I won’t be upset, I’ll just think you are bonkers.
4 Likes
if “zoom and boom” movies are what youre into, im sure its incredible
i’ll also add here (not directed towards you @Habit_Reform) , if youre into CGI in movies and think its getting better and better and you love it, you shouldn’t be bitching about generated/AI/fake music.
but perhaps this is a convo for the miserable git thread…
Much of what was “real” in Fury Road already looked like CG. (It was literally derived from an episode of the 90s CG Saturday morning cartoon, Reboot, whose writer was hired by Miller to co-write/conceive the film.) Compare to any prior Mad Max movie—it is a totally different visual language. Mannered, cartoonish, hyper-stylized, digitally color-graded, artificial. These are not slurs. But Furiosa took every acid-tripped thing that made FR unique and doubled the dose. The most interesting image in FR is the flamethrower guitar tableau. It’s stunning. But in hindsight (and rewatch), nothing else in the movie is as daring, as strange, as indelible. Furiosa is like one flamethrower guitar moment after another. It is exactly the same visual language as FR but everything is more—more bizarre character design, more surreal landscape, more bonkers visual flourishes, way more interesting eccentric dialogue. Lots of ppl saw the trailers for the movie and read press that it used more CG and simply turned their brains off. I hate Hollywood-cinema CG—I’m not even nuanced about it. But I think people would be surprised to find out what was “real” and what wasn’t from both films. But even granting for arguments sake (only) that the visual style of Furiosa is inferior to FR, you completely ignore all the ways (some mentioned above) in which it is a far stronger, stranger, more interesting movie.
That said, this praise is obviously relative to the period of cinema in which these movies are situated. Comparing it to the 60s or 70s is a different discussion. It is among the best big-spectacle movies of its era—an utterly barren period for anglophone cinema dominated by cynical investment-vehicle superhero junk and horror. FR and Furiosa are comic-book movies done well, in an utterly depressing period in which only comic-book franchise movies are allowed to be made. If only we didn’t have to suffer through all the others.
4 Likes
Good CGI requires talented VFX artists to create and animate objects and effects frame by frame, like an animator. It is literally nothing like AI besides computers being involved in both. I don’t know why you would compare the two.
3 Likes
completely AI
To say someone uses a video plugin to make fake explosions and manually curates it to be acceptable, and the same curation is not required for AI is a bit short sighted imho.
Fake explosion guy doesn’t take the 1st yielded result, using AI is no different.
I remember watching at cinema and seeing some of the vfx seemed to be at a different frame rate to the main footage , some was sped up / slower …
Plus the very bad beards.
However it looks good compared to borderlands which also had a chariot style vehicle section in a desert.
That was very bad.
Off topic - sorry.
Cgi isn’t done frame by frame like animation … there’s a lot of interpolation ( unless they’re using flip books ) it’ll be using key frames but not every frame. I’ve not seen any obvious ai in a movie yet , just a lot of terrible stuff on Twitter . I’m sure it’ll be used soon , I think currently it’s helping speed up concept art / pre-vis .
There’s a lot of unreal based virtual backdrops but that artwork is typically hand made .
1 Like
The apprentice
It’s generally an origin story of how trump became an even worse human being. How he started out of his depth and was mentored by another unprincipled businessman in to a bigger fraudster and confidence trickster. Mostly set in late 80’s , it doesn’t go as recent as the apprentice tv show .
It won’t change anyone’s opinion of him but it was an interesting watch.
Smile 2
More of the same , derivative pop music … if you liked the original you’ll probably like it but it obviously lacks the ‘new’ of the first movie.
A vfx artist using physics or particle simulations is not anything like AI. That’s one piece of a multistep process to properly composite a digital asset into an image. AI is just using other people’s art without their permission so that someone can write directions for a computer to do all of the work. AI art is less than worthless, it is actively stealing other people’s work without any of the talent and time to hone a skill.
1 Like
I don’t want to be the forum police but there’s an ai art thread that seems suitable for this sort of discussion.
Well, I think it is … I’ve muted it 
1 Like
This isn’t anything new, This has been going on for centuries.
I m looking for it, but I cant find it. I’d love to invite @Imposter to debate this further in that thread
1 Like
It’s spooky season - watched The Beyond from 1981 last night. What a ridiculously and fantastically bad movie. It was my first ‘gore’ film I’ve seen and it had me cracking up. Would recommend to anyone into good-bad media.
I just saw Moonstruck is playing on Pluto TV. I guess I will watch it again. Highly recommended! There is no bad Nicolas Cage movie!
1 Like
You know when everyone just discovers your personal favorite band that’s been around for like 30 years?
Yeah…that’s Nick Cage lately….
2 Likes
Rebel Moon is by far the worst piece of crap I’ve ever seen.
how on earth that atrocity ever got cleared for production?
do not watch it if you value your brain cells.
4 Likes
so bad they made it in 2 parts…possibly more to come
I really don’t understand how… it’s like if Steven Seagal made a scifi movie.
ugh, I should not call that scifi.
I couldn’t make it past 20-30 minutes. I usually will finish most movies if they’re even halfway decent, but this one… ouch, very bad, imo.
I recently watched The Wailing, based on some recommendations here. Loved it! It morphed fairly effortlessly between comedy and horror about a billion times.
3 Likes