CLOVERFIELD!!!

[CDiablo]

misterd said:

 

I prefer the original performance to the bad dub. I can catch the words quickly enough, and like to be able to catch the tone of the performance.

As for the effects, I agree that they were well done, especially when you consider that it's not some Hollywood summer blockbuster. I can understand guys like CDiablo - odds are he grew up like me on FX by O'Brien and Harryhausen and Tippet. I once had similar resistance to CGI, but that was long ago when the field was in it's infancy. There's not debating the artistry of the original Kong or Sinbad films, but they just cannot compete with what CGI has to offer. Not only does well done CGI look more natural (stop motion always has a quirk, jerky feel to it), it can do things that would be practically impossible with stop motion, and at a much cheaper price to boot. It's simply not a coinicidence that "geek films" have started to dominate the cinemas and are slowly infiltrating the television - the tools finally exist to bring many of these stories to life (can you imagine the Silver Surfer in the pre-digital era?)

TO be honest I feel 95% of CG just looks like trash, when you see it it just looks like it isnt there. 95% of stop motion is garbage as well. Both techniques generally look good only in movies that are all CGI or all stop motion. I just cant stomach how fake spiderman looks in his movies, its LOL bad. Transformers(though the movie blew) looked great. Frikkin Jurassic Park (I know it was 1/2 CG 1/2 anamatronics) looked great and looks better than most movies that have come out after it.

 Most people I know feel the same way about CG. I accept CG when it doesnt look blatently fake. I realise it is a medium to bring the "geek films" to life, but I really expected big things from CG during the Terminator 2 days and it seems few movies have moved past that level of CG immersion. Of course this is one mans opinion, and clearly not that of the masses(:see box office recipts) .