used some). But for fluids and other replicatable textures and substances, it just makes the film look cheap most of the time.
 
McGruff said:
Computer animation is awesome for some things like making it seem as though battle scenes have way more people than they actually do (Gettysburg could have really used some). But for fluids and other replicatable textures and substances, it just makes the film look cheap most of the time.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point for the sake of missing the point. A lot of the shots in 300 would have been unachievable any other way. Furthermore, nothing in the movie is supposed to be realistic, and people need to back up off that complaint. You leave no room for stylization or artistry of any kind if it offends you that your hyperbolic fiction isn't authentic.

You might believe that making a sweeping generalization about a special effects technique with which you probably have little to no experience makes you look like a sophisticated film connoisseur, but you just come off plebeian instead.
 
Frosty said:
You might believe that making a sweeping generalization about a special effects technique with which you probably have little to no experience because you think it makes you look like a sophisticated film connoisseur, but you just come off plebeian instead.
Click to expand...

Because of my lack of experience with special effects, I am making a sweeping generalization based only on my experience as a movie watcher. I'm in no way some high and mighty film connoisseur nor am I trying to look like I am (where do you come up with that in my post?), but it's pretty clear to most average Joe moviegoers like myself that oldschool effects look a whole lot more real than the stuff that is being put out now. If my previous examples aren't enough, just compare the 'Jedi' Jabba with the one that was later tacked onto the first Star Wars. I'm sure they saved a whole lot of time and trouble by not using latex and animatronics and whatever, but it doesn't really look like there is really something there talking to Han.

As for 300, I wouldn't call it amazing, but I liked it and could certainly sit through it again.
 
I'm sure they saved a whole lot of time and trouble by not using latex and animatronics and whatever, but it doesn't really look like there is really something there talking to Han.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is a great example, since they were limited to doing something with the footage of Han talking to a fat guy they shot in 1977... latex was never an option here.
 
Ok, but with the tremendous budget they had at their disposal, the best computerized Jabba that they could come up with still didn't look as good as the 1977 one.
 
McGruff said:
Because of my lack of experience with special effects, I am making a sweeping generalization based only on my experience as a movie watcher.
Click to expand...

The internet makes my opinion valid!

Square pegs fit in round holes if I say so!

The square root of four is a plate of Orange Chicken!

McGruff said:
(Gettysburg could have really used some)
Click to expand...

You're a jerk.
 
Ok, but with the tremendous budget they had at their disposal, the best computerized Jabba that they could come up with still didn't look as good as the 1977 one.
Click to expand...

No, the 1977 Jabba was a fat guy in a fur coat. :)

This is a self defeating example... because in the ten years since your example (which is at the very start of doing realistic CGI in movies), that very same group of people have perfected techniques that let them make a CGI Yoda which is indistinguishable from shot to shot with their puppet one.

None of this has anything to do with 300, though, which wasn't trying to be realistic at all... it was trying to look like a specific comic book.
 
Wow, I'm not quite sure I want to read all of that. But I'm going to see it tomorrow, not expecting alot, since I'm big on historical accuracy, or at least some accuracy in movies. Alot of people who have seen it would have preferred the creators just to stick to the original story of the 300 Spartans (And their other Greek allies) who die at the hands of the overwhelming numbers of Persian forces, instead of having all this crap about mythical creatures and what-not. Of course, the thing to remember, this movie is based on the graphic novel, not the actual historical event itself.

But then again, I guess for historical accuracy, it does have 300 Spartans, it does have Persians, it does have combat. I guess thats really enough for the average audience.

At the end of the day, its just a movie, nothing to get too worked up over. You either like it or you don't, there isn't any point arguing about it, because it won't change the bloody movie. :p

Cheers,

Red Coat
 
LeHah said:
Because there has never been a good story involving mythical creatures?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he specifically means adding mythical creatures to a story that's based on actual events - not that I even share that opinion mind you.

LeHah said:
The square root of four is a plate of Orange Chicken!
Click to expand...

Mmm, MSG.

LeHah said:
You're a jerk.
Click to expand...

Actually, we are jerks, but that's beside the point. What's wrong with my comment? Picket's charge needed another 20,000 digital extras and several more gallons of actual bloodlike substance.
 
LeHah said:
Because there has never been a good story involving mythical creatures?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he specifically means adding mythical creatures to a story that's based on actual events
Click to expand...

Yes, thats what I meant. Being a person who enjoys studying history, in particular military history, I prefer just straight out history and accuracy, without added mythical creatures.

But then again, thats definately not going to be happening here. :p

Cheers,
 
Red Coat said:
Yes, thats what I meant. Being a person who enjoys studying history, in particular military history, I prefer just straight out history and accuracy, without added mythical creatures.
Click to expand...

Because over one hundred years of cinema hasn't proven it's historical inaccuracy yet?

McGruff said:
but that's beside the point. What's wrong with my comment? Picket's charge needed another 20,000 digital extras and several more gallons of actual bloodlike substance.
Click to expand...

If thats your complaint, I think you're missing the big picture here.
 
Might I remember that Greece and its inhabitants are FAMOUS for creating some very interesting Mythological creatures in the first place?
 
The problem here is that nobody's fondness for "historical accuracy" is in any way relevant in a discussion of a work of fiction. Not even yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top