Comments on: The Bigger Picture: Disaster Movie! http://popdose.com/disaster-movie/ your daily dose of pop culture Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:08:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DwDunphyhttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-52648 DwDunphy Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:24:28 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-52648 Right. In the back of my head, I know the Rings effects are effects, but I'm in far enough to go with it. For the most part, Cloverfield accomplished it well too, but I suspect the handheld camera acted as a plausible diversion.<br><br>Still, I miss those TV specials whenever an effects movie came out, the ones that explained stop-motion and matte painting, and Dennis Muren was really, really excited about what ILM had done. Now, what would you talk about? Which computer? How many on that computer? Right. In the back of my head, I know the Rings effects are effects, but I'm in far enough to go with it. For the most part, Cloverfield accomplished it well too, but I suspect the handheld camera acted as a plausible diversion.

Still, I miss those TV specials whenever an effects movie came out, the ones that explained stop-motion and matte painting, and Dennis Muren was really, really excited about what ILM had done. Now, what would you talk about? Which computer? How many on that computer?

]]> By: Malchushttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-52649 Malchus Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:38:43 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-52649 I feel like MAGNOLIA is another film that was bit of a mess but I always watch when it's on IFC. The movie is way too long and uneven in its tone. Yet you have to give Anderson credit for challenging his audience to think, despite the flaws. I feel like MAGNOLIA is another film that was bit of a mess but I always watch when it's on IFC. The movie is way too long and uneven in its tone. Yet you have to give Anderson credit for challenging his audience to think, despite the flaws.

]]> By: Malchushttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-52647 Malchus Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:35:31 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-52647 The perfection of CG makes everything so sterile. It's not intentional, but without the human touch, the smudges and imperfections, most CG work, whether it's an imaginary monster of a New York City block, feels fake. The only movies I can think of that were able to get past this problem with CG were the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Otherwise, you can point out a CG shot the moment it appears on screen. The perfection of CG makes everything so sterile. It's not intentional, but without the human touch, the smudges and imperfections, most CG work, whether it's an imaginary monster of a New York City block, feels fake. The only movies I can think of that were able to get past this problem with CG were the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Otherwise, you can point out a CG shot the moment it appears on screen.

]]> By: DwDunphyhttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-40421 DwDunphy Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:24:28 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-40421 Right. In the back of my head, I know the Rings effects are effects, but I'm in far enough to go with it. For the most part, Cloverfield accomplished it well too, but I suspect the handheld camera acted as a plausible diversion.<br><br>Still, I miss those TV specials whenever an effects movie came out, the ones that explained stop-motion and matte painting, and Dennis Muren was really, really excited about what ILM had done. Now, what would you talk about? Which computer? How many on that computer? Right. In the back of my head, I know the Rings effects are effects, but I'm in far enough to go with it. For the most part, Cloverfield accomplished it well too, but I suspect the handheld camera acted as a plausible diversion.

Still, I miss those TV specials whenever an effects movie came out, the ones that explained stop-motion and matte painting, and Dennis Muren was really, really excited about what ILM had done. Now, what would you talk about? Which computer? How many on that computer?

]]> By: DwDunphyhttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-13847 DwDunphy Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:24:28 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-13847 Right. In the back of my head, I know the Rings effects are effects, but I'm in far enough to go with it. For the most part, Cloverfield accomplished it well too, but I suspect the handheld camera acted as a plausible diversion.<br><br>Still, I miss those TV specials whenever an effects movie came out, the ones that explained stop-motion and matte painting, and Dennis Muren was really, really excited about what ILM had done. Now, what would you talk about? Which computer? How many on that computer? Right. In the back of my head, I know the Rings effects are effects, but I'm in far enough to go with it. For the most part, Cloverfield accomplished it well too, but I suspect the handheld camera acted as a plausible diversion.

Still, I miss those TV specials whenever an effects movie came out, the ones that explained stop-motion and matte painting, and Dennis Muren was really, really excited about what ILM had done. Now, what would you talk about? Which computer? How many on that computer?

]]> By: Malchushttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-13848 Malchus Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:38:43 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-13848 I feel like MAGNOLIA is another film that was bit of a mess but I always watch when it's on IFC. The movie is way too long and uneven in its tone. Yet you have to give Anderson credit for challenging his audience to think, despite the flaws. I feel like MAGNOLIA is another film that was bit of a mess but I always watch when it's on IFC. The movie is way too long and uneven in its tone. Yet you have to give Anderson credit for challenging his audience to think, despite the flaws.

]]> By: Malchushttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-13846 Malchus Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:35:31 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-13846 The perfection of CG makes everything so sterile. It's not intentional, but without the human touch, the smudges and imperfections, most CG work, whether it's an imaginary monster of a New York City block, feels fake. The only movies I can think of that were able to get past this problem with CG were the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Otherwise, you can point out a CG shot the moment it appears on screen. The perfection of CG makes everything so sterile. It's not intentional, but without the human touch, the smudges and imperfections, most CG work, whether it's an imaginary monster of a New York City block, feels fake. The only movies I can think of that were able to get past this problem with CG were the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Otherwise, you can point out a CG shot the moment it appears on screen.

]]> By: DwDunphyhttp://popdose.com/disaster-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-13845 DwDunphy Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:40:05 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=9607#comment-13845 You mentioned CG, and this is a generational change I absolutely can say altered movies for the worse. Sure, when done right they're absolutely incredible, but everything comes through the computer now and the mystery of the movies is gone. Where once you asked yourself, "How did they do that?" now the answer is always CG. It's even used in "non-effects" movies just to make the real that much more real, and still we know it's done with computers.<br><br>Effects in the '70s and '80s weren't always credible but the makers could catch us up now and then. Now, as perfect as CG can be, their very presence kind of throws the viewer out of the experience, if only because we know too much. You mentioned CG, and this is a generational change I absolutely can say altered movies for the worse. Sure, when done right they're absolutely incredible, but everything comes through the computer now and the mystery of the movies is gone. Where once you asked yourself, “How did they do that?” now the answer is always CG. It's even used in “non-effects” movies just to make the real that much more real, and still we know it's done with computers.

Effects in the '70s and '80s weren't always credible but the makers could catch us up now and then. Now, as perfect as CG can be, their very presence kind of throws the viewer out of the experience, if only because we know too much.

]]>