are the graphics good?
-
smitty1941 — 17 years ago(October 22, 2008 08:59 AM)
I'm not going to base my decision entirely on that. On the other hand though, "Godzilla" had such horrible graphics and depended so entirely on its graphics, that I feel like that was a waste of a movie.
But This wasn't meant to be such a big deal. It was just a simple question. -
dracotharpian2002 — 17 years ago(October 31, 2008 11:32 PM)
OP
At least for me personally, I have YET to see a better portryal of a dragon, especially one with actual character and personality. This definatly is not cheesy. Than againm I am partial Points to name
"Once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen"
www.youtube.com/user/dracotharpian -
smitty1941 — 16 years ago(August 23, 2009 02:30 PM)
What the heck. I can rehash a year-old (and insignificant) discussion as well as the next person.
how little it means in the broader terms of how to grade a movie.
Actually, I'm just a little above that. I really enjoyed "Forbidden Planet" from the 1950s. And I actually thought 2008's "10,000 B.C." had bad graphics. The difference is, Forbidden Planet had a storyline. 10,000 B.C. was entirely dependent on its graphics. From its first trailer release, it was essentially a CGI advertisement, however unsatisfying the final movie was. I'm also an enormous "Birds" fan, yet I'll acknowledge that some of the visuals in that movie are less than perfect.
Nevertheless, in this case, I'm looking at a movie that I know next to nothing about other than that it centers on some dragon. I'm also familiar with the fact that 90s movies (in my opinion) often have poor visuals. The old methods of creating visuals were becoming obsolete in favor of computer graphics, yet computer graphics themselves were far from convincing. I again cite Godzilla and even Armageddon as examples. So how am I to know that I'm not settling in for some cheesy mess?
But it really was just a simple question. I'm actually a big fan of older movies from Hollywood's golden era, yet these boards seem to be chock-full of "old" people who love to lord their age over the current generation and its shallow tastes in movies. So there's a lot of undeserved flak running around, especially with all these wild accusations made against people whose age isn't even certain. -
Black_PuddleT5 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 10:22 PM)
I kept thinking they digitally remastered the dragon's CG for today's standards and only now find out that they didn't change a thing I'm amazed that they were able to make that dragon in 1996.
_
I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself -
dracotharpian2002 — 17 years ago(February 10, 2009 01:11 PM)
I have never seen a more alive CG chartaer even to this day. I say hes on par with Gollum from LOTR. Did you guys know that the director even hired a editor to make a collection of sean connery close ups with all his different expressions and emotions and emulated them in Dracos face! Now THAT is dedication! I still say that Drac is the greatest CG character ever!
"Once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen"
Im a film editor! please hire me! -
JazukaiX — 15 years ago(April 21, 2010 02:04 AM)
All you had to do was look at pictures.
The graphics are amazing for the time, and still better than some of the things we have these days.
Basically, i'd say its way better than Godzilla.
I hope in the two years since posting, you watched it and saw -
Cereborn — 15 years ago(May 01, 2010 04:58 PM)
The effects are still impressive today. Obviously, it's not as awe-inspiring as it was 14 years ago, and we've seen much better CGI since then, but we've also seen much worse CGI since then too.
He still looks a bit cartoony because the technology for blending him into the environment was still a ways away from Avatar. But Drago looks awesome. All the texture and colour on him is meticulously detailed. Even if the CGI is obvious, he looks really natural, and not at all like an artificial creation. -
smitty1941 — 15 years ago(September 09, 2010 09:13 PM)
Wow, what the heck is your problem? This thread is over 2 years old, for one thing For another, who cares whether it's "graphics" or "special effects"? If that really matters that much to you, then I really don't care what your opinion is anyway. And to be completely honest, any interest I may have had in this film 2 years ago was very short-lived. I still haven't seen it, and I don't feel that I'm any the worse for it. So if you are seriously such a loser that you have to haunt virtually dead message boards to pick on people's word choices and give yourself an emotional high, go ahead. Your comment is of no interest to me.
-
Rena_Mahone — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 04:46 AM)
Godzilla had horrible graphics? wtf. Jurassic Park, Dragonheart, and Godzilla all had much better, more realistic effects than the modern, fake-looking CGI.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too) -
leyenda61 — 11 years ago(September 22, 2014 12:18 PM)
i remember when i first saw it iwas blown away with how great i thought the cgi looked. i tried to rewatch it a year or two ago and i was laughing to myself how dated and unconvincing the effects look now. That's technology for you.
Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop