Quentin Tarantino on CGI and The Matrix

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:58 pm

LoTR and Matrix suck. If a movie needs to depend on CGI to be good then chances are it would suck without them.

Taxi Driver is the greatest fucking movie. and no cgi.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:16 pm

BlackDog - do you have a point?

Taxi Driver is definately one of the best movies out there. Robert De Niro > all.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:34 pm

Word, Taxi Driver is one of the best movies out there. Though not the best, but it is in my top-50. Plus I bought the DVD for 1 euro today. Ah, such is life...

LoTR and Matrix suck. If a movie needs to depend on CGI to be good then chances are it would suck without them.

Yes, but it *has* CGI, so that point is kind of moot. You're stating the movie would suck without CGI, that doesn't mean by definition it sucks with them. If you think it sucks in spite of any of this, just say so, but that argument is kind of twisted.

Matrix was kinda good, Matrix 2 was too stupid for words...

Spoiler? Just in case.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:08 am

Kharn wrote:
LoTR and Matrix suck. If a movie needs to depend on CGI to be good then chances are it would suck without them.
Yes, but it *has* CGI, so that point is kind of moot. You're stating the movie would suck without CGI, that doesn't mean by definition it sucks with them. If you think it sucks in spite of any of this, just say so, but that argument is kind of twisted.

I think what he's saying is that if a movie is shitty to begin with, CGI won't improve it. But certain movies depend on CGI to tell their story effectively. Imagine LOTR without CGI. Scary, right? So when a movie that plainly requires CGI (like LOTR) and when the CGI looks good (like LOTR), there's cause to celebrate said CGI.

Yeesh. That's enough acronyms for one day.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:41 am

Hammer wrote:Ebert gives up big fat thumbs up, not a star.

Ebert writes movie reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times. He scales them from half a star to 4 stars. Thanks for your opinion though.

Megatron wrote: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?

Did I say you have to fucking like them? Atoga claims that LOTR was a bad movie, and I'm contesting that just because someone doesn't like a movie doesn't mean they have to consider it a bad movie, especially when the reason you don't like it is based on genre.

Atoga thinks it's "just a bunch of lame ass DND high fantasy crap." As an example, a person who doesn't like zombie movies could watch a great zombie movie, and say "just a bunch of lame zombies trying to kill people, what's the point in that?"

Atoga wrote: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.

From this I can tell that you are not a fan of the fantasy genre, because the "same old fantasy-bullshit" is what fans of the genre live and breathe. To them, there is no such thing as "too much" of it. Though honestly I'm not sure what you mean by "same old" and also all the movies you are referring to.

Personally, as a Dragonlance fan, I'm excited about the precedent that these movies are setting for the Fantasy genre. When utter crap is made like the Dungeons and Dragons movie, I think that hurts the prospect of forthcoming good high budget fantasy films, but when quality work is produced like Jackson's films, it gives me hope for a future Dragonlance movie.

Gimp Lasse wrote: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!

This is why people shouldn't post while totally strung out on crack...

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:44 am

iohkus wrote:LoTR and Matrix suck. If a movie needs to depend on CGI to be good then chances are it would suck without them.

You picked two movies that have a strong enough story to be good without their considerable CGI. Read what Kharn said.... he's completely right.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:37 am

This is why people shouldn't post while totally strung out on crack...

LOL nice one mate!!!!!!!!! i'm like, totally lolling here, thanks for your opinion though. HA! good fun! lol!
but atoga's point duly noted :)

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:05 pm

atoga wrote:BlackDog - do you have a point?

use your brain. is it that hard? :roll:

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:33 pm

So you're saying that, because you found the books lengthy and full of backstory, it would be impossible to adapt to a movie. That's not true. Jackson just chose to emphasize action and adventure, not atmosphere and story, in the LOTR movie; that's why it sucks. If he wanted to make the movies more like the books, it could be done, though I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult.

InvisibleMonkey · Post by **InvisibleMonkey** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 6:26 pm

It could be done, but it would be even longer since LOTR focused mainly on the action. I don't think I could sit through a 5 hour movie.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:18 am

but why sit through a 50 hour book when you can just watch the movie and stuff kekekeke

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 4:19 am

Megatron wrote:but why sit through a 50 hour book when you can just watch the movie and stuff kekekeke

That is just stupid. Books > Movies

The Gaijin · Post by **The Gaijin** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:06 am

Sometimes. I happen to think that The Shawshank Redemption was a better movie than book. Might be because Stephen King's a talentless coke-addict.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:50 am

s4ur0n27 wrote:
Megatron wrote:but why sit through a 50 hour book when you can just watch the movie and stuff kekekeke
That is just stupid. Books > Movies

yes

but I think lotr is over-rated

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:25 pm

Ebert writes movie reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times. He scales them from half a star to 4 stars. Thanks for your opinion though.

He has given zero star ratings before, most notable to the Byzantine post-absurdism masterpiece Freddy Got Fingered.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 5:07 pm

LotR IS overrated but it is still a very good and entertaining movie.

At leats it's better than most of the action crap we see during the summer.And it was better than Matrix Reloaded.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 5:13 pm

Not really. They are both full of cliches, bland story, finish of a cliff-hanger and have generated a big enough fan-base? Like without the lotr movies I don't think you'd have had sfoururzerontwentyseven or something?

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:26 am

What is sfoururzerontwentyseven supposed to be?