Re: What was the last movie you watched?
The Land Unknown. It was somewhat a B movie
Note: These days, community activity has largely moved to the BiM Discord. Join us!
Bricks in Motion
Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
The Land Unknown. It was somewhat a B movie
La La Land
Unusually for me, I actually had good expectations going in to this movie. I've always loved the classic musicals of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers and to see such a film as La La Land hit theatres in this day and age felt like some sort of revival of the long dead musical genre. But the big question is, is there anything under the surface? Is it just a fun musical with great songs, or is there more than just that?
Well, it's with deep pleasure that I can in fact say it isn't just a musical - if anything, it's a good story first, a great musical second.
Yes, I went in expecting a good musical, and to be honest, if all it was was that, I would have no complaints. But this movie took it another level. It had an extra layor that I wasn't expecting.
I enjoyed 2017's Beauty and the Beast remake a lot. It delivered, with great songs, and brilliant dance choreography, but let's be honest - if you take all that away, what would you have? It wouldn't be half the movie it was without the musical side of things.
Take La La Land, and you have a movie that would work fine even if you took the musical side of things away. The songs only make it even greater than it would have already have been.
The chemistry between the two leads feels genuine and believable. They don't feel like fictional characters. Instead, they feel like real human beings, with real aspirations and real dreams, hoping to prove their worth. As someone with big dreams of hitting it big, this undoubtedly hit to heart with me.
I've heard some backlash from some, people who want to get over critical due to the movie's massive success. Some say it's nothing but an excuse for Hollywood to glorify themselves with much narcissism. Those people completely misunderstood the whole point of this movie. This is a raw portrayal of Hollywood, and the challenge one has to achieve success.
The ending - I dare not spoil it! It is the very cherry on top of a delicious cake.
I tell you, if you have not watched La La Land, believe the hype! It's as good as they say it is! 10/10!
Usually, when the adjective boring is used to describe a film, slow pacing, lack of direction, and/or too long of a running time come to mind. And, while Rogue One has none of these faults, it still felt very lackluster to me.
Rogue One
Ask me a year ago, and I would have said that my peak interest in Star Wars ended around age 14. However, since new years, I've rekindled my love of Star Wars - in no small part due to watching Harmy's Despecialized edition of the original 1977 film. (As the years go by, I start to appreciate pre 1980 films more and more... Perhaps their lack of CGI, presence of film grain, and lack of overdone color correction entice me more than the efforts of Hollywood 2017) And, while I still enjoy the prequels, which definitely overuse CGI, Rogue One misuses it to no end.
One of my favorite aspects of the films I grew up with (Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, and yes, Star Wars) is how obvious sets vs locations were. Whenever filming on a sound stage, the crew has to really struggle to trick the viewer into thinking the spaces are larger than they really are - often failing. However, I love the look of these small sets, pretending to be more oversized than they really are (Think of the T-Rex escape from the original Jurassic Park, for an example). And, while I hate CGI about as much as the next film critic - I've only now come to realize that filmmakers now are starting to be hindered by their lack of limitations. With CG, anything can now be done - and on any scale imaginable - whereas in 1977, you could only do what the budget allowed - and sometimes a bit less.
Rogue One's fault isn't solely in its budget though (although, the wear-and-tear applied to the costumes and sets remind me more of AI: Artificial Intelligence than Star Wars). What its main problem is that Star Wars films are now going to become professional wrestling, or reminiscent of going to a comic convention for the 3rd time…
Sure, you'll be on the edge of your seat every allotted 15 minutes, and, overall, there are enough cool moments to remain memorable, but, there's nothing holding it together in between. IMO, Rogue One is about 15 minutes of a good movie... actually, the best movie I’ve ever seen. But, that's it. The rest is just filler. Not as bad as filler as Disney usually cranks out as with their Marvel films, but, still, filler none the less.
I won't be watching any more Star Wars spin-offs, and I probably won't care to watch the new main-series films after episode 8 either...
I could never understand those so called "Star Wars" fans who rejected the prequels, but now I see their point. I'll stick to watching the original trilogy, the prequels, the pre-Disney video games, and making my own fanfilms. I never wanted it to come to that point, but, my hand's been forced in the matter (pun intended).
I'd beg to differ. Whilst CGI is used a lot in Rogue One, it's used much more effectively than in the prequels. The prequels were at the very low point of CGI history. That infamous time from the late 90s to early 2000s, where CGI would be used for everything in movies, but wasn't polished enough to hold up today. Just look at the battle of Naboo in the Phantom Menace, or the clone army in Attack of The Clones - The Clone wars and Rebels animated series have managed to generate CGI in ways that make them on par with those CGI effects in a live action movie.
In the past 10 years, Hollywood have got the hint that people don't want CGI everywhere, and we have since had a revival of practical effects. Just take a look at The Force Awakens and Mad Max: Fury Road. I think you'll be surprised how much is done without the aid of computers.
A good way of comparing the prequels to Rogue One is looking at the behind the scenes. The behind the scenes of the prequels was done almost entirely by green screen. In Rogue One, most of the sets you see were really there, and the behind the scenes set look considerably impressive.
And yes, CGI was used a lot in the film, but mostly to good effect. Aside from the creepy Tarkin and Leia, it's not always easy to tell what's real and what's not, and that's the sign of CGI being used to good effect!
Aside from the creepy Tarkin and Leia
To be fair, while most people will easily be able to tell that they are CGI, what they managed to accomplish was pretty impressive. I don't think back when CGI was first being used that anyone could have imagined how much it would have been able to progress by now. Besides, Tarkin was actually done very well, and it just goes to show how close we are to being able to make CGI people so well (although Leia wasn't great - maybe that's why they are not using a CGI version for episode 9 and instead are just changing the script).
Also, on the topic of Rogue One, I know Dyland that you have mentioned before how one thing it lacks is the presence of the Skywalkers (although Vader is in Rogue One 
) but I think that that also has a positive effect on the movie for people who have never seen Star Wars, as rather than having to watch at least the whole original trilogy to learn about the Skywalker family tree, this movie is able to stand out as a stand-alone movie, which anyone can watch regardless of their Star Wars nerd-factor 
Last edited by Dragon Brick Studios (May 7, 2017 (08:25am))
Also, on the topic of Rogue One, I know Dyland that you have mentioned before how one thing it lacks is the presence of the Skywalkers (although Vader is in Rogue One
That kinda touches on another reason I didn't enjoy the film - I didn't think it would appeal to ANY non-Star Wars fans. I know that many hate the prequels, but ask any kid who's just seen all the films, and they'll probably list one of the prequels as their favorite films (or mention all of the action scenes from said films over the original trilogy). That definitely doesn't mean that the prequels are better, but, I think they (along with the original trilogy) tap into that fantastical interpretation of space that can appeal to people of all ages. Rogue One, on the other hand, is only really worth it for the "pops" of joy a long-time Star Wars fan would understand. For everyone else, they'd just get a rather bland film that's completely undone in the ending scenes.
The only reason I'd say that I don't regret watching Rogue One is for that Darth Vader scene... you know the one.
Otherwise, I'd rather watch Star Wars brickfilms online...
I'd beg to differ. Whilst CGI is used a lot in Rogue One, it's used much more effectively than in the prequels. The prequels were at the very low point of CGI history. That infamous time from the late 90s to early 2000s, where CGI would be used for everything in movies, but wasn't polished enough to hold up today. Just look at the battle of Naboo in the Phantom Menace, or the clone army in Attack of The Clones - The Clone wars and Rebels animated series have managed to generate CGI in ways that make them on par with those CGI effects in a live action movie.
To each their own. Personally, though, I have a feeling that the effects of the prequels will hold up better than in Rogue One. The Star Wars special editions certainly look bad with their mix of CG, practical, and live action elements all thrown together at once. The Prequels mostly keep the CGI and live action separated, or it's mostly CG, which is very impressive. In II, when Anakin and Padme are trapped in the droid factory, just about 90% of what's onscreen is CG. But, it dousn't really stand out as such since SO much is CG.
No one mentions how bad a character model or prop is in a video game. Why? Video Games haven't surpassed the rendering quality that's available with pre-rendered video that Hollywood uses. However, Video Games (either through using one consistent exaggerated art style as in TF2, or through one consistent art style trying for realism without dipping into the uncanny valley as in Uncharted) have one solid look. When throwing CG and live action together, the CG will always betray itself.
This is As a stop-motion animator myself, I just prefer the look of "real" objects. CGI ALWAYS comes off as fake to me - mostly because it only takes one or two very minor imperfections to spoil the whole thing. Whether it be mis-shaded lighting, slightly wrong perspective, different depth of field, or any other myriad of problems... With video games, it's forgivable since all you've got to look as was artificially generated. When a mix of systems are used over and over, especially to an unrealistic and unachievable extreme (even for models and a billion dollar budget), my suspension of disbelief is thrown out the window.
That happened a lot in Rogue One.
No one mentions how bad a character model or prop is in a video game.
True, but ALL the characters in that game look consistently bad. So, you can kind of get used to the uncanny valley there. Unless you watch Rogue One 150,000 times, you'll never really adjust to the CG used against live action footage.
CGI ALWAYS comes off as fake to me - mostly because it only takes one or two very minor imperfections to spoil the whole thing. Whether it be mis-shaded lighting, slightly wrong perspective, different depth of field, or any other myriad of problems.
I would bet it's more a case of it coming off as fake to you when, on occasion, it comes off as fake to you -- there is so much subtle use of CG in modern filmmaking these days, and most of it is pretty invisible.
Regardless, I do think the "CG looks fake, practical effects look real" argument is a little misguided considering how fake-looking the visuals in the original Star Wars trilogy are at times. The cantina is full of characters wearing what are obviously cheap rubber masks. The Star Destroyers are noticeably plastic models in closeups with shallow depth of field and noticeable lack of detail, molding artifacts, etc. throughout all three films.
And none of that really bothers me, as it is after all about telling a story and creating evocative, striking visuals. Not fooling me into mistaking Star Wars for a documentary.
Lucas said "a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." My gripe with episode I
And for those keeping track, in my opinion the CGI in Rogue One is better and less distracting than that in the prequels.
In II, when Anakin and Padme are trapped in the droid factory, just about 90% of what's onscreen is CG. But, it dousn't really stand out as such since SO much is CG.
CGI ALWAYS comes off as fake to me - mostly because it only takes one or two very minor imperfections to spoil the whole thing. Whether it be mis-shaded lighting, slightly wrong perspective, different depth of field, or any other myriad of problems...
1. The droid factory scene is probably my least (if not one of my least) favourite scenes from all of Star Wars, because the acting was pretty poor in my opinion, which I think is largely due to the abundance of CGI.
2. When it comes to CGI in brickfilms, I have to agree completely. Unless you can do green screen on the level of people like Brotherhood Workshop, people (or at least fellow brickfilmers) are almost always going to be able to tell it's not really there. However, I would recommend taking a look at this Dyland, I think you would be surprised for some of them as to which ones are fake and which ones are not - I only got the first one right! (although be aware that the third one they give the wrong answer, they correct themselves at the end of the video).
The cantina is full of characters wearing what are obviously cheap rubber masks. The Star Destroyers are noticeably plastic models in closeups with shallow depth of field
That is one problem that has remained with me since I first watched the prequels, however I don't mention it too often as in a way I kind of forgive them especially in episode 4 due to what was available back then and the relatively low budget constraints. In fact, it does almost give a sense of a different kind of realism to it, as it just reminds you that it is just actors underneath those ewok costumes . One problem I had with Rogue One at the start of it (yes Dyland, I also didn't like certain aspects of it either 
) was that Krennic's shuttle landing was obviously a model, and it just robbed the whole thing of its epicness (thankfully they didn't do a prequel and do as much of a mistake like this halfway through the movie)
And for those keeping track, in my opinion the CGI in Rogue One is better and less distracting than that in the prequels.
Ditto.
Again, I think it's just a fundamental difference of opinion in how films should be made. I prefer cheap looking rubber masks because 1. it takes more effort to make them look good (or at the very least, not look like crap), 2. the plastic models can be put in a museum and held, 3. stop-motion has a certain charm to it that almost always gets me into the story more.
I don't know what it is, but when I see things animated unrealistically (spaceships battling just above the crust of a planet, CGI faces, etc.) It immediately breaks my immersion into the world.
Besides, in that video Smeagol linked to, I'd argue that how CG is being used in those examples is more akin to matte paintings (even slightly 3-dimensional matte paintings) rather than CGI models. And, matte paintings always look fake to me; However, again, they have a certain look to them that I've learned to love after being forced to cling to real objects after Hollywood's been doing nothing but cram CG (both good and bad) down our throats since before I was born...
I'll never watch Rogue One again (or any other spin-off film of Star Wars made by Disney, for that matter) yet, I'll keep watching the prequels. Since most sets were almost completely green screened, their environments are practically all digital matte paintings, and the "overuse" of CG in those films at least has a consistent look. I say, even if the effects look "worse" per se, the effects of the prequels will hold up better years from now over Rogue One if for no other reason: the prequels tried hard, pushing the boundaries of CG, Rogue One just went with the technology of the time, not trying to really push the boundaries in any way.
Sure, more time and effort may have went into the Tarkin and Leia models than any other human model before, but, I've seen videogame E3 reveals that have better looking models than in Rogue One...
Again, I see that I am not only in the minority here but, probably one of the only movie-goers who thinks this. However, I'd take A Trip to the Moon over Star Trek (2009). I don't care if the effects look bad, rarely (outside of robotics and some few toy mishaps) do real objects enter the uncanny valley as much as anything generated in the computer.
Besides, computer effects put stop-motion animators out of business generally.
I'll never watch any other spin-off film of Star Wars made by Disney.
Besides, computer effects put stop-motion animators out of business generally.
1. I'm feeling a bit reluctant to watch any of the others too, and I am not really looking forward to most of them, especially the Han Solo movie. I would much rather see an Obi-Wan/Yoda movie of the sort (although there have been rumours of an Obi-Wan film)
2. I can't really argue with that statement
the prequels tried hard, pushing the boundaries of CG, Rogue One just went with the technology of the time, not trying to really push the boundaries in any way.
But that's demonstrably false; Rogue One is one of the more technically innovative blockbusters of the last decade, from recreating multiple actors as fully CG characters, to being the first film ever shot in digital anamorphic medium format, and being lit almost entirely with new responsive LED lighting technology that was prototyped for the film.
You're right, I shouldn't have worded it "Rogue One just went with the technology of the time, not trying to really push the boundaries in any way." and instead should have specified that it didn't achieve any advancements in CG technology...
I mean, they've been recreating actors in full CG since the late 90's for videogames. And what about Superman Returns in 2006, over 10 years ago? Marlon Brando had passed away before the film came out, but "appeared" in that film just as he did in the Christopher Reeve superman films of decades past.
For starters, they used archival footage from deleted scenes for Superman Returns with a bit of cg around the lips to replace some lines. Then hid it behind a bunch of fog and crystals and showed it for a few seconds. It wasn't a CG character.
But Tarkin was a really extensive thing, playing off of other characters for several lengthy scenes, and done pretty well IMO. It's a perfect example of pushing the boundaries even when it's so unprecedentedly ambitious that the results are bound to be a little short of perfect.
There's an interesting interview with Gareth Edwards, though, where he recounts a meeting he had with Kathleen Kennedy and her new assistant. After watching Edwards and Kennedy pick apart a Tarkin scene for 90 or so minutes, the assistant (who was unaware the scene had VFX work in it) turned to one of the other people in the meeting and asked, "why are they being so hard on that actor?"
i wish they would have used a rubber tarkin mask for a real human to wear
I mean, I'd take that (even with just a tad of CG touch-ups) over a full CGI model...
Again, it's a matter of tastes which we fundamentally disagree on. There's no head-room here. I prefer practical effects, and it'll most likely be another 30 years or so before CGI can completely convince me... As for now, I'll stay away from movies with CG.
I don't want to outright reject all that modern cinema has to offer, but, nothing's drawing me in to it... And that's part of the motivation that makes me want to become a filmmaker; someone's gotta fix things up.
Let me chime in here. Maybe I'm gullible. But I didn' read any Rogue One hype. I watched Tarkin in Rogue One in the movie theater and thought it was a real actor whose face was image mapped with a Peter Cushing "skin" overlay.
Posts [ 8,761 to 8,780 of 8,881 ]
