Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cinema Picture Show - Now Showing: Independence Day

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

    #16
    It's one of my favourite films. I remember the hype building up and finally seeing it in the cinema with my cousins.

    I waited ages for it to come out on VHS and in the meantime I read the novel.

    After what felt like decades, my Mum got it for me from Tesco(crikey, that was a looooooooong supermarket trip with the video box sitting in the trolley for what felt like hours). The tape was a bit dodgy so the top few cm would flicker but we never did take it back for an exchange.

    The CGI is among the best I've seen. As you say, Supes, a lot of it stands up today which is mind-boggling when you consider it's just over twenty years old and the strides taken since then. It definitely shows that CGI done well can stand the test of time. I think that's testament to the artists and also that ILM really do know how to blend CGI and live elements. What I like most about the CGI is that it's realistic but it has to be CGI because dinosaurs don't exist. It's not like they were modelling amazing realistic trees or weather systems or something they can mix in with actual shots to add to the illusion.

    I'm looking forward to watching it again soon.

    Comment


      #17
      Well, they clearly didn't HAVE to use CGI. But it was probably cheaper than digging up some Amber and creating them along with a full size park and then filming it.

      Comment


        #18
        It probably would've been cheaper.

        Each frame of Dino footage took two hours to render, so five seconds of footage took ten hours to finish.

        Well, it did until Spielberg decided the t-rex attack should be shot in the rain, and then every second of footage took over six hours to render!

        Which probably explains why, when you add it up, there's only a total of six minutes of CGI dinosaurs in the film.

        Comment


          #19
          That mixing of methods really worked though. I think it worked much better than an all-CGI approach, especially back then. It didn't allow the eye to settle on the tricks so, for the most part, we were looking at dinosaurs rather than a CG creation.

          Comment


            #20
            On one of the releases extra features Speilberg talks about how close they were to using stop-time animation instead until Lucas convinced him otherwise. I'm sure there's footage too and it does (though incomplete) look a lot more ropey.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
              That mixing of methods really worked though. I think it worked much better than an all-CGI approach, especially back then. It didn't allow the eye to settle on the tricks so, for the most part, we were looking at dinosaurs rather than a CG creation.
              It's the mix that makes it; the jumping back-and-forth between CGI, part-CGI, animatronics and practical effects.

              It's why the older Spiderman movies look terrible now (they tried to do everything with CGI that they could) and the Lord of the Rings movies look better than The Hobbit movies.

              Comment


                #22
                Next up is in keeping with the dinosaur theme but perhaps without quite the same level of prestige. I take you back to an age where John Goodman was at his peak, Rick Moranis was still acting and Halle Berry was on the verge of hitting the big time. Yes, families went out to see the live action interpretation of The Flintstones:



                I do remember it being a very simple film, mostly known for the music video that accompanied it, but also fairly cartoon accurate. It's pretty easily slipped out of the public mind though.

                Comment


                  #23
                  At this point we reach myself at around the age of 13 in the midst of the summer of 1995. Only a couple of films away from beginning a run of watching a large number of films each year and with this film being one of the early ones to stick firmly in my mind. It doesn't remotely feel like this film is about to turn 20 years old but here we are, looking back at Pixar's big feature film success story... Toy Story.



                  So much to love about and despite lacking the precise polish that the newer films have in its animation it still looks astounding for its age. I love the whole execution of the film and it has so many individual moments that stick clearly in the mind. I still can't walk past the Toy Story toys in a Disney store without eyeing up the Buzz figures.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Ugliest human characters ever. Great movie but I've got to admit I was never a huge fan of how it looked. But it's so engaging and likeable and that's what worked. Had the story not been so good, I think movie CG animation would have been written off as a mistake for many years after. But this movie could have been animated on bog roll and still been entertaining.

                    The bigger surprise for me though was liking the sequel even more. I did not see that coming.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Wow.

                      I remember when I first saw it. Rented the video on a Sunday night while we had guests. It's one of my favourite films ever, along with Jurassic Park.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        I remember seeing a documentary on late-night telly about how far computer graphics had come and they were talking about animation. They showed an example of "Luxo Jr" by a company called Pixar. The lamp from that animation is the one that jumps on the "I" of "Pixar" at the start of every one of their films and I love that they still reference it. Luxo Jr's ball in in Boo's bedroom in Monsters Inc., for example.

                        As for Toy Story, it's an amazing film that will stand the test of time. I was still a teenager when I saw it at the cinema and it knocked my socks off. Now my son is obsessed with it!

                        I agree with Dogg Thang, that the sequel is great too. I don't think it's better, because it would be nothing with out the first film, but I love how it hits the ground running and cracks straight on with the gags.

                        Having had to watch Toy Story multiple times in recent years, I love the little things in it like when Mr. Mike gets too close to Woody during his meeting and they get feedback.
                        Last edited by QualityChimp; 25-11-2014, 08:28. Reason: DG not R

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Yeah, those little touches are great. Mike's embarrassed face is hilarious! Also, things like random board game boxes and books on shelves that bring back memories for any of us who played with them before. Really nice attention to detail.

                          And one of the funniest lines I've heard: "The word I'm looking for - I can't say... because there are pre-school toys present."

                          Comment


                            #28
                            When I read the book to my son, I have to do all the voices and it's exhausting!

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Toy Story works, and continues to work, I'm convinced, because at its core, it's a simple, honest, good idea. Strip away everything else; the CGI, the voice actors, the design, the script, everything, and you still have that core idea, which is extremely strong - that kids love the idea of their toys coming to life whenever they leave the room.

                              Everything else just builds on that foundation extremely well. For instance, the CGI methods they used were perfectly adapted for animating those characters.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                When Batman Forever hit it felt like Bat-hype was at its peak, I remember people adoring this and it was only later that love wavered for it. I was on holiday with my parents when it came out so we watched it at the locales local cinema. I enjoyed it a lot and later watched it many times on TV and on VHS.



                                I watched the 90's Batman films recently and if I'm being honest, I found all four of them incredibly hard to sit through. I love the soundtrack score, some of the moments and imagery is almost iconic, there's loads of single elements that stick in your mind for whatever reason and make them a real pop culture moment but as a cohesive whole films I find they've all aged too much to enjoy myself. Batman and Robin, well that's an obvious one. Forever, it's just so poorly acted and hokey in too many places to take seriously. Returns... to be honest I never jelled with that one anyway. That leaves Burton's original which is still the best but it still feels a bit of a slog and as good a Nicholson is, I still feel a better Joker in live action could have been pulled off and will be in time (Ledger discussions saved for later). A distinct cinematic memory, but one I personally am ready to leave in the past.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X