Quentin Tarantino on CGI and The Matrix

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:06 pm

At least he's as dumb as he looks.

kekeke

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:08 pm

KEKEKE ^_^

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:49 pm

Stop dissing QT. He's a good guy, one of the few people around in Hollywood today who at least cares about story and atmosphere. He's a very good preacher for what was once good in cinema. Sure, there's plenty of good foreign directors, but how many people today even know their names? After all, we're still in the Tarantino generation, and I'd much rather see his films than the shit we're seeing lately. The only other American directors I can think of who are doing the same are the Cohen brothers (who don't get nearly enough publicity, sadly).

BlackDog wrote:CGI is great when done well

Oh yeah? Can you give an example?

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:04 am

The flash of a gun in dog soldiers? IT WAS SO SEAMLESS IT WAS AMUSING! Theres plenty of SEAMLESS WOWOWOW cgi, you're just being liek madmaxrw or something, NIHILIST kekakak

quentin tarantino sucks. He's dumb and makes over-rated over-hyped movies. And he's called quentin and looks like he has a comb-over. And he's a bad actor.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:38 pm

atoga wrote:Oh yeah? Can you give an example?

Well, Lord of the Rings.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 7:51 pm

We Were Soldiers had good CGI too, as a matter of fact all of the Hueys and Sky Raiders were CGI.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 8:44 pm

Subhuman wrote:Well, Lord of the Rings.

I said good movies, follow? LOTR didn't even *look* good, just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap.

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:30 pm

atoga wrote:
Subhuman wrote:Well, Lord of the Rings.
I said good movies, follow? LOTR didn't even *look* good, just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap.

*points and laughs*

YOU SO FUNNY!

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:33 pm

atoga you fucking nihilist, be more optimistic before I steal your ph4t l3wt

Lunchmeat · Post by **Lunchmeat** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:03 pm

That Hellboy movie in the works won't be having much if any CGI in it. Should be interesting seeing how that works out. I've got my fingers crossed.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:05 am

atoga wrote:
Subhuman wrote:Well, Lord of the Rings.
I said good movies, follow? LOTR didn't even *look* good, just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap.

It looked good (great). You just don't like fantasy. Lots of people do. I hope you realize that you're completely unobjective in your opinion of the movie.

It's like Ebert giving horor movies 1 star, even if it's a good movie.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:29 am

Ebert gives up big fat thumbs up, not a star.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:17 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:
atoga wrote:
Subhuman wrote:Well, Lord of the Rings.
I said good movies, follow? LOTR didn't even *look* good, just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap.
It looked good (great). You just don't like fantasy. Lots of people do. I hope you realize that you're completely unobjective in your opinion of the movie.

Ah, so we have to say we like movies we didn't like because we don't like the setting so we have to take that into consideration?

no thnx

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:15 pm

I think this has very little to do with the topic, but my two quantum modules: it seems to me that you elitist bastards just possibly can't like a movie because some chinese dude carved something that remotely resembed a wookie to a big rock back in the 13th century when art was Hardcore to the MAX. or then the movie isn't artsy fartsy enough - but then again, if it is, well it still sucks! i'm probably just slower than you but I can actually enjoy movies that have zero references to Tha Byzantium. don't any of you really like any post-hitchcock movies? kthxbye

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:29 pm

atoga wrote:I said good movies, follow? LOTR didn't even *look* good, just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap.

The point is that the CGI looked really good, in that it wasn't obvious CGI. It just looked really believable.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:05 pm

I like subhuman's avatar.

Calal · Post by **Calal** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:26 pm

Subhuman wrote:
atoga wrote:I said good movies, follow? LOTR didn't even *look* good, just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap.
The point is that the CGI looked really good, in that it wasn't obvious CGI. It just looked really believable.

Well, then you obviously haven' t paid to much attention. The CGI looked like crap in some major parts. Like when the Ents tear down the dam at the end of the Two Towers; it could have come from a Thunderbirds episode, pretty obvious it was a scalemodel. The Last Alliance battle in the introduction and one of the scenes in the halls of Moria weren' t that good either. And then there' s the stop-motion with Treebeard.

Point is that CGI is still far from perfected and it' s a shame they tried hard but failed with this movie. I hate to say it but I honestly believe that the CGI used in the Star Wars movies was far more superior than almost any other movie that uses it on almost such a large scale.

I have to disagree with you Atoga on the point of Lord of the Rings being high-fantasy though. High-fantasy is merely a DnD offspring whereas Lord of the Rings is actual a mythical fantasy where magic is a powerfull but scarce tool.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:44 pm

LotR and Quentin Tarantino own you fools.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:11 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote: You just don't like fantasy. Lots of people do. I hope you realize that you're completely unobjective in your opinion of the movie.

I never said I didn't like fantasies; I just said the LOTR movie relied too heavily on the same old fantasy-bullshit that's been used in too many movies already. You'd think Jackson might want to innovate, since the books are so creative and unique, but instead he just uses the same old devices that other fantasy movies use (only slightly better done, due to the much higher budget). LOTR is nothing special whatsoever.

Subhuman wrote:The point is that the CGI looked really good, in that it wasn't obvious CGI. It just looked really believable.

I'd disagree with you there. I spotted quite a few flaws in the CGI used. Still other things that were CGI'd looked rather corny.

Calal wrote: have to disagree with you Atoga on the point of Lord of the Rings being high-fantasy though. High-fantasy is merely a DnD offspring whereas Lord of the Rings is actual a mythical fantasy where magic is a powerfull but scarce tool.

I know that Tolkien is pretty much the father of fantasy, and that the books are far from what you'd see in DND-type stuff. However, the movie does not follow the theme of the books very well, and it uses too many devices (in plot, setting, etc.) that are conventional in other fantasy movies.

Lasse wrote:I think this has very little to do with the topic, but my two quantum modules: it seems to me that you elitist bastards just possibly can't like a movie because some chinese dude carved something that remotely resembed a wookie to a big rock back in the 13th century when art was Hardcore to the MAX. or then the movie isn't artsy fartsy enough - but then again, if it is, well it still sucks! i'm probably just slower than you but I can actually enjoy movies that have zero references to Tha Byzantium. don't any of you really like any post-hitchcock movies? kthxbye

I like modern movies just as much, if not more, than classic ones. I just like to actually critique things and be discerning rather than watching every movie and giving it the thumbs-up for no good reason.

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:47 pm

atoga wrote:I know that Tolkien is pretty much the father of fantasy, and that the books are far from what you'd see in DND-type stuff. However, the movie does not follow the theme of the books very well, and it uses too many devices (in plot, setting, etc.) that are conventional in other fantasy movies.

That's b/c the books were more like friggin encyclopedias every other chapter. It's like "story...story...story...OH SHIT I forgot to tell you all about hobbits!...2 chapters on hobbits...OH YEAH! I'm telling the LotR, not The Hobbits...back to story...story...story...story..."