Guillermo del Toro's Pacific Rim!!!

[CelticPredator]

It would look awesome. I hope CGI dies. At least for 2 years.

 

[darthviper107]

Maybe they should do the next Transformers with miniatures then. Except it would never come out.

 

[CelticPredator]

that would be pretty badass. I can't wait for the bubble burst in Hollywood. I'm really hoping to not see another CGI film for 2 years. Just let that go for a bit, work on making some real stories, and then bring back CGI in the most grandiose way.

 

[darthviper107]

If you think somehow they could do something like that better with stop motion and miniatures then you're a fool.

The bubble isn't about CGI, the films that have been doing bad cost so much not because of the FX, it was the incompetence of the studio controlling it. It also probably doesn't help that they have so many different FX companies working on each project. It was meant to lower the cost of FX but it actually increases it. But that's the choice of the studio. Most movies these days don't require the amount of money that are put into them to get the same end result. Consider things like District 9 that cost $40 million, or Rise of the Planet of the Apes which cost $90 million. Pacific Rim makes sense at $190 million for what it is though.

 

[CelticPredator]

If you hate stop motion, you're a communist robot.

 

[Frank]

Stop Motion was awesome in its day but terribly outdated now. Let it die.

 

[GasparZizou]

I love stop motion, but it only works with certain tones and themes, like Paranorman (****ing love that movie).

Don't think it would ever work for a blockbuster.

Also, I don't think CGI itself is the problem, just that they focus so much on shiny things and neglect story telling too much these days.

I would love to see some more practical FX too.

 

[CelticPredator]

I think you guys are secretly Nazi's. Only Nazi's and communists hate stop motion.




Also, CGI isn't the problem. But something needs to go to show these filmmakers that they can tell a story without it. Sets, blue screen, ect....you don't need much more then that. Or at least make CGI so expensive that filmmakers can only use it as a last resort.

Neill Blomkamp is the only one allowed cheap CGI. GDT too. Because his CGI helped tell a story .

 

[MitchF1GTR]

Also, CGI isn't the problem, but something needs to go to show these filmmakers that they can tell a story without it.

Yeah, I'm a Nazi.

 

[GasparZizou]

There are many others who need CGI to serve their stories.

Also, I can't be a Nazi cause I'm caramel colored and I can't be a communist cause I've got too many possessions

Plus I just told you that I loved stop motion wtf? Would you like a PR made out of stop motion?.... Nevermind, that's a stupid question, of course you would....

 

[CelticPredator]

A comma implied that I didn't want a pause. I wanted a pause. I wanted my point to be as blunt as possible.

Blah blah blah, but... Doesn't have the same affect as... Blah blah blah. But...ect blah blah blah.

 

[Frank]

I think you guys are secretly Nazi's. Only Nazi's and communists hate stop motion.




Also, CGI isn't the problem. But something needs to go to show these filmmakers that they can tell a story without it. Sets, blue screen, ect....you don't need much more then that. Or at least make CGI so expensive that filmmakers can only use it as a last resort.

Neill Blomkamp is the only one allowed cheap CGI. GDT too. Because his CGI helped tell a story .

I didn't say I hate it. It's still good for animated projects but with live action? No thanks. I still respect the old school Harryhausen but it's just a no go for today's standards.

It's alright, I think you're a fascist tape recorder for not liking comic books.

 

[CelticPredator]

There are many others who need CGI to serve their stories.

After seeing the crap that came out this year, I don't know about that.

If GDT had a good way of doing these robots practically, he probably would've. Hell, the man told Pan's Labyrinth without any real CGI characters, aside from the fairies. Like I said, it isn't the CGI's fault, it's the filmmakers reliance on this expensive technology.

Sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it doesn't. RIPD did not need to be 130 million bucks. The Lone Ranger in no rational way needed to cost 220 million bucks. That's insane. And ********. And I bet none of that money went to writing a better story.

Kill CGI for 2 years. That's all i'm saying. Make filmmakers and studio heads focus on the stories. Make every film cost around 50 million bucks. Re-use old sets if they really have too. I don't care. Just stop this nonsense.

 

[CelticPredator]

I didn't say I hate it. It's still good for animated projects but with live action? No thanks. I still respect the old school Harryhausen but it's just a no go for today's standards.

It's alright, I think you're a fascist tape recorder for not liking comic books.

I am not a recorder. I have a *****. Recorders don't have *****es.

You're the devil. And full of lies and stuffing.

 

[Frank]

I am not a recorder. I have a *****. Recorders don't have *****es.

You're the devil. And full of lies and stuffing.

Uh oh! Someone's got a case of Reefer Madness!

 

[CelticPredator]

Are you kidding? Every day is reefer madness here babeh!

 

[GasparZizou]

There are certain type of stories that NEED CGI, specially for most comic book movies and such.

You just conceived my point.

If GDT had a good way of doing these robots practically, he probably would've.

And he didn't, hence; there's no way of making such robots and not looking bad without CGI, period.

"Killing" CGI is not the answer, making people more demanding of storytelling is, but you got people making Grown ups 2 outperform PR....

 

[Frank]

Are you kidding? Every day is reefer madness here babeh!

Turn down the THC levels a notch bro.

 

[CelticPredator]

But in all seriousness....look at some of the films that are getting notice from big name directors. They rarely have good stories...or any story for that matter. Just some neat looking CGI. And that some how makes them able to make a feature length film?

I don't hate the guy, but the director the Evil Dead remake did a neat little short film, but it wasn't anything mind blowing. Cool effects, but that's it. Yet, that landed him a job with Sam Raimi, and he went on to direct Evil Dead. While it was visually good looking, and the guy made great decisions when it came to the use of practical make up effects.....the characters were weak and pretty horrible. The script wasn't bad, but the filmmakers and actors did nothing to make it better.

Or that other guy who made that movie...The Raven? Whatever it was. It was a five minute video of a guy running around a city being chased by CGI. it was filmed with a Red camera as well. Is that what it takes to get into Hollywood now? Expensive camera's and CGI?

On the flip side, look at Neill Blomkamp. Dude tells a story with every short he makes. Every bit of CGI is used in a way that allows this tale to be told. When you see Alive in Joberg, you see a story. It tells you everything you have to know. And you can see why that film was picked for his first feature length movie.

 

[CelticPredator]

There are certain type of stories that NEED CGI, specially for most comic book movies and such.

You just conceived my point.



And he didn't, hence; there's no way of making such robots and not looking bad without CGI, period.

"Killing" CGI is not the answer, making people more demanding of storytelling is, but you got people making Grown ups 2 outperform PR....

My point wasn't that he should've gotten something else, my point is he realized he HAD to use CGI to tell his story. Not because he was lazy.

And The Wolverine didn't need any CGI. You could've made that whole movie for 50 million bucks. Not accounting actor's pay. Especially if you take out that lame Silver Samurai at the end.