Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Stephen King's It (September 8, 2017)
Topic Started: Jul 13 2016, 07:12 PM (2,905 Views)
+ Son-Goku
Member Avatar
孫悟空

Idk what doesn't look scary about it.
Posted Image
RP Character Bios
Dragon Ball Super: The Super Human
Dragon Ball Super: Preparation for the Tournament of Power
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Steve
Jul 28 2017, 10:17 PM
I honestly think it doesn't look scary at all.


I really hope someone makes a horror movie without CGI one day. Practical effects are so much more convincing.
Obviously a small amount of CGI is fine but nothing will ever creep me out as much as The Thing in the not-actually-the-original movie.

To me this looks like a movie nobody would care about if the first one and the book didn't exist.
Look to 70% of the "possessed" genre movie. They get away with incredibly minimal effects and have flooded the market. Come on, horror movies that aren't CGI are ridiculously common.

Also, remember the giant spider from the original It. That thing was practical and it still came off as meh.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

lazerbem
Jul 28 2017, 11:33 PM
Look to 70% of the "possessed" genre movie. They get away with incredibly minimal effects and have flooded the market. Come on, horror movies that aren't CGI are ridiculously common.

Also, remember the giant spider from the original It. That thing was practical and it still came off as meh.
Having as little practical effects as possible hardly counts...

And I never said they're always good but if a film from the 70's can have far more real and creepy looking monsters than CGI today...imagine what they could achieve with practical effects today?

The original Xenomorph is still terrifying, compared to the CGI crap in the recent movie.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Having as little practical effects as possible hardly counts...

Yeah, it does. You said a horror movie without CGI, I provided. Also, the Saw franchise and associated things are minimal CG too with lots of practical.
Quote:
 
And I never said they're always good but if a film from the 70's can have far more real and creepy looking monsters than CGI today...imagine what they could achieve with practical effects today?

That has very little to do with effects and more with shooting styles. You'll notice 70's monsters are utterly incapable of moving with any kind of speed on-screen and so the movement has to be implied or done over very short bursts, and so the filming is made to compensate that by using different camera angles to avoid showing the robot's innards or whatever.
Quote:
 
The original Xenomorph is still terrifying, compared to the CGI crap in the recent movie.

Posted Image
Because it's filmed better, maybe. But not due to any real difference in regards to the puppet, as you can see here where even a simple tail swipe requires a very awkward series of cuts to avoid any problems, and even then the Xenomorph just holding his arms straight in front of his head stock still isn't so grand.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Strawberry
Member Avatar
Chiaroscuro ♥

So am I alone here in thinking the trailer looks awesome?

I'm dying to watch this movie. Pennywise was absolutely terrifying for me as a kid and now I can't help but find him kinda goofy looking, so I'm glad the imagery and styling is being revamped and I really like what I'm seeing so far :cool:

Posted Image


Posted Image
♪ ♥ ♫
Across The Universe
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Son-Goku
Member Avatar
孫悟空

Strawberry
Jul 29 2017, 02:02 AM
So am I alone here in thinking the trailer looks awesome?

I'm dying to watch this movie. Pennywise was absolutely terrifying for me as a kid and now I can't help but find him kinda goofy looking, so I'm glad the imagery and styling is being revamped and I really like what I'm seeing so far :cool:
I think it looks good. But I don't think I can handle it.
Posted Image
RP Character Bios
Dragon Ball Super: The Super Human
Dragon Ball Super: Preparation for the Tournament of Power
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Quote:
 
Yeah, it does. You said a horror movie without CGI, I provided. Also, the Saw franchise and associated things are minimal CG too with lots of practical.


Are you suggesting Saw is actual horror and not just gore porn? There's nothing scary about the Saw films they're just disgusting.

Quote:
 
That has very little to do with effects and more with shooting styles. You'll notice 70's monsters are utterly incapable of moving with any kind of speed on-screen and so the movement has to be implied or done over very short bursts, and so the filming is made to compensate that by using different camera angles to avoid showing the robot's innards or whatever.


Which matters why? They're still convincing, it's better than seeing a big blob on the screen that looks like it was photoshopped there.
Alien 3's CGI is a good example when you see the Xeno run it looks appallingly bad. Obviously things have come along since then but it still never looks real.

Surely a movie with mostly practical effects could be done amazingly well with animatronics and general movie making techniques today.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darker
Member Avatar
The Lord of the Dark

Steve
Jul 28 2017, 10:17 PM
To me this looks like a movie nobody would care about if the first one and the book didn't exist.


You could say that about literally any movie :p
Posted Image

Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?!

Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power.
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Darker
Jul 29 2017, 07:56 AM
Steve
Jul 28 2017, 10:17 PM
To me this looks like a movie nobody would care about if the first one and the book didn't exist.


You could say that about literally any movie :p
How? I mean people are only hyped because IT is already a thing and apparently good.
As a completely standalone experience I doubt this movie would be considered as classic as the first one.

Compared to something like Halloween that stands out on it's own.



I stake my claim! This movie will be "okay" at best.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darker
Member Avatar
The Lord of the Dark

It's a horror movie about a killer clown.

That makes it an instant classic :P
Posted Image

Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?!

Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power.
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Are you suggesting Saw is actual horror and not just gore porn? There's nothing scary about the Saw films they're just disgusting.

It's labeled as a horror movie so I'm going to call it one.
Quote:
 
Which matters why? They're still convincing,

It matters because what you're complaining about has nothing to do with CGI and more to do with the fact that people want more of the monster on-screen. In fact, people complain if the monster isn't on-screen very much or if it's obscured by shots in the dark. With the prop aliens, they only look more convincing because it's close-ups with frantic cuts or otherwise a limp body. When the camera pulls out, it does look derpy.
Quote:
 
Obviously things have come along since then but it still never looks real.

Posted Image
This one looks no different between the puppet and CGI. The only difference is that the CGI one actually moves and that's the difference you see. The puppets can move, but it looks worse when they do it. Look at the movement cycle on this puppet for instance. Even with red lights blocking out most of it, you can still see that the way its limbs move is really off
Posted Image
Quote:
 
Surely a movie with mostly practical effects could be done amazingly well with animatronics and general movie making techniques today.

It hit critical mass. What that is to say is that animatronics can be big and impressive, but they are forced to be mostly static or at least very slow. There's still no way to make them go with any kind of speed.

As such, the problem then becomes with filming styles that want to show more of the monster or give the monster more movement. That's what you should be taking issue with.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darker
Member Avatar
The Lord of the Dark

lazerbem
Jul 28 2017, 11:33 PM
Come on, horror movies that aren't CGI are ridiculously common.


Common? Pretty much nothing but CGI and little to no practical effects are used nowadays lol

Unless you go back like a few decades, when CGI was more than rare.
Posted Image

Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?!

Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power.
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Darker
Jul 29 2017, 03:41 PM
lazerbem
Jul 28 2017, 11:33 PM
Come on, horror movies that aren't CGI are ridiculously common.


Common? Pretty much nothing but CGI and little to no practical effects are used nowadays lol

Unless you go back like a few decades, when CGI was more than rare.
Saw
Sinister
Insidious
The Monster
The Animal
You're Next
Hush
Lights Out
Don't Breathe
The Boy
Oculus
The Belko Experiment
SiREN

Need I carry on? These all used either minimal or no CGI.
Edited by lazerbem, Jul 30 2017, 03:34 AM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darker
Member Avatar
The Lord of the Dark

I was mostly referring to monster movies, since you used an example of one.

Like how would I not be aware of any of these.
Posted Image

Piccolo: Just how many people have you sacrificed?!

Cell: Sacrifice? Hmph, rubbish! On the contrary, it is an honor to become a fraction of my power.
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EMIYA
Member Avatar
"I am the bone of my sword."

So the movie has officially come out and I haven't seen it yet but I thought it would be wise to bump this topic up. I actually plan on seeing it tomorrow if possible so I'll give a proper review on it then. However, if the movie is anywhere near as good as the fans and critics of praised it right now, I find it hard that I'm not going to enjoy something about it.

It's still only day one, so there's no telling what will happen. Look at "After Earth" it had a strong starting week but dropped horrendously later.

Personally, I love Stephen King's work and even its most stereotypical tropes. So I probably will have a bit of a positive bias of the movie if its anywhere near faithful to the book I love.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Television and Films · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Theme Designed by McKee91