I'm thinking $60 mil. Sent from my iPhone
On May 6, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Jason Service <[email protected]> wrote: > New thread open for the bet Raven suggested! > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe I am missing something, but are you suggesting that the LOTR > trilogy was not successful in it's effects work and that it was > somehow hurt by that? People flocked to see the LOTR films multiple > times in the theater because it was an immersive and fascinating > world. Much like Star Wars (I am told; obviously I was not alive yet > to see that one in the theater let alone multiple times). And please > don't misunderstand me, I love the effects in the Original Trilogy, > but there are flaws there too. As humans we are acclimated to reality > and something which looks fake will look fake no matter what technique > is used to create it. The Death Star Trench sequence holds up as well > as it does now some... let me count because you folks made fun of me > for my bad math in an earlier thread... 34 years after the fact > because the Dykstraflex did its job perfectly, and the ILM model team > paid attention to the details to the point that those ships WERE real > as far as the eye is concerned. (Lucas basing the fight on WW2 footage > helps this as well.) That the asteroid field in Empire looks like > garbage is because of the technique being used was not perfected at > the time and there was no other way to achieve it with the Dykstraflex > without the traveling matte. (By comparison, watch The Black Hole, > which features similar shots of objects moving across each other -- > the use of the ACES camera and the Mattescan device allowed this to be > smoothly done without the need for the travelling matte from Empire). > So it stands out because it breaks "reality" in a way the ships or the > suits or animatronics do not. > > Regarding visual vocabulary, I think my claim is valid. Afterall, > this is an age where entertainment media pundits fall all over > themselves to elevate video games to high art or "true" > entertainment. Obviously the rendered, ful CGI style visual image is > an accepted one for the masses, since video gaming has become not just > accepted but now mainstream and "hip." > > Folks won't go see Green Lantern multiple times in the theater > nowadays because of the nature of the Hollywood tentpole cycle. Like > you say, Cars 2 is right on it's heels, and more afterwards. The > filmgoer today is conditioned to think that what's hot and new this > week is old next week, because there is something else wihch is now > hot and new. It takes something outrageously out of the ordinary to > break that, and the LOTR films are like that. This summer, the only > film I predict will be like that is HP 7.2, just because ITS THE LAST > ONE DUN DUN DUNNNN! and all that. The fact that 7.1 was a marked > improvement over the snoozefests that were 5 and 6 helps, too. > > In any event I am probably going to go see the film. For one thing I > would like to see a DC movie in the theater which is not a snoozer > like Superman Returns nor Super Serious And Important! like Batman > Begins and The Dark Knight. Plus my buddy Joe is a huge GL fan (being > an Air Force brat will do that to you) and obviously he is jazzed for > it. > > On May 5, 10:06 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > The snake thing in Conan looks dumb in the same way the Clash of the Titans > > trailer was ruined by that fifty-million dollar yawn-monster at the end. > > What's around the corner, Perseus, what's making that noise? > > It's....it's....COMPUTER MATH. > > > > Fact is, the throne room scene in Flash Gordon (1980) looks more exotic and > > exciting than the sweeping video game cut-scene they're calling Oa. > > It's possible kids will accept the "visual vocabulary of the present > > cinematic age," in the way we, as kids, accepted the skeletons in Jason and > > the Argonauts or King Kong, etc, but...I don't think any kids are excited > > about this movie. > > > > I mean maybe a few nerdads are pushing them toward it. > > > > Kid: I wanna see Thaw. > > Nerdad: What about, Green Lantern, buddy? Don't you wanna see a guy who > > has a ring? > > Kid: Like...the one you got for mom? Thaw has a hammaw. > > Nerdad: Ha, ha, no no, like the...ok, let's see Thor. > > > > Thor has a kajillion effects in it, but....Thor himself looks like a > > person. You can relate to him. I think a "glow" or something around a > > real costume would have gotten across the idea of the ring generating > > clothing. Maybe it's an "uncanny valley" issue. Like Shag articulated, > > its not that the effects look baaaad, it's that the whole thing is effects. > > Like with Lord of the Rings, I guess, the idea is people will buy the DVD > > and pause every few seconds so they can jizz over all the detailed design > > work at whichever speed they jizz at, but...that aint gonna help opening > > weekend. > > > As you point out, Luke, people complained about the effects in SW (though > > isn't there something about it looking different on tv than on the big > > screen? Like, those yellow squares around the TIE Fighters were a tv > > thing? Someone?), but...people saw SW in the theater and continued to see > > it and talk about it. No one will see Green Lantern. Bomb ahoy. > > > > Should we have another bet thing like with Watchmen and Scott Pilgrim? > > > > I say it gets crushed by....Mr. Popper's Penguins!!! You down with MPP?!! > > > > That trailer, btw, was cut by amateurs. It looks teerrrrrible! And > > yet....it will kiiiilll Green Lantern!! Then, GL will be buried by Cars 2 > > the following week to disappear forever! Sinestro wins! > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luke <[email protected]> > > To: The Unique Geek <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 3:45 am > > Subject: [The Unique Geek] Re: New Green Lantern trailer shows off the > > Guardians of the Universe - io9 > > > > I'm more disappointed by the CGI monster in the new Conan trailer than > > any of the CGI in the Green Lantern trailers, frankly. That's the > > visual vocabulary of the present cinematic age. > > > > You want an eye opener? Go read some contemporary genre magazines > > when Empire or Jedi came out. Cinefantastique especially lambastes > > some of ILM's work. We idealize these physical effects in our minds, > > but I still cringe everytime I watch the original version of Empire > > with the God awful travelling mattes in the asteroid field. Even as > > late as 89 (Last Crusade) its pretty easy to spot complaining > > criticism of ILM's work. So not liking special effects and thinking > > things look "fake" is a time honored nerd tradition. > > > > On May 5, 10:05 am, Edward Crosby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Again, I have no problem with the CGI costume, I think it looks fine. > > > And, I > > > think it does look like it could exist in the real world. Remember, the > > > GL's > > > costume in the comic books, for the most part, is energy constructed by > > > that > > > GL. I can imagine the costume having that glow in the real world. > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > Have a Better One, > > > Edward Crosbyhttp://about.me/edwardcrosby > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For me it's not a case that the CGI looks bad, it's the sheer volume of > > > > CGI. In some shots there is simply too much going on (all done by CGI). > > > > For example, in Revenge of the Sith, the space battle featured too many > > > > things going on (all done by CGI). So while the battle was more massive > > > > than the space battle in Return of the Jedi, there was just too much to > > > > see. The space battle in Revenge of the Sith is less exciting than the > > > > Return of the Jedi battle for that reason. > > > > > > In regard to the Green Lantern costume, the choice to go with CGI is > > > > disappointing. It makes the costume harder to believe it's real. It > > > > just > > > > doesn't look like it could exist in the real world. A simpler > > > > real-world > > > > costume with a CGI aura might have worked better. > > > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > > > The Irredeemable Shag > > > >http://firestormfan.com > > > >http://onceuponageek.com > > > >http://twitter.com/onceuponageek > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: Re: [The Unique Geek] Re: New Green Lantern trailer shows off > > > > the Guardians of the Universe - io9 > > > > From: Edward Crosby <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Thu, May 05, 2011 9:47 am > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Yeah, I am confused why people keep stating that the CG looks bad > > > > (Ravenface and other TUG members). As compared to what? Avatar? Sure. > > > > Tron > > > > Legacy? Absolutely. Sucker Punch? Maybe. Iron Man 2? No way. > > > > Widge made a really good point on the last recorded TUG podcast > > > > recording > > > > and I agree with him. He stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that we all have > > > > such > > > > a high standard of CG these days that if something comes along that > > > > meets or > > > > doesn't exceed the bar then we turn our heads in disgust. From what I > > > > have > > > > seen, the CG in this movie is by far some of the best we have seen in > > > > today's live action movies. I think another reason we turn our heads in > > > > disgust of the CG in this movie is because there is so much of it. But > > > > there > > > > has to be as this is a Green Lantern movie set mostly in a fictional > > > > world > > > > and fictional universe that has to be pulled out of one of the most > > > > extreme > > > > mediums that is the comic book. There is no way this movie could have > > > > been > > > > done well with all the CG needed five years ago. > > > > I'm not making any judgement about this movie now, if I can help it. At > > > > first, yes, I judged the teaser trailer and cringed. Recent trailers > > > > give me > > > > more hope that this may be an entertaining movie. I know it will not be > > > > a > > > > blockbuster movie but I will reserve judgement of whether it is good or > > > > not > > > > after I have seen it when I see it opening weekend. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Have a Better One, > > > > Edward Crosby > > > >http://about.me/edwardcrosby > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > > "The Unique Geek" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The > > Unique Geek" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Unique Geek" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Unique Geek" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.
