| Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:56 Post subject: [R] Speed.Racer.CAM.SUBBED-TBS |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:27 Post subject: |
|
|
these are publicity images right... tell me those arent captures from the film... oh please tell me thats not what the film looks like...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | | these are publicity images right... tell me those arent captures from the film... oh please tell me thats not what the film looks like... |
It's quite obvious they're from the film, i think. Don't tell me you wanted it dark and gory...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:45 Post subject: |
|
|
i dont mind the helmet or the car, those look right...
its the top 3 picks that worry me... god those look horrible... the second one kinda looks alright, but the first one looks like HORRIBLY cheap greenscreen work (not corny/fun like the series looked, but CHEAP and tacky), and the 3rd one just looks like really bad cgi.
i know they were going for an over the top bright style designed to saturate your senses with colour and style, i REALISE that, but the top 3 pics... come on, those just look like they are from a really cheap production with a bad visual effects team, and a talentless director... and i know the wachowashknakskisys can do better than that...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 13:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | i dont mind the helmet or the car, those look right...
its the top 3 picks that worry me... god those look horrible... the second one kinda looks alright, but the first one looks like HORRIBLY cheap greenscreen work (not corny/fun like the series looked, but CHEAP and tacky), and the 3rd one just looks like really bad cgi.
i know they were going for an over the top bright style designed to saturate your senses with colour and style, i REALISE that, but the top 3 pics... come on, those just look like they are from a really cheap production with a bad visual effects team, and a talentless director... and i know the wachowashknakskisys can do better than that... |
The Blue screen pic/scene can easily be fixed by some post-effects and they probably didn't them yet so no need to bash the movie this early.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:17 Post subject: |
|
|
these arent stolen images from a workprint release or anything as far as i can see. i see no reason to believe that how you see them isnt how they'll be in the finished version
seriously, looking at the 1st and the 3rd picture along the top... your seriously telling me those 2 pictures look anything other than cheap and poorly done? that image on the right doesnt look like it needs additional post production work on it, it needs to be completely re-done
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | these arent stolen images from a workprint release or anything as far as i can see. i see no reason to believe that how you see them isnt how they'll be in the finished version
seriously, looking at the 1st and the 3rd picture along the top... your seriously telling me those 2 pictures look anything other than cheap and poorly done? that image on the right doesnt look like it needs additional post production work on it, it needs to be completely re-done |
Wake up, Neo - it's a Wachowski Bros big budget production, not another Uwe flick
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:25 Post subject: |
|
|
go rewatch matrix revolutions, then maybe youd be a bit more understanding... they had ONE huge hit of a movie, followed by one pretty good one, followed by one average one, and you lot seem to think they are masters of film or something... come on!
if all we have to go on so far is those ugly pictures (which... well... really thats all we DO have to go on) and given their film track record of great, good, average, how can you realistically defend them and this movie, and think that what im saying is wrong?
and big budget doesnt mean much... its how you use it... i dont know how big the revolutions budget was, but that film had some shockingly bad visuals and action sequences.
dont get me wrong, id love to see them pull off a non stop action packed film full of loads of great visuals and sequences... but judging by what ive seen from them so far, and those pics you posted, my hopes are not very high at all, thats all im saying.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:31 Post subject: |
|
|
*sigh*
We're not talking about W as directors. Hit or no hit - it doesn't matter. Fact is three times they took big money from producers and delivered state of the art CGI and FX.
And THAT makes me feel 200% sure, this will be more than polished when it hits the screens.
P.S. Big budget DOES mean shit. The movie can be crap, but the wrapping and packaging (i.e. the visual side) will be perfect.
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Vodka-Redbull wrote: | *sigh*
We're not talking about W as directors. Hit or no hit - it doesn't matter. Fact is three times they took big money from producers and delivered state of the art CGI and FX.
And THAT makes me feel 200% sure, this will be more than polished when it hits the screens.
P.S. Big budget DOES mean shit. The movie can be crap, but the wrapping and packaging (i.e. the visual side) will be perfect. |
i only pointed out the directors because theyve shown themselves to be 'ok' filmmakers, not great ones.
i also pointed out that a budget is only as good and as useful as the director(s) behind the project, and in this case, thats not good.
you say they delivered state of the art cgi and fx... did we watch different movies? revolutions had some SERIOUSLY ugly cgi work... so did many parts in reloaded... i know time constraints obviously played a part, but that final smith battle was so visually disguisting, it felt like it was from a different film or something.
im not convinced that the wachowskis have an eye for visuals or the talent to use them in their films well... they cant ride that 'bullet time thing' for the rest of their lives you know... thats the ONE good visual theyve managed to bring to film, and as i said, the entire first filml was a great production through and through... but apart from the zion battle sequence, the rest of the films had some pretty average cgi and composition.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 14:53 Post subject: |
|
|
That's one point of view, thank you ))
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 15:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I know about the guy. Yes the film is different. But it's GOOD. Not great, but good. And I enjoyed it MUCH more than some patriotic crap like Die Hard 4.0.
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 15:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I can understand that, but this is an adaption what could have been a daring experiment of gritty darkness and superb storyline went down the drain and became an excuse to make a typical action movie. Its just so wrong, why bother buying a license if you solely want to tear it apart. Why not just make a sequel to "War" or "Transporter" instead?
I guess IO Interactive is to blame here and Eidos for that matter... All about the money.
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 6th Dec 2007 15:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mutantius wrote: | I can understand that, but this is an adaption what could have been a daring experiment of gritty darkness and superb storyline went down the drain and became an excuse to make a typical action movie. Its just so wrong, why bother buying a license if you solely want to tear it apart. Why not just make a sequel to "War" or "Transporter" instead?
I guess IO Interactive is to blame here and Eidos for that matter... All about the money. |
It's bsiness and big money. You don't cast unknown actors to please geeks and wankers. The gaming crowd probably accounted for only 10 if not 5% of the total viewers and THOSE other 95% want to see a familiar name and face on the movie poster, not some Patrick Stewart lookalike. So Olyphant was probably the only one both rather known AND affordable for the budget.
As to IO and Eidos - I think it's better to have at least something of a movie than nothing at all. If you're in business then you're in business. Otherwise buy an HD cam and make some independent crap with your friends.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007 08:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Updated with TRAILER. And I like it. Kinda Burton meets... Besson's 5th Element maybe ))
And chiv, those shots you were whining about just had layers superimposed as it can be seen from the trailer. It was ovious from the very beginning.
And please just please don't you all start yapping about GFX realism - it's a stylistic solution not poor detail. It has to be that way to keep the original cartoonish feeling.
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007 08:26 Post subject: |
|
|
ok i understand fanboy'ism enough when i see it... holy shit where did you see me saying that i expected or wanted graphical realism? stop making up shit i never said, i specifically pointed out i understood it was going for a unique style, so stop making crap up
i also pointed out, that my opinions were based specifically on the images and wachowlakaeyasksys trackrecord... if it looks pretty in the trailer, then great, but i made iti (atleast i thought) painfully clear that those images were ugly, and the wachowalkyskys last 2 films werent so visually great.
but its nice to see atleast your imagination is better than the wachowaiysksys. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007 08:30 Post subject: |
|
|
lol, dude. i wrote "don't you all start yapping about GFX realism". i'm glad you consider yourself the 'all' here. the realism part wasn't about you.
i'm not a fanboy, i HATE matrix, I love WB only for V4V but i don't like when something starts being bashed just like that.
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007 13:42 Post subject: |
|
|
wow didn't knew they are making a movie , guess they picked the "Speed Racer" version not the "Speed Racer X" Aka "Speed Racer Y2k"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007 15:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| Vodka-Redbull wrote: | | Mutantius wrote: | I can understand that, but this is an adaption what could have been a daring experiment of gritty darkness and superb storyline went down the drain and became an excuse to make a typical action movie. Its just so wrong, why bother buying a license if you solely want to tear it apart. Why not just make a sequel to "War" or "Transporter" instead?
I guess IO Interactive is to blame here and Eidos for that matter... All about the money. |
It's bsiness and big money. You don't cast unknown actors to please geeks and wankers. The gaming crowd probably accounted for only 10 if not 5% of the total viewers and THOSE other 95% want to see a familiar name and face on the movie poster, not some Patrick Stewart lookalike. So Olyphant was probably the only one both rather known AND affordable for the budget.
As to IO and Eidos - I think it's better to have at least something of a movie than nothing at all. If you're in business then you're in business. Otherwise buy an HD cam and make some independent crap with your friends. |
But why spend so much money on a game license in the first place? If its to tease the last 10 percent who actually know the game and its premise? In my world film should be viewed as Art aswell as Video Games... But I suppose the majority want brainless action flick (dont get me wrong I love a brainless action film) but does 90 percent of the films needs to be dumbed down like Hitman was?
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007 15:48 Post subject: |
|
|
i think the dumbing down of games-to-movie conversions is because the producers think that their target audience isnt the gamers, but those people that are even too damn lazy to play those and just want to watch the movie 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
I never said it will 'rock'. It still is a good movie even if it ain't no Hitman the gamers wanted (thank god!).
