Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21
    I'm just glad that the film that was planned that was going to star a CGI version of George Burns went nowhere. I think that is a pretty morbid idea to actually use CGI to bring actors back from the dead. It's fine if they died during the making of a movie, and they needed to complete it. That was the case with "The Queen of the Damned"

    Yes, DeadEye that is your opinion. Frankly some of the stuff from the 80's before that early CGI looks a hell of alot better then the effects in Starship Troopers, The Lost Word, and Alien: Resurrection. Just look at Alien 4 and TLW, the original movies were much better, because they didn't linger on the effects. In TLW and Alien 4, it was like they were beating you over the head with it, and they forgot the plot most of the time.

    MTFBWY and HH!!

    Jar Jar Binks

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  2. #22
    Originally posted by JarJarBinks
    I'm just glad that the film that was planned that was going to star a CGI version of George Burns went nowhere. I think that is a pretty morbid idea to actually use CGI to bring actors back from the dead. It's fine if they died during the making of a movie, and they needed to complete it. That was the case with "The Queen of the Damned"

    MTFBWY and HH!!

    Jar Jar Binks
    I hope that none of it ever happens, unless like you said, someone dies during production of the film. It is something that will however linger in the back of my mind.

  3. #23
    Jar Jar--

    8 Legged Freaks, and the Star Wars prequels had some state-of-the-art effects. But the CG bugs in Starship Troopers could not be done much better today.

  4. #24
    IMO, many of the non-tangible f/x out there lessen the films they're in. I prefer real-world f/x to CGI.

    '62 sure does have some great films in its list. '77 has probably the biggest film of all time though (plus oh, and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, ever heard of that one?). Even '99 had some pretty big films (Ep 1, Matrix, Mummy, Fight Club, 6th Sense, American Beauty, South Park:BLU). I think 2002 had some ok films, but only Spider-man has really made a HUGE cinematic impact on me thus far this year.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    Kylo Ren - came from Space Brooklyn, although he moved to Space Williamsburg before it was trendy.

    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  5. #25
    I think Starship Troopers had some pretty good CGI, considering what they had to do with it, I think they pulled it off very well from changing between CGI bugs and puppet bugs (dead ones and the ones that were still alive but moving and got their own segments). Only flaws in CGI I really gave a care about was when they did the CGI shots of Rico on the huge fire bug, that looked a little too fake with how he was just staying on the slippery shell without holding on.

    I have to say '81 and '83 were great years for effects. Bespin, Endor chases, Space Battle of Endor, and Battle of Hoth were alot of great stuff compared to even stuff that's out there now. Right now, 98% of those scenes would've probably been CGI, if not more.

    As for this being a "great movie year" there are 3 films that I have to say make this a great movie year: Attack of the Clones, Spider-Man and tied with Spidey is Two Towers. (After watching LOTR, how could it be bad? On the behind the scenes it was looking great already. Plus since they were shot at the same time, well that means that hopefully they'll all be of the same quality even though they're gonna be spaced apart for the F/X.
    "Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid."
    "I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form."
    "We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

  6. #26
    It's hard to judge movies in the year of thier release. Maybe 50 years from now Spiderman will be some wounderful cenamatic adventure. We judge LOA againts AOTC, that's not fair to either film. LOA is old and has had 40 years to be viewed and talked about. AOTC has had exactly 3 months, not fair to judge how grand or popular it will be in the long run. Often I think old movies get to much credit just because they are old. I've never sceen any of those movies from 62' save Dr. No, so I am no judge. Often in this life we get the "things were better in my day" attitude, so that may play a part in old moives being thought of so well. I have sceen parts of The Day the Earth Stood Still and it's no feat of film magic.

    So, I propose a new topic. Instead of compairning this year against all other years, how about we compair it against this generation of movies. In my mind this generation of moives started in 1975 when Spielberg did Jaws. This was the first real blockbuster movie and it did change the world. People were afraid to go in a pool after seeing this one. So, 2002 is the greatest movie year of our generation. I'm sure no one will agree, but it's fun to discuss.
    If you want to find it you have to shop.

  7. #27
    scruffziller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Drinking tea & broadcasting from a British prison
    AS far as my own opinion, there may have been alot of "BIG" titles. But the quality of alot of hose titles left alot to be desired.
    No matter how I die, even if there is a suicide note; it was murder. Cheers!

  8. #28
    How about 1999?

    Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace
    The Matrix
    Deep Blue Sea (I love shark movies)
    Lake Placid (This movie was seriously underrated)
    American Pie
    Sixth Sense
    The Mummy
    Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
    Toy Story 2
    The Blair Witch Project
    Being John Malkovich
    American Beauty
    Fight Club
    Sleepy Hollow
    South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

    That's a pretty good year for movies.
    [font=verdana]Madness take its toll. Please have exact change[/font]
    [font=verdana]Life's short and hard like a bodybuilding elf... - Blood Hound Gang [/font]
    I'm a trendy tote bag!

  9. #29

    You forgot '82. Have you ever heard of a little movie called The Thing? That had revolutionary special effects, better than anything in Star Wars--and save CG, we couldn't really make it look much better even today.

  10. #30
    I don't think that one B movie in 82' no matter how good the f/x are make it the best movie year. CG hasn't made this year or any other year the greatest. I'm not interested in movies that changed the way we look at movies. That Title goes to The Wizard of Oz (first color movie, not to mention good F/X for that time period). This year is packed full of super popular movies. I'm sorry,but I don't think The Thing falls into that category. It's a fine movie but most people haven't seen or even herd of it.

    True 1999 is a great year for movies. I thought that myself. I'm sure there are some that aren't even on the list that are great. I think the difference is Star Power and Blockbuster Power. On your list I don't see any larger than life stars. I guess Cruze and Bitt are larger than life, but those roles didn't exactly use thier star power to fule the movie. With the exeception of Star Wars there are no other blockbusters on your list. The Matirx, The Mummy, The Sixth Sense, and American Pie where all sleeper hits and word of mouth casused them to be successes.

    Still '99 may be the best competion for this year. I also think that we are living in the greatest era of movies ever (hear we go again). 1999-2002 has has some amazing movies. That is why I feel that this is the second golden age of Hollywood. But, I'm sure someone can make a case for 1980-83. Still, todays movies rock and we are so lucky to be able to view them in great theaters, then again in woundeful home video formates.
    If you want to find it you have to shop.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO