You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by BBQ
I'm so excited about where he goes next.
Check THIS interview out.
Lots about UC, but near the end they ask about his next project "The Modern Ocean"...more "connectivity" stuff. Also a depressing note about 'A Topiary' being shelved.
Also HERE is a more extensive interview...some of which feels like the interviewer is trying pretty hard to seem high-concepty...but it does have a lot of interesting tibits if you're a Carruth fan.
I watched "Upstream Color", the latest Shane Carruth film (the guy who made "Primer").
It is definitely an art film, and it is not very accessible when you are watching it. Shot on a Panasonic GH2 DSLR, and the budget was probably very low, which makes it very interesting from that angle.
The movie has very little dialog and long passages of only visuals guiding you through the story, and it has a disjointed style to the storytelling following two protagonists and their relationship to each other and others. While it might not seem like it for the first half of the film, it does have a point. But unlike Primer which had so much information you tried your best just to keep up and sort thigns in your head, this has almost the opposite approach, not giving you much information at all, making you constantly grasp at straws to find meaning in it. Unfortunately this makes subsequent viewings less rewarding, possibly even tedious, unless you fall in love with the cinematographic or acting aspects of it.
I just watched this over the weekend and I adored it.
I guess my opinion about it, along with Primer for that matter, is that Carruth's films tend to invoke reactions more like musical albums than typical movies (even typical art house movies). There's a lyrical and rhythmic aspect to everything that seems more important than any particular shot, line of dialog, or plot point.
An extreme example would be Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon'. It's widely considered one of the best albums of all time, but it's chock-full of lengthy soundscapes and meanderings that make it generally tough to just pop in and listen to. However, when you actually sit down, listen to the whole thing, and let yourself get engrossed, it becomes something remarkable.
That said, I do agree that Primer is more accessible, even with it's complexities. There's simply more information there to process, so it's easier to stay focused. Upstream Color requires the viewer to let themselves be pulled in and swept away. It's also a much stranger and sort of vague magic bean, which I'm sure will turn a lot of people off just because it's so abstract.
I, however, ate that shit up.
PS - For the more hardcore Carruth fans among us, there is (what I believe) a really fun 'A Topiary' reference around the beginning of Upstream Color.
I think, in the next Trek film, the villain should be The Borg.
*runs and hides*
I think I'm in the majority in saying that it's sad that Matt Smith is ending his role as the Doctor. He's 30 years old & I guess he wants to do other things in acting while he's still relatively young. When it comes to him leaving, I've got an idea.
Have it at the end of his last episode start to regenerate but hold off until the start of the upcoming season, series 8, to "officially" show the person that's going to take over. Will get people talking about how they plan on doing with the "new guy".
I think it's sad that Matt Smith, who I really like as an actor, got saddled with Moffat's "Immature Doctor Slapstick" run. On the other hand, I do hope that Smith's leaving creates a chance to pivot back to a Doctor who is lonely as opposed to mopey, curious as opposed to confused, and kind of insane as opposed to emotionally stunted.
I'm not sure they will actually reveal the new Doctor in the Xmas episode, and instead do what you suggest here. In a recent interview (I'm sorry, I can't go link hunting at the moment), Moffat said something along the lines of finding a new Doctor being exciting because whoever it is is just going about their daily life right now, not realizing they are going to end up in the life changing experience of being the Doctor. The way he said it made it sound like they didn't really have anyone in mind yet. If that is the case, and considering they are supposed to start filming the Xmas episode next month, I'd be surprised if they reveal the new Doctor this calender year.
As for who should play the next Doctor...
I know that they will likely stay with a British actor, but I'd point everyone here to an episode of Numb3rs entitled "Dreamland" (ep 606) -- and watch John Michael Higgins. I remember seeing that episode and immediately thinking "Holy crap he'd be an amazing Doctor!" So please, find and watch that episode (it's on Netflix), and judge for yourself.
Other than that "outside the box" idea, I'm pretty open to whoever. Male, female, minority, non-minority, whatever. I don't know British actors well enough to make a suggestion.
One thing it didn't cover,
did Khan take out one or two Klingon Birds of Prey with a hand-held gun? Did I see correctly? Tell me that didn't happen.
I'm pretty sure he's just super-strong and that wasn't technically a hand-held weapon... even though he was handling it with his hands. But still, yeah. That happened.
Nope, that did not happen.
As for taking them out, clearly the bigger weapon he had was not a normal hand-held weapon. At the time I remember thinking that it was probably a smaller ship's phaser or something that he modified to use the way he did. Plus, they established how powerful it was, and it wasn't out of the realm of believably in the Trek universe. It fried a handful of people, and it tore a hole in a shuttle/patrol ship, causing it to go down (it didn't make the whole thing explode in mid air or anything).
If, in actual reality, you can down a helicopter or low-flying plane with an RPG (a hand-held weapon), then it's not the most ridiculous thing in the world to think that Kahn could down a shuttle/patrol ship with something he could carry.
Unless you're arguing that they ships "would/should" have had shields to defend against it, which is getting a little into the weeds of absurdity. But even then, there's no established moment where ships that small have shields anyways -- the shuttle in the beginning didn't have them (I think), the ship the Crew took to Kronos didn't have them, so again it's perfectly believable that the Klingon scouts didn't have them.
*shrug*
Again, there are enough legitimate criticisms to not waste time nitpicking things like this.
Holden wrote:Spoilers, obviously, but hilarious:
Yep, good one - that sums up most of the issues.
Eh, just reads very much like "Everything That's Wrong with X in 3 Minutes" to me. Many of the points aren't even actual complaints about the plot or structure -- it's mainly bitching for the sake of bitching as a means to be funny.
There certainly are enough legitimate criticisms about this movie to not waste time bickering about most of the stuff in that article. I get that it's supposed to be a joke article, but reading it, it seemed pretty quickly to me that it actually was just a joke of an article.
The Europa Report trailer does 2 things for me...
1. It makes me think it could be a really cool hard sci-fi picture.
2. It makes me worry that the "monster flick" aspect will ruin it.
Some questions / points:
1. Why did one stun shot knock out Khan on the bridge of the dreadnought for over a minute, but during the climactic punch-up, Uhura's many stun shots were brushed off like mosquito bites?
2. Why did detectors only detect one life form on Kronos, when there were heaps of Klingons?
3. What are the rules of the transporter? Every single time there's a transporter situation, the rules are different. It can't transport because of speed, distance, radiation, interference, lack of power, shields, etc. At other times, it can transport into a warp ship from across the galaxy, or between any two points in the universe.
4. Ditto for warp drive. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Whatever the scriptwriters need at that time. Likewise, "Starfleet Protocol says we can't do this." Other times: "fuck the rules, we'll do whatever we want." In summary, all these things (e.g. warp, transporter, protocol, malfunctioning technology) are just arbitrary constraints upon behaviour, like a knob that can be twiddled on demand. And it feels really ARBITRARY. Oh so now they can't do this. Now they can. Now they can't. Whatever.
5. The technology and design aesthetic of the bridge don't look anything like the brewery down below.
6. Why continually have to run between the bridge and the transporter room? Inefficient design. Build a smaller transporter section on the bridge.
7. Star Trek 1966 was ahead of the Zeitgeist, but Star Trek 2009 is not ahead of its time. Just the same ol' no-stakes indestructible PG-13 runn'n fight'n shoot'n 'splosions as every other tent-pole.
8. Can't they just remote-pilot a 'cold fusion' device into the volcano? Or beam it down from orbit? Why did they have to park the ship underwater? Wouldn't the natives have seen it entering the water?
9. Why does the captain repeatedly have to stay on the bridge while the rest evacuate as if they ship can't do anything on its own? That's such a cliche. "Oh no, don't sacrifice yourself." "But I have to." But it doesn't matter anyway, because all main characters get saved/resurrected one way or the other. So stop pretending this scene is so tense and emotional, because in two minutes, everything will be okay again.
10. Khan from Wrath of Khan was far nastier. PG-13 tends to water-down the drama.
DocSub alread answered most of these, but I wanted to address a couple as well:
3. Yeah, the transporters (other than the "hyper transport" nonsense) is tricky. I guess I explained it in my brain -- total retcon on my own part, mind you -- that the "lock on" is the key to process, and since teleporter tech is still relatively new, there are still some limitations. When going from the pad, locking on is easy and therefore even if that spot is moving, the added power and processing capability allows for more difficult beaming situations. However, "pulling" a signal is tougher, since the lock-on has to be established remotely. It seemed that whenever there is a transporter issue, it was that either a) no transport was possible at all, or b) they could only transport TO the spot, not from. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, at least there's some sort of consistency -- even if it's likely that it just worked out that way and wasn't a pre-determined restriction.
4. To quote Guy Fleegman: "Did you ever WATCH the show?
Honestly, based on this comment...I don't know how you can enjoy any Star Trek.
8. "Interference" answers the remote piloting and beaming issues. During the cross-talk, I want to say someone said "line of sight" and "proximity" were required to get Spock back. The second would limit the "orbit" move. And really, trying to beam the thing to a 10 square foot rock through all that interference even with a line of sight could account for that.
As for parking in the ocean...they could have done it at night. It's not like the inhabitants of that planet had spotlights or sensors. Unless there was literally a random guy at the cliff (which the Enterprise could obviously check for), it's not hard to imagine the ship moving in and setting down without being noticed in the dark.
Might as well dive in...I'm probably 80% with DocSub, and about 20% with those that didn't like it. I liked it a lot, and despite the gripes you'll see below, will continue to enjoy it on what I imagine will be many repeat viewings in the theater and on Blu Ray.
There's honestly a bit much to speak to in this thread, so I'll just jump into Bullet3's list as a starting point.
1. Cumberbatch insta-teleporting across the UNIVERSE from Earth straight to the Klingon homeworld. The hyper-teleport was literally the worst, most series-breaking thing that was introduced by the 2009 reboot, and they not only go out of their way to remind us that it exists, but use it in an even more ridiculous way. At this point, there's no reason we can't teleport a character anywhere in the universe at any time to suit the needs of the plot.
2. You have like 5 different people tell Kirk he's about to unleash a war with the Klingons, only for the Klingons to completely vanish from the movie after 1 scene, with no mention of them afterwards (presumably this is something that will matter in the sequel, but its a pretty GIANT loose thread and sloppy storytelling, why introduce them in the first place if they're just going to be a plot device in 1 scene).
3. 2 villains, both under-developed.
We know nothing about Khan for half the movie (neither through background, nor through his actions, aside from the fact he knows kung fu), then have him suddenly break out into a monologue to explain his entire backstory in a single scene. Wrath of Khan sort of does this too, but it also gives you lots of time with him to show you the guy's character, he's theatrical and has a personality. All Cumberbatch does is stand around and glower at people, he's super wasted and not given a personality. I actually thought they might be doing a cool thing here where in this timeline he'll be a good guy and team up with Kirk, but nope, gotta callback to Wrath of Khan.
Admiral Marcus is also super under-developed, he wants war with the Klingons because??? He's been building weapons tech in secret in a giant secret military facility over by Jupiter, which coincidentally has 0 security of any kind, then when Kirk uncovers this plan, he PERSONALLY pilots a ship to murder him and dispose of the evidence? That's like the president of the US personally flying an F-22 to blow up the 9/11 truthers.4. Carol Marcus, what the hell is she even doing in this movie. You'd think she's there to be a romantic foil for Kirk, but the movie doesn't have time for that, so we'll just throw in a bikini shot of her for no reason and move on. If the movie narrowed its focus and only had 1 antagonist, the admiral, then she might have some interesting interplay there, but as it is, she's completely useless to the story (she literally gets beamed to her father's ship, gets her leg snapped, beams back aboard the enterprise, and vanishes).
5. Speaking of security, both Earth and the Klingon homeworld apparently have no defenses or any ships in orbit of any kind, a lazy oversight done purely so that the Enterprise won't be able to call anyone for help.6. The awful 10 minute stretch where they butcher the most iconic scene from Wrath of Khan. Spock and Kirk have been friends for like a year at this point, this moment is not at all earned. It serves no character purpose, because Kirk has needed to learn humility, not self-sacrifice, and its a complete fan-wank waste of time anyway, because we've established Khan's magic blood already, so we know Kirk's not going to die anyway. If they actually had the balls to go through with it and kill of Kirk permenantly, I might actually be ok with this moment, but as is, it's terrible. And Spock yelling "Khan!!!" is such an unfathomably bad choice, something straight out of an SNL parody, I still cannot believe they did it.
7. The aforementioned magic blood is the kind of thing that would get you kicked out of a 1st year screenwriting class. Not only is it a cheap copout, but it re-fucks up the Star Trek canon that the last movie cleverly freed us from. Now these characters exist in a universe where you can at any moment teleport to any other point in the universe, and be brought back from the dead with magic blood.
And that's not even getting into the fact that Kirk is a total utter fuck-up, and would be in jail at the end of the movie for getting the city of San Francisco flattened by a giant space-ship.
1. Agreed. What's more annoying to me is the ease of the fix. Upon first viewing I thought that he had transported to a ship, then gone to Kronos, then transported down to the surface. The movie cuts go: Transports from fighter (nighttime), transports to Kronos surface (unknown time), back to Star Fleet (daytime). It wasn't super clean, but I had thought that was an indirect way of saying "time passes", which would have been fine. But then Scottie shows the transport coordinates and I was like "WHY?!?!" They couldn't just say Scottie figured out what ship he beamed to, and that ship looked like it was headed to Kronos? That would have been easy, almost as quick (as to not effect pacing), and wouldn't have been ridiculous.
2. Yeah, but the events after they visit Kronos are pretty linear and take place relatively quickly. I would have been more annoyed had the Klingons somehow been shoved into the final act when the events that happened on Kronos had only just happened. I guess I could see some complaining that the "year later" speech thing didn't mention anything about Klingons, but I mean...it was a criminal who killed the Klingons, a criminal who Star Fleet captured and brought to justice. I could easily see that as an added tension between the Federation & Klingons with out actually driving them to war.
3. Eh, both a little underdeveloped, but it didn't bother me. Making Kahn less flamboyant isn't a problem to me, and Cumberbatch did a fine job conveying Kahn and his motivations, which despite all the connections to Wrath, this seems more like Kahn from Space Seed. Kahn isn't as much out for revenge as he is trying to liberate his crew and get back to the cleansing. There's certainly some Star Fleet hate there, but Kahn isn't Ahab in this film, so I thought the back story and development was fine.
Weller was serviceable. Nothing more, nothing less. The "guy who wants/thrives on war" trope has been done to death, and I'm not sure there's much they could have done to make me find it more interesting. He served his roll.
4. *Shrug* I agree she's a bit pointless, but I didn't care. It was an intro to her character, with the beginnings of the romantic relationship for Kirk. That I find amusing/annoying, because for all Kirk's man-whoring in TOS, he actually stayed away from his crew. The idea that he'd start a relationship with Marcus now that she's under his command seems to stray from Kirk's character. We'll see how that plays out, and I reserve the right to be pissed about it later, but it's pretty non-offensive in this flick.
5. With you on that, though it didn't bother me a ton. I mean, it's a movie and those sorts of conveniences happen all the time. They had a 'special' ship for Kronos, so whatever. Earth should have had some ships in space dock, but things happening so fast and all...it didn't pull me out of the movie.
6. Not at all earned? I think you might be looking at this scene in the wrong way. In Wrath, it was a lesson for Kirk about humility, told by breaking apart a long established friendship. The scene in Into Darkness wasn't about Kirk learning a lesson, it was about building that friendship. It was about Kirk and Spock continuing to build a deep bond between them by displaying a mutual respect and understanding of how the other person works. Spock did what Kirk would do, and Kirk did what Spock would do -- it's the first time that their differences in character (Gut & Head) were both acknowledged and empathized with by one another, revealing that despite all the bickering and head butting, they share a common purpose/resolve...a fact that I'm not sure ever really lines up (at least in the character's eyes) until that point.
7. First off, Kirk wasn't dead. Bones specifically says there was still brain function. The time of someone being dead, even brain dead, and coming back could be an issue, but it wasn't like you could dig up a corpse and make a zombie. As for the "magic blood' specifically -- the idea of blood platelets having regenerative properties isn't fiction. Both Orthokine and Platelet-Rich Plasma procedures are rooted in this concept. Kahn's 'magic blood' could easily be seen as an extreme extension of the current research into these sorts of things. I'm not saying that it's possible science...but Star Trek isn't 'hard' Science Fiction anyways, so taking a concept from the current world and pushing it to the extreme shouldn't be that hard a concept to accept for Trekkies.
Ok...that ends the first run down.
As a sidenote, someone else mentioned the idea that there were 72 more bodies on board, so they didn't need Kahn. The frustrating part of that point is that the movie actually answered that question...then went back on itself. Bones states early on that he doesn't know how to work the tubes. This could easily explain why they need Kahn's blood: because they don't know how to unfreeze anyone else without further study of the tech. This would have been fine, except the movie then ruins that explanation by having them remove one of the bodies from a cryotube, alive and kept in a coma, and then freeze Kirk. It would have been so easy to just have Bones to take the "apparently dead" Kirk and just stick him in a status field or something. A quick "I can't save him, but this could give him just enough time to get Kahn back" would have been all they needed. Frustrating.
But again...I'm addressing the things I took issue with. I still had a great time, saw it twice in the same day, and will probably see it a third and possibly forth time before it's out of theaters. It was a lot of fun, I enjoyed it more than 2009, which I also enjoyed (at least superficially) as well.
Final thought for now: I'm really curious how all this will play with the fact that all this took place before the 5-year mission. I could imagine Kahn returning, too, with full Kahn-Kirk history established. Also, with JJ leaving, I can imagine several big names taking over and really getting some different creative looks at the Star Trek universe.
Meh. I don't like "I had a bad day" movies, especially when it comes to space or the open ocean or the deep wilderness. In those cases, you are way out on a limb, and you know the risks.
I'm not sure why knowing it's a risky situation makes the drama any less compelling.
Are you this guy?
And in keeping with doing more than just posting a trailer (there is a thread for that, after all), What are your thoughts on this film?
Based on descriptions and rumors, the space & film geek in me had really built this movie up in my own mind. I'm happy to say that this trailer still took my breath away. On my 3rd or 4th watching, I recalled the rumor that Gravity opens with a nearly 20 min long faux single-take shot, ala Children of Men. After seeing the effects in action, my hope of that being true has grown 10-fold.
The wiki-synopsis is as follows:
Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first Space Shuttle mission and is accompanied by veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney), who is in command of the shuttle flight, due to be his last. During a spacewalk, the space shuttle is destroyed, and Stone and Kowalsky are stranded in space with no communications with Earth.
Am I the only one that feels like we're looking at a "Life of Pi" & "Apollo 13" mash up?
I guess if Life of Pi never came out, it'd be a Cast Away & Apollo 13 mash up...go Tom Hanks!
Side notes: The original pairing for this was supposed to be Angelina Jolie & Robert Downey Jr., going through several others before settling on Clooney & Bullock. First off...can I just say that how awesome would it be if, as a director, you're deep-bench fall back actors are Sandra Bullock and George Clooney? Insane.
I think I'm generally happy with Bullock over Jolie, and maybe even over Portman, who was also rumored. I don't know why, but I just can't picture Portman in this role. Clooney is awesome, and I know there's some RDJ over-saturation going on, but I do kind of wish he had worked out. I feel like he does have the acting chops to pull this one off and I'd love to see this get the kind of attention it would if he was attached.
Thoughts? Ideas? Hopes? Disappointments? Jell-O?
I, personally, can't wait until October 4th. I'll be picking up IMAX 3D tickets the instant they are available.
I'm sorry...were you all talking about any other movie coming out this year?
@iJim: Here's a more batman-ish image that I converted. I imaging most of the images I take for the comic will be somewhere between the two in terms of quality. I'll want it to be well lit, like the Batgirl/Robin image, but maybe less colorful/bright.
Either way...here's more, again after just 15 min of playing around.
Original:
Cartoon:
DAP Test 1:
DAP Test 2:
DAP Test 3 -- Mixed 1 & 2 in Photoshop:
The thing is, the "artwork" ones, by their very nature aren't going to have detailed faces. There is a "realistic" paint style, but it's not that impressive. To me, I'm not decided on what filter, or combination of filters, I will use on the final product. I do, however, think it's safe to say that I can successfully take photos, arrange them into comic format, and apply a set of filters in a way that it looks drawn...maybe not amazingly so, but at least enough that comic readers won't be immediately turned off by it.
Some more options, with Topaz and a different program which is sort of scary -- Dynamic Auto Painter.
Original:
Topaz "Cartoon":
DAP Test 1:
DAP Test 2:
All of these can be tweaked quite a bit, as well. These are just the default settings. Once I have it set up the way I like, I can just save the pre-set and it's a simple "single click" away!
Ok, so I took the image from here, masked it out, and stuck it on some generic "abandoned factory" image, then applied the effect on the entire image. I tried adjusting the size of Batman, just to see how the effect would hold up for wider shots.
I can't take any credit for this...it's all Topaz.
and
Thoughts? Would anyone here consider this "acceptable" level of artwork while reading a comic? Or would this turn you off from reading it and/or keep you out of the story?
@Tomahawk: I don't have After Effects...but I'd be curious to see how the "Cartoon" effect works on an image. I obviously will only have stills, though.
@Lamer: Not bad! What process/steps did you use?
@Ash: Yeah, the first image is what I was normally ending up with. And I generally felt that a comic consisting of that all the way through would have people putting it down without giving it a chance -- it's just too harsh on the eye, to me at least (If you/anyone disagree, feel free to tell me). The latter ones do look better, and I guess if need be I could shoot the photos with that in mind. After the cutout was added, that's not too bad.
The bottom one "series of images" you created looks very good! I'd prefer color, but that certainly looks more like a comic than I've been able to produce using my limited knowledge base.
@Tomahawk: Yeah, I wasn't expecting a 5-min conversion. I've tried enough combinations of filters and tutorials to know that I just can't get something that looks decent without doing more work. I always assumed that some masking and brush work would be needed if I was ever going to get this to work. Even with the Topaz filters, I expect more work is involved than "open, apply filter, save".
I just need to avoid having to paint from scratch, as I don't have the skill or tech to really undertake that. And obviously spending 15 hours on a single image, when I could have 400+ images to convert, is just not the most practical.
I'm willing to sacrifice quality, as that's the trade off for speed/ease -- but my belief was that the users around these parts would be able to help avoid as steep a trade off as I'd have to endure if I tried to figure it out myself. So far, that's certainly been the case...several of these are better than I did just "trying stuff" in photoshop, and I've gotten a handful of other ideas I intend to try later, as well.
If anyone else has done some tests, or has ideas, I'm still listening. Until I settle on a process and actually start the conversions, I'm totally open to changing and refining the process. I still have to shoot all the photos, as well...which is the pre-production phase I'm beginning now. So I do have a while, if y'all want to experiment.
@Ash: I'm not sure I know what you mean by "smoothing it out with levels". Whenever I've messed with basic levels adjustments, it changes the brightness, contrast, and WB...but it doesn't mess with the texture of the image all that much. Or am I missing something?
I've tried the film grain & half tones, and it generally came out kind of a mess. Again, could totally be my fault...but I couldn't find the balance of making look like artwork without losing so much detail that it looks nearly abstract.
@Allison: Wow...never heard of Topaz plug-ins before, but those are crazy. I'm thinking I might have to try the 30-day trial, because there certainly seems to be some serious horsepower to those filters. Some look like they'd work really well for what I'm trying to achieve. The cost kind of sucks, so if I can get there some other way, that'd be better -- but I think that barring something else coming up, it might be worth it.
@fireproof: I like the way the colors flattened out in that, but the black everywhere looks very "blah" to me. That's one of the issues I ran into with filter-only photoshop conversions as well. What I find interesting is that the more I look at the original image from Capt. America, the more I think that image looks pretty "comic book" on it's own. Never realized that. Good on the DP.
@Allison: I'm not familiar with "Topaz" filters/effects...so I'm off to YouTube to learn up!
@Teague
If it's not too much trouble, I'd love to see the video. I'm intellectually curious, so I generally fall into the "more info the better" category. That conversion definitely looks like comic art, which is awesome.
Yeah, I knew the Struzan emulations were labor intensive paint-jobs. They look great, but a bit much for what I'm looking for.
@BigDamnArtist
You're right...those faces creep me the hell out! But the outlining does bring out some inking lines that I might otherwise have to do myself with a brush.
---
Thanks all, for the help so far! Please keep it coming if you have any other ideas!
Interesting...Fotosketcher looks like a decent start. I'd like to retain more detail in the faces, but the rest does look better than many of the filter combos I've tried. I'll add it to the list of things to play with.
@Squiggly
Huh...I would like color, but that color does look like a comic -- which is more than what I can say for pretty much every tutorial I've attempted so far.
I would like it to be a bit more "painterly", and I am willing to explore plug-ins, even ones I'd have to buy. My computer is having issues with plug-ings, but that's something that I can work out of the final product clears the bar. And I'm totally ok with people knowing it's a processed photo, as long as it doesn't look so bad it's a turnoff. So far every attempt I've done is jarringly bad -- so much so that it'd be difficult to even read it, much less get invested in the story.
I think photoshop comes with an 'artistic' filter and I believe the 'watercolor' setting is the most convincing of that. You'll probably have better luck with that sort of effect if you apply some other filter first to limit the color pallet or simplify the image. Solarize (so long as you keep the original colors) and heavy noise reduction (to destroy as much of the fine detail as possible and simplify the structure) would be my first attempts. I could give it a shot myself to try some stuff out. I'm not a photoshop genius, tho. Anyway, from that point, just paint in any fine detail that you actually want that got destroyed in that process, and then art-filter it. Reducing the image to just the core structures will probably go a long way to help selling the art filter...
I'll have to put in a little time on some of these suggestions to see if I can produce something workable...
If y'all want to give it a try, you could probably just grab a batman cosplay photo off Google and give it a go. I would understand not investing a ton of time, but the hope is to figure out a process that isn't overly time consuming anyways (I'll have several hundred images to do in the end).
Quick Answer: Basically: Batman-style & Color is the bar. Beyond that, I'm flexible.
Long Answer:
It's a Batman/Spawn crossover -- so basically anything that falls in the range for either of those characters. Batman obviously provides more range, as there's been lots of interpretation over the years. Spawn is both more limited in style, but also uber detailed, so I would think it would be more Batman based.
I did start a Tumblr way back in the day to collect artwork for the project: http://hellknightproject.tumblr.com/
So that could be used for inspiration, obviously.
My thinking was that the process of using a photo & the limiting factors of what I can do in Photoshop that would be the determining factor on the final product more than a particular type of artwork I'd want to hit. An example would be Lee Bermejo...I love his take on Batman, but I can't fathom there's any way I could take a picture of some guy in Batman Cosplay and make it look like Batman: Noel.
If that's not a safe assumption -- I can post a few pics from the tumblr that I like. Thoughts?
There's a whole long back story, which I'd be happy to get into later, but right now...I just want to ask my question. I know there are those on this forum with vastly more photoshop talent than I, so I'm hoping someone here might be able to help me out.
Does anyone know a way in which to convert a photo into something that resembles a painting or drawn artwork in photoshop (CS4)? The idea is basically to convert a photo of some people in costume into characters that I can cut/paste onto backgrounds for a comic.
Keep in mind it doesn't have to look "amazing" or "perfect" by any stretch. I've yet to see anything that really "works" beyond painting over the entire photo from scratch, but as I don't have a tablet and my mouse is spotty, I'd like to keep the brushwork to minimum. I know some will certainly be necessary, but I'm willing to sacrifice some quality on this point. I'm basically looking for "passable"...but most tutorials I've found online consist of one of two options:
1) Full re-painting of the entire image from scratch using the photo as a go by, or
2) Some combination of filters
The problem is that 1 simply isn't possible my current hardware and/or talent level, and 2 generally looks like total crap. I'm hoping that someone here can find me a balance of some subtle filter work, with some brush work where needed, to get me something that can at least "not offensive" to look at.
So...help?
BBQ wrote:Jackson for a new trilogy
It makes me sad that my immediate gut reaction to this idea is "Ew, no."
Admittedly, considering that Hobbit seems to have shown Jackson going a bit in the way of Lucas, I can see how you could have that reaction. Given LOtR, I felt as though he could accomplish a "universe-building" trilogy that future films could build upon -- sort of creating a new foundation, rather than an extension of the existing SW universe.
I don't have much hope it will happen, but I still would rather see the new movies start far into the future of the original trilogies -- where Luke/Leia/Solo are the "legends" told in stories, instead of a movie that takes place with a 60 year old Luke retired on Dagobah or something. Fresh start.
Personally, I think SUPER 8 shows JJ is very capable of emulating an aesthetic while still making a modern film...
That might be true, but S8 was also an inherently hollow film, as well. Other than the guy who derailed the train at the beginning, no one in the movie has any impact on the plot. At all. I enjoyed the ride, sure, but I want more from Star Wars than just a ride. Granted, that's more up to Arndt than JJ.
Plus, while the general stereotype is the lens flare, I wasn't limiting the fact that JJ has a very set "feel" to having that. Nor was I saying that the aesthetic itself was in of itself a bad thing for SW...merely that I'd rather Star Trek and Star Wars to not feel like the same type of films, since the core of their universes are actually quite different. Super 8 and Star Trek "feel" very similar to me while watching, even as they are quite different films. Again, don't blow my comments out of proportion...it's just some thoughts thrown at a sounding board -- not deep concerns or anything.
Ugh. Guys. This joke burned down 20 years ago.
So you feel that joke burned down around the time JJ was writing "Forever Young" and "Regarding Henry"? 
Also, it is very important to remember that Abrams is a fan of Star Wars while he never really watched or cared about Star Trek. I think there is much more of a chance that he'll actually make a Star Wars film rather than a 'JJ Abrams' one......
I'd imagine Disney hired him in part because of his recognizable style...but I do consider him a very competent director, so I'm with you on that hope. He certainly has the ability to take his particular style, blend in some influence from the original trilogy, and come up with something really great.
And...not to get way to ahead of the curve, but I'm curious if -- like Trek at this point -- he'll now have the metaphorical reigns of the franchise, or if Disney intends to do what was originally reported (pumping out new movies every few years) which would logistically be tough to do with a single director.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by BBQ
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
