Quentin Tarantino on CGI and The Matrix

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 5:39 am

The first two Star Wars movies weren't bad at all. But incest+ewoks+Darth-Vader-is-a-fetus=no. And Episode I sucked ass. I happen to actually like Episode II better than Episode VI, simply because it doesn't have ewoks and Yoda uses a light saber. See? Without CG YODA WOULD HAVE NEVER KICKED ASS.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:24 am

I think if done so you don't notice it it's FINE AND DANDY you know? where it's obvious...I don't mind much. At least it looks a bit really compared to the plastic-looking things we had 5 years ago and now we have too-smooth rubbery things. Reloaded over-did it a bit, the BURLY BRAWL would have been 100x better if they had real actors lewl

Dark_Machine · Post by **Dark_Machine** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:35 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:
Dark_Machine wrote:George Lucas basically created Star Wars in his basement with his homies, some plaster of paris and an old shoe.
No, Mr. Research, he was using all the "cutting edge" techniques and effects, for the time.

Which amounts to some plaster of paris and an old shoe. Have you ever seen some of the videos they made, while they were doing the special effects? The scene where Han flies the Falcon into the asteroid and comes flying back out because the Worm is chasing them? That was done in George's basement studio, and 99% of the "astroid" was Plaster of Paris.

Cocksucker.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:35 am

CGI like any other SFX is neither good nor bad. ItÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s whats done with it that counts, nowadays like in cumputer gamez people concentrate more on form and less on substance. Movies and games are all about great graphics and visuals and almost nothing about storie telling or giving something to think. Of course there are exceptions and of course great scenes are also entertaining. But I can never forget the spooky stories my grandpa used to tell around the fire, they had much more SFX then any movie and I will never forget them.

Say again what was the Madtricks about?

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:58 pm

I'd agree with Grey Fil. Take 2001 for example. It was great, but some of the visuals, if done today, could have been completely, mind-blowingly insane. Of course, pretty much all CG stuff done so far, Matrix included, has been a piece of shit. I commend Tarantino on his quote.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:31 pm

Although I hate every CGI-heavy movie I've seen so far, I have a feeling that what we're seeing w/CGI is the same thing that the movie industry went through w/sound when it first became available.

Basically, most everyone in the industry ran around saying, "Hey, look what we can do now!" and the early sound pictures weren't as good as those at the end of the silent era. Eventually, sound became something other than a new feature that everyone was fucking with and people sat down to seriously see what could be done w/it.

I think eventually we'll see some decent, CGI-heavy movies, but right now it's still too new to have become a serious art form.

Perhaps in a few years people will also start to resist the urge to tinker w/old films, re-releasing them w/new-fangled effects. I haven't seen a decent revamped re-release yet. Most "old" films aren't broke, so there's no need to fix them.

I love QT's bit about his Nintendo and his dick, though.

OTB

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:04 pm

Ehehehe, how Singin' in the Rain, OTB...

Way to go, QT. Kill Bill still looks like it's going to suck, though. Quentin really isn't an impressive director anyway. It's annoying how people can call him great after only two good films...Jackie Brown was too bad for words, and shows Quentin is too talentless to do anything other than his weird-ass timemixed good-natural-conversations heave-violence flicks. And let's face it, that's not going to last forever, it's already been done to death...Indeed, when mentioning stuff being overdone, why not go from CG to the "oh look at us we're kewl because we tell stories in a non-chronological order lol"-stuff QT excells at.

*sighs*

OTB is right, though. The thing with CGI is that it's in its baby shoes. Not only is it being used badly, but it's also not that pretty. People can tell me "it looks so realistic" until they drop dead, but I still say those scenes in the Matrix 2 looked rubbery, as do most human-involved-CG scenes...

And what was better anyway? Arachnophobia or under-estimated giant-spider spoof Eight-Legged Freaks? Gojira or Godzilla? And I already know the King Kong remake by Gaylord Jackson is going to suck...

iohkus; it's Kurosawa. And both of Yojimbo's remakes (Per un qualchi di dollari and Last Man Standing) kick ass,

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:22 pm

New movies like this are just a fad, like 3D in the '50s or those 'weird situation' movies in the same era (The Boy With Green Hair! Why is his hair green! Don't tell your friends the answer to this fantastic puzzle!) Meh. I'm not too afraid of it.

Kharn, why didn't you like Jackie Brown? Don't you like Blaxploitation movies and '70s stuff? Dialogue wasn't up to Tarantino's usual level (it was still okay, and good in a few parts) but he kept the story going very well. Also, there wasn't any of the non-chronological stuff (the different parts at the mall were taken directly from the book). Shame, shame.

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:39 am

Kharn wrote:Ehehehe, how Singin' in the Rain, OTB...

Way to go, QT. Kill Bill still looks like it's going to suck, though. Quentin really isn't an impressive director anyway. It's annoying how people can call him great after only two good films...Jackie Brown was too bad for words, and shows Quentin is too talentless to do anything other than his weird-ass timemixed good-natural-conversations heave-violence flicks. And let's face it, that's not going to last forever, it's already been done to death...Indeed, when mentioning stuff being overdone, why not go from CG to the "oh look at us we're kewl because we tell stories in a non-chronological order lol"-stuff QT excells at.

*sighs*

OTB is right, though. The thing with CGI is that it's in its baby shoes. Not only is it being used badly, but it's also not that pretty. People can tell me "it looks so realistic" until they drop dead, but I still say those scenes in the Matrix 2 looked rubbery, as do most human-involved-CG scenes...

And what was better anyway? Arachnophobia or under-estimated giant-spider spoof Eight-Legged Freaks? Gojira or Godzilla? And I already know the King Kong remake by Gaylord Jackson is going to suck...

iohkus; it's Kurosawa. And both of Yojimbo's remakes (Per un qualchi di dollari and Last Man Standing) kick ass,

yeh, i would go to my portfolio class piss drunk and talk to my teacher for an hour about films and he'd tell me all about Kurosawa and was liek "lol him and kubrick pwn" i only saw Yojimbo and i liked it, although most kids in my film & video class wuz liek "OMG BLACK AND WHITE WITH SUBTITLES FUX OMG NO SEIZURE ARGH"

fags.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:25 am

When I put my dick in my nintendo duck hunt started playing

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:43 pm

atoga wrote:Kharn, why didn't you like Jackie Brown? Don't you like Blaxploitation movies and '70s stuff?

In this case, no.

atoga wrote:Dialogue wasn't up to Tarantino's usual level (it was still okay, and good in a few parts) but he kept the story going very well. Also, there wasn't any of the non-chronological stuff (the different parts at the mall were taken directly from the book). Shame, shame.

Which is why I said he's too talentless to do anything other than his "weird-ass timemixed good-natural-conversations heave-violence flicks", which Jackie Brown wasn't...

QT can kiss my hairy behind...Damn blast his eyes.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:25 am

Dark_Machine wrote:
Franz_Schubert wrote:
Dark_Machine wrote:George Lucas basically created Star Wars in his basement with his homies, some plaster of paris and an old shoe.
No, Mr. Research, he was using all the "cutting edge" techniques and effects, for the time.
Which amounts to some plaster of paris and an old shoe. Have you ever seen some of the videos they made, while they were doing the special effects? The scene where Han flies the Falcon into the asteroid and comes flying back out because the Worm is chasing them? That was done in George's basement studio, and 99% of the "astroid" was Plaster of Paris.

Cocksucker.

Watch me ignore your immature taunt.

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:28 am

Hammer wrote:When I put my dick in my nintendo duck hunt started playing

So, does that mean your cock's a Duck Hunt ROM?

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:58 am

Okay folks, chill out w/the name-calling. You want to get derisive w/each other, do it in PM and/or the Wasterland.

This is a decent thread, I don't want to have to redact it, lock it, or send it to the Wasteland.

That being said...

Kharn wrote:Ehehehe, how Singin' in the Rain, OTB...

Some of my co-workers thinks it's funny when I say this, but right now I'm going to have to say it:

You mean that film about the travails of a film company making the painful transition to sound movies? Sorry, haven't seen it.

Kharn wrote:...[W]hen mentioning stuff being overdone, why not go from CG to the "oh look at us we're kewl because we tell stories in a non-chronological order lol"-stuff QT excells at.

I think you're right here. I just saw Irreversible last night, and while the reverse-chronological order could have worked for the film, the use of the dizzying camera work in times of stress almost made me stop the movie after the first ten minutes. The thing was that it seemed that they went over the top w/certain things to avoid being labeled a "Memento rip-off". The rape (forcible sodomy, actually) scene would be one of those things.

Speaking of non-chronological order, I would point something about Pulp Fiction out, though. Namely, that it's not just a jumbled choronology. What it is, is several different stories that all involve the same many of the same characters. While this could have been spliced together into one narrative, it's presented as several "shorts". This isn't quite the same as arbitrarily jumbling the chronology as Noland did in Following (in Memento it's less arbitrary, since the narrative highlights the central character's condition), or what was done in Irreversible.

I do, however, agree that the industry needs to let this one lie for a bit. It really is becoming a cliche very rapidly.

OTB

Viktor · Post by **Viktor** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:18 am

Hammer wrote:When I put my dick in my nintendo duck hunt started playing

What score did you get?

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:27 pm

The ULTIMATE HIGH SCORE of course!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:35 pm

Without CG YODA WOULD HAVE NEVER KICKED ASS.

That scene was so sad. It was such an obvious attempt to please the Yoda fanboys and show off some fancy CGI in the process. What's worse is that it really looked like CGI.

And that's really the problem with this dearth of CGI lately - it's so totally obvious. I mean, Spider-Man? Couldn't have been more fake if they'd shown Spidey in a wireframe model. The Hulk? Gah. And while a lot of Episode II had some realistic CGI, for the most part it just looked too perfect, not real. The only examples of really well-done CGI that I can remember are Lord of the Rings, the baby-in-the-bathtub scene of A Beautiful Mind (baby was real, but the water was pure CGI - I didn't even realize it was until I read it on the Internet), and to a lesser extent, The Matrix.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:46 pm

OnTheBounce wrote:You mean that film about the travails of a film company making the painful transition to sound movies?

I've got news for you OTB... That's not a word in the English language. Oh, maybe in the 18th century dictionary that you use

OnTheBounce wrote:I do, however, agree that the industry needs to let this one lie for a bit. It really is becoming a cliche very rapidly.

Yes this is very true. What was an interesting, legitimate style in the early '90s is now becoming overused and slightly tiring. But still, I find it can still be interesting, especially if used in the way QT did in Reservoir Dogs.

Of course you're right about Pulp Fiction not being true reverse chronology... But admittedly it is very difficult to tell a story using multiple different stories AND STILL have them interact and overlap, so we probably won't be seeing it too much.

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:00 pm

Mr. Green wrote:If I'd wanted all that computer game bullshit, I'd have gone home and stuck my dick in my Nintendo.* This CGI bullshit is the death knell of cinema. Movies are far too fucking expensive at the moment and it's killing the fucking art form. The way it's going, in ten year's time it will officially be killed.-Tarantino, foo.

God it's no wonder he only makes a film every 5 years. He's so fucking full of himself that he can't pull his head out of his ass to see that CGI is great when done well.

The man may make a few decent movies, but he's a complete fuckwad.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:03 pm

At least he dies in all of his films.

Duck and Cover

Quentin Tarantino on CGI and The Matrix

Re: Quentin Tarantino on CGI and The Matrix