atom bomb?
-
megoobee — 12 years ago(August 08, 2013 10:45 PM)
The female Terminator was called the "T-X". The T3 production people redid the model numbers, for what reason I have no idea.
The only things known at this point about T5 is Cameron and Schwarzenegger have signed on. As much as I want Arnold to reprise the role of a Terminator, logically, I know it will be a hard sell. T3 Arnold was pushing it, he's even older now. The years as Governor have taken a heavy toll on him and so has the public scandal.
"The Geriatric Terminator", coming soon to a theater near you. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(August 12, 2013 02:40 AM)
Yes he is very old, and the CG Arnold was very obvious in T4. I would still love to see it but who knows how it will be
What about the new Robocop? I am glad now they don't have to use stopmotion which should make it more realistic for the other robots IMO but not sure if their new design is good or the story. The original is definitely a classic movie. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(August 13, 2013 10:20 PM)
I'm not so sure about the remake of Robocop. Peter Weller actually looked like a man in a machine's body. The stills I've see of the new Robocop just looks like a guy in a plastic/rubber suit (ala Michael Keaton as Batman). Zero improvement.
I agree, Robocop 1987 is a classic. If you only update the bi-pedal droids to modern CGI, the movie would entertain a whole new generation of audiences. But sigh, we get a guy in a plastic/rubber suit. I'll probably pass. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(August 16, 2013 03:33 PM)
lol I will still watch it but I agree. They can never avoid screwing the essence of the original like it has to be done.
If it was me, I would just update the effects but I would probably redesign the enemy robots. Robocop should only be tweaked very slightly if necessary, not redesigned.
I think the new directors always want to make a name for themselves by totally changing everything.
Not sure if you have seen Dredd, but that was a joke. Very bad effects, acting, cinematography, story, dialogues, everything. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(August 17, 2013 02:03 PM)
I never thought much of Stallone's Dredd. Everything you indicated that was bad with the Dredd retread was the same with the first one. Why they took a turd and turned it into a reheated turd is beyond comprehension.
I saw Oblivion the other day. Great affects but the story was terrible. After half an hour, I pretty much knew what the plot twist and secrets were going to be. Is there simply a lack of qualified people to write screenplays these days? -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(August 27, 2013 10:54 PM)
I know what you mean. I didn't like the original Dredd either. You are right. In fact when I watched some scenes on bluray, I was like man this is pretty cheesy. Demolition Man is better because of Wesley.
I respect great writers a lot since I can't write and I know good story is extremely important. It's not sci-fi, but I love the Bourne series for example. Such great atmosphere in those movies. I am not much of a reader so haven't read the original books but that author must be kick ass.
I wonder if they are gonna dry up all these great stories one day. Although I can't complain because watching a movie takes far less time than reading a book, and if it's well made, I don't really have a problem with differences from the book, like Fight Club which is another amazing film IMO. Btw I heard that guy wants to write another one for Fight Club 2
In fact this is another cool thing that since I don't know these stories before they aren't spoiled for me. Even LOTR was brand new for me, never heard it before. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(September 03, 2013 10:15 PM)
I think story takes a back seat (way back, 20 rows at least) these days to action due to CGI advancements. Actors don't need training to look like they know how to fight and you don't need armies of men to look like you have armies of men. Until the public gets tired of the "gee whiz" special effects, the proliferation and saturation of such films will continue. I guess I may be in the minority for wanting story over action.
The first Iron Man movies was interesting because it had story first and action second. The two sequel were just blah because they tried squeeze as much action in as possible around loose stories.
Case in point about CGI, Skyline 2 is going to be made. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(September 06, 2013 07:28 PM)
First IM was insane. Second went down considerably but third one I am shocked. Only scene I liked is the Gary the cameraman scene, and I have never seen that guy before. First one had all the right elements.
I would definitely watch Skyline 2 but I know it's a very bad movie. The atom bomb scene was dramatic but that's it.
Btw have you seen Starcraft Cinematic by Blizzard for the game? The first one though. They actually have a full DVD for it, 30 mins. Some of the graphics look bad but story and some visuals are insane. It looks like Starship Troopers, not sure if they is any connection but either way in the end, you feel like crying. This one shows it I think but I have the DVD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9x7SlpWgog -
megoobee — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 08:31 PM)
I played Starcraft years ago when it first came out. It definitely was a great game as I remembered. These days, I don't have the time to devote to hours of game playing, I've missed quite a few good games. The last game I played was Halo 2 and that was only because it was released for PC. Only the original Halo game and Halo 2 were released for PC, the other versions can only be played on xbox 360.
Did you see World War Z? What did you think about it? -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(September 21, 2013 06:22 PM)
Count me in too, I am not much of a gamer even though I worked in games industry for 5 years. Last game I played was D3 for 2 months last year when it came out. It became too repetitive though. I hear you need 2000 hours to get to paragon level 100 which is the max. I only spent 60-70 hours.
When gaming becomes a task, then it becomes a chore and you spend your valuable time on earth for virtual numbers in a computer's memory, i.e. your character being at level 100 instead of 0. Why exchange your life with those 2 additional digits.
Playing for fun is good though if you like it. Also even if you don't play like me, you should still watch the cinematics, especially Starcraft 2's and the expansion packs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbeoSPqRs4
Looks insane. I love Blizzard, Blur and DIGIC for making these kinds of cinematics.
This one is also my favourite by DIGIC. Amazing music too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YnopWO4X_Q
As for World War Z, I saw it 2 weeks ago. I was really excited because I thought it was gonna be really good, but really disappointed. I would probably give it 2. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(September 22, 2013 08:43 PM)
OK, just checking. I didn't want to spoiled the movie for you in case you hadn't seen it. (Not that I can do anything worse for it)
WWZ was another movie that had all kinds of potential but went absolutely nowhere. First problem, you cannot do an effective Zombie movie with a PG-13 rating. What do people want when they go see a Zombie movie? ZOMBIES! Not just zombies running around at mach speed, they want to see zombies doing their thing (ie: attacking, biting, gnawing and chewing people). Most of the time, zombies were shown attacking and then the scenes were cut. Great.
The CGI zombies in some scenes were pretty close in appearance to the ones in "I am Legend," not very original.
The story was horrible. It's clear that Pitt and his wife/family are very close - did the audience need to be constantly remind of this? The So Korea airbase scene was really dumb. They knew they had to be quiet to sneak back on the plane but Pitt left his phone on and his wife called at the worse moment.. another unoriginal idea.
Pitt's character was unintelligent and unsympathetic. Even as an anti-hero, I didn't buy the character. One of the few moments I enjoyed was when he criticized the WHO official who said he did not have a family and then learned the reason why he did not have a family. Oops!
Camera work was junk, shots were bouncing all around the place. Sigh, when are they going to quit the "shaky cam" and go back to steady camera work?
Last parting shot. That little boy from the apartment complex - he forgot about his mother and father awfully quick. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 12:03 AM)
Oh yes it was very bad. I didn't even watch the trailer just seeing a few pics like the red room picture where Pitt is leading, I thought it looked cool.
It failed big time, like you said it didn't move anywhere.
Have you seen Equilibrium? Definitely a great movie, one of my favs. Great story acting, music, really powerful scenes. Some scenes were low quality but still I liked it.
Also very original ideas like gun-kata, etc. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(September 27, 2013 03:08 AM)
Is that the movie with Christian Bale? That goes back quite a few years if it is. I never was a big fan of Christian Bale and giving him the role of John Connor didn't win him any brownie points as far as I am concerned.
The movie was OK, the story reminded me of Fahrenheit 451 and Matrix. I was disappointed with the ending though, Bale's character was too invulnerable. Normally the hero is the underdog in the last fight with the boss and has to rise from the brink of death to win. Bale was more badass than the main boss.
I did like the plot twist with his son though. They made him seem like a real fanatic, deserving of a boot to the head. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(September 28, 2013 11:42 PM)
Yes that's the one. I think that might be my first movie that I have seen him. The main woman character was weak but I found Bale pretty good in that movie, and I am not really a Bale fan.
Some people were saying it's from 1984 the movie which I have seen afterwards and was shocked because I thought it was terrible.
There is a lot of cool scenes in Equilibrium and the music rocks too.
The kids were interesting for sure, good contrast.
I think this director doesn't do typical hero movies that you are talking about. Ultraviolet was the same where the heroine was very strong/invincible. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(October 07, 2013 10:51 PM)
Reign of Fire was the first movie I saw with Christian Bale. Reign of Fire was a low budget dragon movie that could have and should have been a lot better.
The movie poster was deliberately misleading and implied massive helicopter vs dragon battles. In actuality, there was only one helicopter in the movie and it was not even armed.
It's a shame because the dragon special effects were pretty good, especially for early 2000's CGI.
If you haven't seen it, envision "Mad Max" vs. dragons. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(October 09, 2013 05:41 PM)
Yeah I like that movie, I saw it later on, but Denton Van Zan that guy was insane. Going 1 on 1 to a dragon, he is legend. It's not a strong movie, but yeah some good scenes.
Have you seen Pacific Rim? I just got it on bluray. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(October 12, 2013 03:53 PM)
Matthew McConaughey is under rated when it comes to action roles. As you indicated, he played the almost psychotically focused Denton Van Zan really well. I thought he was really good in "Sahara" which was unfortunately a theatrical flop. It was meant to be a fun movie but the story included a political undertone which the general public don't usually like.
I haven't seen Pacific Rim yet, waiting for it to show on one of the movie channels. What's your opinion, worth paying the price of a rental? -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(October 13, 2013 04:42 PM)
I like that actor too. I like Killer Joe and Frailty. He is good for sure. Sahara was on a flight I was on years ago, didn't watch it, but I know the kind of movie. I am not a fan of those either.
I think Pacific Rim is worth seeing once. I only saw one trailer, and it should be better than Battleship. I just wanna see the effects and hope the story is ok. There are a lot of "brags" from the effects side from what I have read, in terms of new tech and methods used.
Same reason I enjoyed Transformers because of world class fx, but the story was ok. Like some of the jokes were entertaining. Though now I would only watch certain scenes. -
megoobee — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 09:10 PM)
Transformers was a treat for all of us kids who grew up in the 80's. Making the movie now was the right time - had it been made 20 years earlier, the primitive CGI and/or stop action "claymation" style special effects would have not done the characters justice. I think most fans of the original cartoon were satisfied with how the characters were represented.
With all the cyber-robotic eye candy on screen, what more could you want, right?
If you ask Hollywood, you need to add pretty girls, unnecessary characters (ie: unfunny wise cracking donut eating hackers and used car salesmen), toilet humor (Bumblebee "lubricating" the Sector Seven guy) and pointless dramatics. (Jazz gets ripped in half by Megatron and dies but the radio shape shifting Decepticon survives being cut in half with a saw)
Distractions aside, I think the CGI was great. It didn't matter if the bots were transforming, whacking each other senseless or just standing around talking, they were great to watch. Modern special effect is so good you have to wonder how much better it can get? Scrawny Steve Rogers/Chris Evans, that was remarkable how they took a skinny body double and seamlessly grafted Chris Evans head onto it.
I'll see about getting a copy of Pacific Rim, maybe it will surprise me and be entertaining. -
leonthecleaner-1 — 12 years ago(October 16, 2013 03:30 PM)
lol don't. I watched it yesterday, probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't care for the characters, no story, acting, even effects couldn't save it. I would probably rate it 2 if I am generous.
Yeah vfx is not getting so much better than it's getting faster to do in terms of computation. Most of the developments I have seen are going in that direction. A lot of processes still take so much time to compute.