Has anyone seen the ads for The Matrix Reloaded yet? If so, am I correct in thinking that during one of the fight scenes they showed (the one where Reeves is fighting with a pole/staff) he turned into a bad CGI character similar to the ones in Blade II? At one point he started to look like Gumby (jokes aside).
I don't know about that, but can anyone confirm the rumors I've heard that Daniel Bernhardt, a.k.a. Jean Claude Gosh Darn from Future War, has a fairly major role in the next two Matrix movies?
Brother R
Will the MATRIX movies go down in history as being classic examples of mega-hype?
*
*
*
I don't know about that, but can anyone confirm the rumors I've heard that Daniel Bernhardt, a.k.a. Jean Claude Gosh Darn from Future War, has a fairly major role in the next two Matrix movies?
Brother R
i know he is playing one of the agents. don't know how big his role is.
CGI is in my opinion being "done to death" in current movies. Less is more, otherwise we might as well be watching a cartoon
I agree. More so in horror films than in straight out action flicks. I'd much rather have a latex monster than some CGI crap.
If you think the CGI in the new MATRIX looks bad then you just need to stop going to the movies because, like it or not, this is going to become the norm. Also, that is about the best CGI I've seen in quite sometime. Sheesh.
No desire to see it.....I have the first MATRIX on dvd and wasn't that impressed with it overall. Watched it ONCE....great FX, but that's about it. In NO big hurry to see any of the sequels.
Skaboi
I agree. More so in horror films than in straight out action flicks. I'd much rather have a latex monster than some CGI crap.
I think its cheaper today to do CGI then to make a latex monster.
All special effects require a certain suspension of belief because done well they will suffice but done poorly, they look pretty bad.
Which really looks worse:
A CGI shark in "Deep Blue Sea" or a plastic shark and stock footage in "Shark Attack 2"?
A CGI person falling off a building, or an underweight mannequion tossed of a building?
Godzilla as an obvious guy in a rubber suit tearing up a painfully obvious model Tokyo or Godzilla as an obvious CGI tearing up a painfully obvious computer model New York.
A CGI spider man flying around the city or a blue screen superman flying around the world?
A CGI Yoda or a puppet Yoda?
It all can look good, or not... really just depends on how much effort the filmaker puts into it and how much the audience is willing to forgive for the sake of the story
Well there is good CGI and bad CGI...
Spiderman... Bad CGI
T2... Good CGI
Final Fantasy... Bad CGI
Monsters Inc., Toy Story, Shrek... Good CGI
Hercules... Bad CGI
Star Trek Next Generation... Good CGI
Worst uses of CGI... Removing weapons from hands and repace with walkie talkies (ET), add usless crap to (Star Wars).
Best use of CGI... Finishing a movie with a dead actor (The Crow), Making holes in impossable locations to look real (Death Becomes Her).
CGI doesn't equate to a better overall look. I've seen some movies where it looked so cartoonish that it completely took me away from the story. I'll take the dragon in "Dragonslayer" any day over "Dragonheart"
I don't think godzilla would have ever achieved cult status if not for the man in the rubber suit stombing on toy-size villages. While that is an extreme example of bad effects making a movie fun, just because it is NOT CGI doesn't mean that it looks fake. In many cases a movie has more atmosphere without all the computer graphics.
And yeah, unfortunately that is the cheaper way to go these days. More money in their pockets.
Obviously when it comes to opinions of The Matrix and it's sequels, it seems a given that most of you're gonna disagree with me. Oh well....to each their own I say.
I look foward to this film & the next and will laugh at ALL of you when they gross millions!!! (you know they will)
And I'd also bet that all or most of the people who put their 2 cents in on this post will go to see them.....
Am I wrong????
I think not.
Another complaint.....I'm sick of people dogging Keanu Reeves.....I think he's a good actor and I hope that there are others here who admire him. Don't be afraid to speak your mind fellow supporters! Anyone who dogs him does so out of pure jealosy and/or envy as they wish they could've been the one cast in the role of NEO or any of his other roles. (that probably isn't the reason you dislike him but hey...I had to throw something out there!) (I'm sure most of you who disagree will use the above portion to quote me in their anti-opinions)
Even if you seriously don't like him, I DON'T CARE....I like him as an actor and I cannot and would not want to picture any other actor playing NEO.
Give the guy credit where credit is due. Most of you will disagree with me and I have no problem with that. But when those films gross MILLIONS like you & I know they will, Keanu & company will be laughing all the way to the bank while you sit at your computer wishing you were in his shoes!!!!!
lol!!!!
That's my opinion though.
Post Edited (04-19-03 15:13)
I don't like CGI all that much, but like Ash said, I am really excited to see this new Matrix. I hated the first one the first time I watched it but it got increasingly better each time I watched it. I now realized it's a solid SF/Fantasy film, which is why the CGI isn't so bad in a film of it's nature.
Think of it this way. They are in a world that is controlled by computers. Everything, including themselves are a computer manifestation. Therefore, if something does look like a fake CGI graphic, then it fits in pretty well with the flick. Atleast, that's what I tell myself to keep it from bothering me. :o)
> Another complaint.....I'm sick of people dogging Keanu
> Reeves.....I think he's a good actor and I hope that there are
> others here who admire him. Don't be afraid to speak your
> mind fellow supporters! Anyone who dogs him does so out of
> pure jealosy and/or envy as they wish they could've been the
> one cast in the role of NEO or any of his other roles. (that
> probably isn't the reason you dislike him but hey...I had to
> throw something out there!) (I'm sure most of you who disagree
> will use the above portion to quote me in their anti-opinions)
Ha, You have found a supporter. While I do not think Keanu does anything that anyone, maybe even you Ash, could do. However, as long as he chooses his roles wisely, he tends to be a competent actor. I think he was excellent in his last three roles (Matrix, Sweet November, the Replacements) and did a fine job in other fare like Devil's Advocate and Bill and Ted
However, Ash, you must remember, more so than other "mainstream"actors, he does choose some real crap (Chain Reaction and Siddartha come to mind) and he should never be allowed to do Shakespeare (Much Ado About Nothing: Starring: Denzel Washington, Susan Sarandon, Michael Keaton, Kenneth Branagh and KEANU FREAKIN NO ACCENT OR EMOTION REEVES).
That being said, I do like Keanu and think he is not that bad of an actor. He suffers from Britney Spears disease by having above average talent, but not great talent, but lots of money, which makes it socially acceptable to hate him, despite any competence he has.
I DID like Devil's Advocate alot actually.
I've only seen Keenu Reeves in three movies (The Matrix, Speed, and Bill and Ted's...) and he seemed to do well in the role in all three so I have nor criticisms of him as an actor
In "Deep Blue Sea", the sharks often looked pretty obviously CGI, but then in "20 Million Miles To Earth" (thanks for the review, Andrew...) the creature is pretty obviously a stop-motion animated puppet.. Both are obviously not real, but in neither case does it really distract me from the story because I know it's not real going in and I'm willing to give the movie a break,. "Deep Blue Sea" in particular has so many other problems going for it that a CGI shark was the least of my criticisms.
People seem to criticize CGI as looking 'fake' as if there is an assumption that if it's done with a computer it should be perfect. Most forms of special effects have rarely actually looked real enough to fool the discerning eye.
The only real difference with CGI is that it cam be used in place of many types of traditional effects and can be also used in ways that other effects can't, so it's starting to become a bit ubiquitous due to it's flexibility
In "Deep Blue Sea", the sharks often looked pretty obviously CGI, but then in "20 Million Miles To Earth" (thanks for the review, Andrew...) the creature is pretty obviously a stop-motion animated puppet.
But, despite being a stop motion creation, the Ymir is so very alive! It has mannerisms and a definite personality. The sharks in "Deep Blue Sea" were awful. They moved all wrong. Heck, the giant shark in "Shark Hunter" was heads and tails above those in "Deep Blue Sea" in realized design. I could believe that it was an ancient shark (both a fantastically old species and old in itself). And "Shark Hunter" had a lot of problems too.
But, despite being a stop motion creation, the Ymir is so very alive! It has mannerisms and a definite personality. The sharks in "Deep Blue Sea" were awful
I think the personality, though, was more a reflection of the skill of the artist than anything inherent in the medium
>People seem to criticize CGI as looking 'fake' as if there is an assumption that if
>it's done with a computer it should be perfect. Most forms of special effects have
>rarely actually looked real enough to fool the discerning eye.
The problem is that CGI CAN look perfect, but when it isn't, it looks really bad. The fight in Blade II was horrible, the characters looks like bugs jumping around. They didn't move at all like humans. What I saw in the Matrix Reloaded previews looked like cartoons in spots. I don't mean they looked silly, but the bodies bending and such made them look like someone drew them.
If you want to see really good CGI of human's, track down some episodes of the Starship Troopers show, I think it was called Roughnecks. The first time I hit it while flipping channels, the characters were walking around outside and I thought it was live action. Only their faces gave it away.
Actually, I just watched the pod-race scene in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" and was thinking that it was indeed some very good CGI.
Say what you want about "special-effects over story" in the new Star Wars movies, at least the special effects are very good.
Bad CGI can look really bad, but I'm thinking of the dragon in "The Barbarians" and that was just as bad as the worst CGI I've seen.
I like Keanu Reeves, too. Sheesh.
I'm surprised no mention Speed as a movie that used him well. He is a lot smarter than people give him credit for, and, as an actor, well...very little range, but watching him makes the movie easier for me to watch. Go figure.
Although I HATED Sweet November. What a manipulative witch that chick was! Grr.
Shark Hunter also featured the tough talking bad ass getting his ass kicked and whimpering...
"You know David and Goliath? This is like Bambi meets Godzilla!"
And yeah, the shark looked and acted like a very big, very mean, and very old shark.
I like Shark Hunter, dammit! Nyah, nyah.
Keep meaning to pick up "Shark Hunter" actually
Actually, I downloaded an extended Matrix trailor, and for whatever reason, the CGI looks much better on my computer than my TV. Maybe they polished it for the extended version??? In any event, Matrix 2 and 3 looks out to prove that more is indeed better. Time will tell.
>People seem to criticize CGI as looking 'fake' as if there is an assumption that if
>it's done with a computer it should be perfect. Most forms of special effects have
>rarely actually looked real enough to fool the discerning eye.
I don't hate CG effects because they look fake (I think that a lot of them look pretty good, actually). I hate CG effects because Hollywood over-uses the hell out of them. EVERYTHING is done with computers now. When I watched the extras on the CONTACT dvd I almost puked. They used CG effects to put clouds in the sky, or to remove clouds from the sky, or to show peoples reflections on windows . . . just about EVERYTHING. Whatever happened to filming the damned sky "as is?" Or filming someone's ACTUAL REFLECTION on a piece of glass instead of sticking it in with a computer. CG effects are fine for showing people transforming into monsters and stuff like that. But when they have to stick an effect into every damned frame of film, I get really aggravated.
I think that the last "pure" decade of filmmaking was the 1970s. Sure, a lot of cheesy movies came out of the 70s, but they all had an "honest" look about them. For instance, they actually filmed movies in New York City rather than in front of a green screen with CG images of New York City on it.
THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE managed to turn a whole damned ocean liner upside down using only sets and miniatures. Why did James Cameron need to spend a trillion dollars to do the same thing in TITANIC?
MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS STARTING TO RISE!!!!!!
*
*
*