You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by BigDamnArtist
I agree with everything said. Although I was sad to have to bail early, but something came up. It actually came up during the commentary which was interesting. I lead a wild and ever changing life. Well I did today...
Anyways, for what i did see, it was much fun. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN!!!!
...I suppose I should really get around to watching that one, one day eh?
Jeff...excellently put. Although I have never expereinced that first thing of which you talk about as I am a gentlemen and treat the womanfolk with respect. That and the fact i know I wouldn't have a chance in hell with any of them, with either group actually.
So seeing as we're all just basically hanging out on here anyways. Anyone up for a little chattage?
HI really thought I had piled on enough sarcasm there. Huh.
Welcome to my world.
Oh wow, Be kind Rewind, that was one that got me. I mean that in a really good way. It was advertised as this sort of comedy, turn your brain off kinda flick (from what i remember at least). But then it actually turned into this sorta decent drama/comedy/heart warming thing. It was interesting.
Clash...hmm...whenever I start talking about Clash I usually get myself in trouble. So I'll just say I actually liked Clash.
Teague...that was absolutely mind blowing dude. Wow.
I have so many things I want to say but I can't put them into words at the moment....I'll be back with them eventually.
Something I've learned about myself? I'm introspective to the point of absurd narcissism, narrowing it down to one thing would be picking a brick from a wall and saying "this one is hard and roughly cubical."
I am very much the same way, that one quote I posted was one of many many things I think about, it just happens to be one that i come back to a lot more than the others.
However, in stark contrast to Teague my extended bouts of introspective analysis usually lead to extended periods of self loathing and an overall despising of all things me. Needless to say, I don't get much work done in those times.
Why are you fighting this Teague? You know you want it.
And the only reason that Teague hates Inglorious Basterds, is he can't stand to see all his brothers being slaughtered by the filthy American pigs.
(Yeah I called you Nazi, wat up?)
As much as I hate to do this, I suppose I should grad this thread back to some form of on topicness.
Haven't seen Adventureland, but sounds like I should. Haven't seen 300, probably should in readiness for Sun. though. And i really liked Inglorious Basterds, even though the Ad Campaign was misleading, I liked what I got even more (And no I am not a Taratino fanboy, I legitimately liked the movie.)
I can't think of any trailers recently that have been misleading, but if I think of any this is where I'll come.
Yah you tell em Jeff. We don't need you and your manly muscle ridden, sweat gleaming rock hard bodies. I have my showtunes.
<Dances off singing La Vie Boheme at the top of his lungs into the nearest theater available*>
*That's a stage theater for all you thick skulled type that seem to inhabit this thread. You know the kind where they put on plays? Yeah that kind.
I'm sure it's been recommend before but I'll double recommend it again. I agree with Trowa, Cube would kinda be an awesome commentary, i think it fits in perectly with the "motto" you guys had in Constantine, awesome movies that no one knows about. I think Cube fits the bill.
Awesome, so psyched.
Although I guess I should probably watch the core now...is this one I should watch first?
Pft! Arc-angel!
*SMACK*
So random thought just popped into my head. (Namely cause I think about his kinda of stuff daily). If they contiined this series on...with the way that they have established thier heavan/hell. So that you simply exist in the exact same place as you died for an eternity just on a different plane. It's perfect setup for a really cool ghost concept...individuals stuck on a plane between planes or something like that...
<wanders off into the woods talking to himself under his breath>
Greg...would you quit listening to the commentaries early and then blabbing about them? Some of us actually wait until they're released.
Hmm, interesting.
I kinda asked this before but I'll ask again. Why do you think there arn't more computer generated (3D) films that utilize it? Or am I just completely delusional and missing all of them...Because at least to me it feels like almost every cg film is trying to keep a very realistic style (maybe realistic isn't the right word...maybe cinematic would be better) a cinematic style to their work instead of crossing over into the much more stylized territory.
Well I can post the one sentence philosophy I've got... seeing as I'm somewhat lacking in the other departments. (Although this could sort of be considered something I learned about myself 
)
This is something I came up with a while back on one of those long boring nights of insomnia when i had absolutely no drive to do anything other than lie in bed and count ceiling tiles. At this point I had already been doing 3D stuff for a while along with very amateurish movie stuff.
As a side note, for those of you who don't know I have pretty much a love affair/fetish for pretty much any shit mother nature can dish out, I have an entire shelf lined with photography books of everything from volcanic landscapes to deep sea fish. So as part of that I had always been fascinated by the absolutely infinitesimally small and expansive detail that went into everything from pollen to blue whales and beyond.
As a side side note (I promise this will all make sense at the end). I have always been a fantasy/sci-fi guy. I was never really a fan of reality, you know take that for what you will. But I figure, "reality already exists so why should I live in it?" Which isn't to say that i dismiss it completely, alot of the art/work I do is based around either completely reinventing something/someplace or making it a whole lot cooler than it really is (for instance my current project, my final project for my first year of film school is creating a VFX shot of a 300 foot whale that lives in ocean trenches. but this one is in a massive ocean sized aquarium. So yah you know, hi this is me).
So anyways, back to insomnia central. I just got thinking about all of this, as one does. And I came up with this one phrase that I found just so absolutely perfect for everything I was doing and hoped to do. And I try to live by it in every piece of art that I do, any project I take on...etc etc etc.
"Finding the minutia of the nonexsistant."
Hopefully it's fairly self explanatory, but it's something I always try to strive for in everything I do, art or otherwise.
Wow, that ended up being a lot longer than I expected.
Yeah, I'm not completely onboard with myself as paraphrased there. In cartoons it doesn't bug me so much.
Well I guess thats where this whole thing started, is where does it cross the line from becoming a "gimmick" to being part of the style of the movie/ using your medium to create unique/cool shots that help tell the story
Again, don't recall the conversation, but I've used the Madagascar zoom as an example of a type of camera movement that can be used inappropriately, not as an inappropriate use.
Well I guess I have lisented to the conversation more recently than you have, but I believe what you said was basically "It's starts a million miles out and zooms into thier feet. There is no way a shot like that could exsist in real life, it draws attention to itself as a fake thing, so it draws you out of the movie." That was the basic idea of what you were saying at least.
But anyways, I'm just sort of using the camera movement as a proxy for that style of film making I guess and the 2 camera movements were an easy comparison.
When I was referring to "real" earlier, I was speaking in the suspension of disbelief sense, not the visual sense, that you believe these are real people going through a real emotional experience. As opposed to funny characters standing on a stage to make you laugh. The more they act like funny characters on a stage, the less you will believe they could be real people going through a real experience and thus, the less you'll empathize with what they're going through.
This kinda goes back to what i was saying before, but if we were talking about live action, I would be completely on board with you 100 percent, but we aren't, we are talking about obviously not real, highly stylized cartoon characters. So automatically the audience is clued into the fact that what they are about to see is not real. I can understand trying to limit the "slapstickiness" in an attempt to create a style (ala Pixar), but I don't but it as a legitimate excuse to not do the more slapsticky "2D" style in a 3D medium.
But I do understand what you mean about trying to limit the slapstick, to try and heighten the emotional connection. But I don't buy that it needs to be like that in order for 3D to make an impact emotionally.
I don't really understand the difference even in a classically done film there will still be a certain amount parralax when a dolly forward is done (ala the very first shot in New Groove in fact), if it's done correctly at least.
The only difference I can see between the dolly in in New Groove and the one in Madagascar (other than distance traveled) is that the 3D one will have more "realistic" (I hesitate to use that word, but it's the best one I can come with right now) interaction with the environment and characters?
So by that concept, it is the very nature of 3D films that prohibits them from this kind of a style.
Well this is the part where I admit I have no issue with the type of camera move used in Madagascar or any film like that (As long as it fits with the style of the rest of the movie as Brian has pointed out multiple times.) I think that it is a style that can work equally effectively in a 3D environment as it has in 2D for decades. But everything I've gotten from you guys so far has been trying to tell me that it can't, and I still don't get why.*
*of course this could very easily be due to the overwhelming ability to miss the obvious that seems to be a particular specialty of mine
Well, one speculative answer might be because you don't engage on a physics level with a cartoon and you do with most 3D animated movies.
I don't really understand what you mean.
Well I do, in so much as a 3D movie is built in "physical" space as it were and the images are rendered in a much closer to "realistic" way than most 2D films. But a 3D film is no more restricted by the laws of realism than a 2D film is (Unless you want to start talking about simulations and whatnot, but even those can be manipulated).
maul2 wrote:And I've spelt it both ways since childhood and no one has ever told me either was wrong (Except you) so I'll continue to use both, thank you very much.
…
Really?
I mean, I was mostly kidding, but, really?
That's kinda gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I mean no offense dude but.
Wow.
I gotta say, this whole sarcasm thing really doesn't work on the internet.*
*Refer to the Alien 3 thread for further proof
And the more slapstick there is, the more your audience will be subconsciously clued, "This isn't real, it's just a show."
This is the part I don't quite fully buy into. I think that we as a culture of movie goers have become familiar enough with the concept of 3D movies (meaning any sixth grader could tell 5 different programs to make a 3D movie of his own, and has probably tried). So I think that we automatically "know" going into a 3D movie that what are are going to see will not real. This is of course assuming we're talking about Pixar/Dreamworks type stuff, not Avatar or stuff trying to be "Photoreal".
So we as an audience will always have that voice at the back of our mind (Even if it's not completely conscious) that is telling us that what we are seeing is fake.
So why are we constantly trying to make 3D movies more "real" when the audience already knows that it isn't and they aren't expecting it to be. And as I've already stated the "slapstickiness" has never really impeded my ability to connect with the characters in any good 2D film I've seen. So why would it impede in a 3D film?
Obviously I'm exaggerating my views for the purpose of this discussion (I have alot of respect for Pixars restraint), but I've just always been confused by this mentality of a lot of 3D films I've seen to keep it realistic and bound by "physics".
Basically I'm wondering, why isn't there a New Groove in 3D? (...you get what I mean.) Or at least, why isn't there more of it?
Hmm, alright. I guess it must've been...Trey, maybe? Who said that the Madagascar one took him out of it.
Anyways.
So I take you would pretty much just sum everything I said in the last 6 paragraphs of text as a an aesthetic choice to be made by the director? (Attempting to read between the lines of a rather short post to, what I thought, was a rather interesting question. But then I am quite often wrong on these types of things.)
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by BigDamnArtist
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
