The BFG - No, Not the Doom Gun

Marter

Elite Member
Legacy
Oct 27, 2009
14,276
15
43
The BFG - No, Not the Doom Gun

Steven Spielberg adapting a Roald Dahl book should be a home run. The BFG isn't even a bunt single.

Read Full Article
 

thewatergamer

New member
Aug 4, 2012
647
0
0
Feh, thats a shame, I was expecting alot more from a Steven Spielberg movie...Oh well, another skip I guess
 

chocolate pickles

New member
Apr 14, 2011
432
0
0
The reason BFG didn't stand up for himself was because he was the smallest of the Giants (as you yourself point out) - if he tried, he'd be beaten badly. Not sure why you tried to take a jab at that aspect of the story.
 
Feb 28, 2008
689
0
0
I was turned off by this film as soon as I saw their interpretation of the bad giants ... In the animated film the giants are genuinely quite frightening, especially for a child audience, which is as it should; the new giants on the other hand, just large people ...

The Fleshlumpeater from the 1989 film, by comparison:

 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Nooooooo! I really wanted this to be good. I loved the book. ;__;
I loved the animated movie, but this seems to be a disappointment judging by critics. I might still see it, I'll just keep my expectations at the 'Ghostbuster Reboot' level. Right next to the trash.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
Eh more Anti CGI Snobbery :p

I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.

The mere showcase that I see something that does not exist means by its very nature is fake. Whether they used CGI or a Robot.

But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.

I mean people loves to point the Dinosaur robot in Jurassic Park but they were just standing there, just standing. And after watching the behind the scenes and the fact that they are robots now that magic is gone :p
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,415
1,033
118
Country
United Kingdom
Samtemdo8 said:
But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.
True, but what makes practical effects the better alternative is that the animated creatures actually look like they're there in the same scene as the actors, because they are.

CGI and practical effects both have advantages. Jurassic Park used both, and did so really really well which is why it totally holds up better than a whole lot of modern, crappy, floaty CGI work which looks like it's just been transplanted from a video game.

Additionally, the modern film industry often seems to still work on the assumption that if you just stick lots of impressive rendering on screen people are going to be blown away, when actually modern audiences are incredibly desensitized to CGI. We don't find it amazing or wonderful just because it exists any more, in fact we are extremely finely tuned to noticing when something about it is off.

Actually, a lot of the best CGI work produced in the past few years are things people assumed were practical or often never even registered at all. The problem is not that CGI is bad, it's that CGI only becomes worth mentioning when it's bad. When it's good, it just becomes part of the illusion of the film.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Well, that is a shame to hear. It's really depressing to watch one of the best directors in the world piss away his talent like this.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.
Live actors in impressive make-up using camera tricks would work just as well as CGI for the giants. And well designed sets can create the world. It's not like anything that doesn't exist in the real world has to be done through CG. The most impressive visual effects in movie history have always been practical effects, occasionally with CGI touch-ups.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
evilthecat said:
Samtemdo8 said:
But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.
True, but what makes practical effects the better alternative is that the animated creatures actually look like they're there in the same scene as the actors, because they are.

CGI and practical effects both have advantages. Jurassic Park used both, and did so really really well which is why it totally holds up better than a whole lot of modern, crappy, floaty CGI work which looks like it's just been transplanted from a video game.

Additionally, the modern film industry often seems to still work on the assumption that if you just stick lots of impressive rendering on screen people are going to be blown away, when actually modern audiences are incredibly desensitized to CGI. We don't find it amazing or wonderful just because it exists any more, in fact we are extremely finely tuned to noticing when something about it is off.

Actually, a lot of the best CGI work produced in the past few years are things people assumed were practical or often never even registered at all. The problem is not that CGI is bad, it's that CGI only becomes worth mentioning when it's bad. When it's good, it just becomes part of the illusion of the film.
I MY case I really don't care if its "There" or not. And full CGI movies like King Kong and Pirates 2 and 3 convinced me that we don't need Robots and Make Up anymore.

I mean scenes like this blew me away:



And you something is wrong when Godzilla 2014 does not even have epic Monster Fight scenes as badass as King Kong 2006.


And that was half way through the movie, this is what Godizlla gave us:

 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
RJ Dalton said:
Samtemdo8 said:
I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.
Live actors in impressive make-up using camera tricks would work just as well as CGI for the giants. And well designed sets can create the world. It's not like anything that doesn't exist in the real world has to be done through CG. The most impressive visual effects in movie history have always been practical effects, occasionally with CGI touch-ups.
Mabye its a generational thing because I did not grew up watching movies like Alien and Robocop and Temple of Doom and The Thing and others in the theaters I mean I grew up in the era of early CG movies like Godzilla 1998 and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (They used many CG effects) and I did not mind their CGI effects (I liked the Troll scene in Harry Potter one)

And as a gamer I have been exposed to things like this:




So really I am not bothered by CGI and heck even see its superior qualities at times (because now the directors are unrestricted in how they portray something) and its the reason why I call out criticism of it as plain old snobbery.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,021
2,419
118
MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:
I was turned off by this film as soon as I saw their interpretation of the bad giants ... In the animated film the giants are genuinely quite frightening, especially for a child audience, which is as it should; the new giants on the other hand, just large people ...

The Fleshlumpeater from the 1989 film, by comparison:

Ditto.

I was looking forward to this movie until I saw that the bad giants were just big, hairy oafs.

Not that the '89 animated movie was terrific, but it had a good eerie atmosphere, and knew how to make the evil giants genuinely terrifying. It also featured the scene where the BFG and Sophie give a boy a pleasant dream, only to helplessly look on as Fleshlumpeater devours him minutes later. Which I presume the Disney movie will opt out of showing. The fact that is was Disney should've probably already set off a warning signal.
Samtemdo8 said:
Eh more Anti CGI Snobbery :p

I know its CG, because Giants don't exist. And the fairy tale world they showcase does not exist.

The mere showcase that I see something that does not exist means by its very nature is fake. Whether they used CGI or a Robot.

But what makes CGI the better alternative is better animated creatures and they can keep up with the actors better than any robot could.

I mean people loves to point the Dinosaur robot in Jurassic Park but they were just standing there, just standing. And after watching the behind the scenes and the fact that they are robots now that magic is gone :p
Yes, except CGI has a double layer of fakeness, since not only is it displaying something that doesn't exist, it isn't even physically in the scene. This is why having a mixture of special effects is generally the right way to go, so that your eye doesn't get too use to just one kind of illusion.

Current CGI especially has this fuzzy, gooeyness to it, that when you comprise 90% of your movie of it it looks incredibly digital and fake.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
Maybe its a generational thing because I did not grew up watching movies like Alien and Robocop and Temple of Doom and The Thing and others in the theaters I mean I grew up in the era of early CG movies like Godzilla 1998 and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (They used many CG effects) and I did not mind their CGI effects (I liked the Troll scene in Harry Potter one)
Go back and watch Lord of the Rings again. You'll actually notice something interesting: most of the shots are practical effects. And the ones that are all CGI are usually the least convincing effects. And none of the shots that made the hobbits and dwarves look shorter than other people are CGI. They're all done with camera tricks and doubles shot. Size is the easiest thing to fake as a practical effect.

In games, it's a different thing altogether, because the entire thing is CGI. In a live-action film, the CGI clashes with the real stuff and looks odd. The human brain is really good at picking up inconsistencies, such as the lighting being off, textures being wrong, subtle effects of distance (blurring and scale) because being able to recognize these things is a survival trait. That makes it really hard to integrate CGI effects into live action convincingly. Your brain can usually recognize it's not actually there, so it doesn't sit well with you, even if you don't consciously realize what's wrong about it. That's why practical effects work so much better. Sure, you usually know it's not real - especially if the practical effect is like a puppet - but because something is actually there, it doesn't trigger that part of your brain that's looking for something wrong.

Films like Cameron's Titanic, for example. Almost all of that film's effects are practical. Miniatures mostly, occasional camera tricks. The only CGI in the film is used to enhance a few of the shots using miniatures. The original Jurassic Park has a grand total of 25 seconds of CGI in it and all the rest of it is practical effects. Both of those films still look really good today, but most of the films made with CGI today will look bad in a few years, because CGI effects age poorly and they age quickly.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
RJ Dalton said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Maybe its a generational thing because I did not grew up watching movies like Alien and Robocop and Temple of Doom and The Thing and others in the theaters I mean I grew up in the era of early CG movies like Godzilla 1998 and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (They used many CG effects) and I did not mind their CGI effects (I liked the Troll scene in Harry Potter one)
Go back and watch Lord of the Rings again. You'll actually notice something interesting: most of the shots are practical effects. And the ones that are all CGI are usually the least convincing effects. And none of the shots that made the hobbits and dwarves look shorter than other people are CGI. They're all done with camera tricks and doubles shot. Size is the easiest thing to fake as a practical effect.

In games, it's a different thing altogether, because the entire thing is CGI. In a live-action film, the CGI clashes with the real stuff and looks odd. The human brain is really good at picking up inconsistencies, such as the lighting being off, textures being wrong, subtle effects of distance (blurring and scale) because being able to recognize these things is a survival trait. That makes it really hard to integrate CGI effects into live action convincingly. Your brain can usually recognize it's not actually there, so it doesn't sit well with you, even if you don't consciously realize what's wrong about it. That's why practical effects work so much better. Sure, you usually know it's not real - especially if the practical effect is like a puppet - but because something is actually there, it doesn't trigger that part of your brain that's looking for something wrong.

Films like Cameron's Titanic, for example. Almost all of that film's effects are practical. Miniatures mostly, occasional camera tricks. The only CGI in the film is used to enhance a few of the shots using miniatures. The original Jurassic Park has a grand total of 25 seconds of CGI in it and all the rest of it is practical effects. Both of those films still look really good today, but most of the films made with CGI today will look bad in a few years, because CGI effects age poorly and they age quickly.
King Kong 2006 still looks good to me.

Pirates trilogy still looks good to me.

Hobbit still looks good to me.

Alot of movies with good CGI still looks decent to me.

And Practical effects has its flaws to because of how STATIC they look.

I mean use Ninja Turtles 1990s for example and they look awful today.

Goro in the mortal kombat movie looks so robotic and the fight with him was mostly lame because it was not choreographed as the fight with the Ninjas.

Besides the best live action movies are movies with no BIG Special Effects at all. CG or Pratcial, where the movie is all pure acting like say movies of the Crime Genre.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,415
1,033
118
Country
United Kingdom
Samtemdo8 said:
King Kong 2006 still looks good to me.

Pirates trilogy still looks good to me.

Hobbit still looks good to me.

Alot of movies with good CGI still looks decent to me.
2001: A space odyssey still looks good to me.

The Thing still looks good to me.

Heck, King Kong 1933 still looks good to me.

A lot of movies which predate CGI, or even which predate computers, hold up today. True, they hold up for a totally different reason that a lot of photorealistic modern CGI effects, but what audiences relate to in both cases is the same. It's the artistry behind the effect.

If anything sounds like snobbery to me, it's your claim that the "best" movies don't have special effects at all. It implies that the only talent or artistry which goes into a movie is acting, like somehow we shouldn't care about the quality of anything else. True, watching a great actor giving a great performance is always a pleasure, but many people's energy and artistry goes into creating what you ultimately see on the screen. A great set designer, a great composer, everyone even down to lighting and rigging technicians, all can help to create the positive experience you feel when you watch a film, and visual effects artists (CG and practical) are both part of that. To excuse effects which didn't work or which proved negative or distracting on the grounds that special effects aren't important is, I feel, missing the point of cinema as a whole.

The reason people hate on CGI is not because CG is bad, but because CG is routinely badly used in a way practical effects no longer are. People aren't hating on Gravity or even the Avengers, they're hating on movies which use CG badly or in distracting ways. The flipside of appreciating good art is being critical of bad, lazy or annoying art, and CG currently just happens to be the bad artists' tool of choice.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
4,367
1,114
118
Country
Philippines
This book scared the shit out of me as a child.

Anyway, I have a feeling this is going to be a divisive one. Another review I read (watched, actually) said the exact opposite.