Comments -

All MIO82's Comments

Showing items 1 - 10 of 65
1 2 3 4 >  >>  

Hercules: The Legend Begins TRAILER (Article) - 10/13/2013 4:38:43 PM

What a pile of shit...

Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer 3 and IMAX Poster (Article) - 4/20/2013 9:36:49 PM

FAAAAACCCCCCKKK that looks amazing!!

Jack the Giant Slayer Blu-ray Details (Article) - 4/20/2013 9:14:54 PM

$29 for the DVD!? What is it 2001? The Hobbit 3D Bluray was $29 when it was released, WTF!!!???

Byzantium Clip (Article) - 2/3/2013 5:03:41 AM


Gremlins Reboot for Warner? (Article) - 1/17/2013 9:53:42 PM

Oh and the remake/reboot idea of this in the first place... I say just make it a sequel. No need to REBOOT!

Gremlins Reboot for Warner? (Article) - 1/17/2013 9:51:37 PM

VaDeR you think CGI looks more REAL than a REAL aminatronic!!!??? Uh no.

Don't ge me wrong, I love CGI when used in the proper spot, but go back and look at Gremlins 2?? It looks real cause it is real. Now imagine those huge group shot doen with CG?? Imagine how CG it will look... cause you know it will.

Nothing looks more real than real. I prefer CGI for stuff like robots cause the rendering and movement are able to be done so well in the computer, organic stuff not so much, even in this day and age with CGI. I mean if you have a monster as big as a building, then yeah CGI all the way cause its just easier. But when you have something thats a 1/3 the height of a human, theres no reason why you wouldn't want to go with a real object people can actually interact with. Every time there's a creature or something that was originally a ridgid prop that some one holds or intercts which is eventually replaced with CGI, you CAN ALWAYS TELL.

Anyways my real vote is for a mix. As much practical as possible, with CGI being used when neccessary, not CGI being used to death in every shot possible.


Extended Man of Steel Trailer (Article) - 11/21/2012 7:55:08 PM

zilla you always double post!? Whats the dilly-o!?

Jack the Giant Slayer Trailer (Article) - 11/21/2012 7:37:16 PM

Looks ok, the giant CG looks very CG, no realism to the final rendering at all. They are missing that real look render to a lot of CG in more recent films. Don't know why they don't aim for that? It is possible. There are some shots in Avatar that look 100% photo real, not every shot by far, but a few you cannot tell are CG, its just that real.

Maybe that should be the goal now with CG? If you're gonna do it all CG fine, but at least have the final render look like its in the real world. Not all shiny and plasticy!?

Another great example is transformers. The first movies CG was is in some ways better than the 2 sequels. If an autobot or decepticon had a matte finish as their vehicle form, then the robot form had those same surfaces. How ever in the sequels they seemed to be all shinny once in their robot form, regardless if that surfaces was matte to start with. Best example is the helicopter decepticon (forget the name). His transformation is the city in the final battle looks so fricken real. It was perfect.

This is coming from a guys who's very pro practical as I'm an FX makeup guy myself.

CURSE OF CHUCKY Begins (Article) - 9/10/2012 11:11:21 PM

From what I've heard yes...

Battle Angel to Follow Avatar (Article) - 9/10/2012 11:09:41 PM

I dont mind waiting, what I do mind is if this thing gets made as a PG-13 piece of shat... This better be f@cking R rated or it'll be a huge let down!!! R RATED!!!!!!!!


Date Joined: January 22, 2007