Jump to content

Crainy

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crainy

  1. This is my take away from this aswell. Wow, what a move to go with this kind of visual style. If nothing else, this will be a very unique movie for sure...
  2. Only because you can link 3 bad youtube videos here doesnt mean the trailer wasnt received positively overall.
  3. Actually, we do know. The process of how designs are created and translated to CGI on big blockbuster movies is well documented. Theres no reason to assume the CGI artists where any more involved in the design of Sonic than they were in any other production. In other words, they werent involved.
  4. This isnt a CGI issue, the design is just terrible. The CGI artists dont create the design most of the time, they get handed the finished design and then they translate it to CGI. Its the fault of the people that designed Sonic this way (and the ones that approved this), not the CGI artists.
  5. Like the Sonic design is so bad, I could never see myself watching this movie because of it. I simply do not want to look at that monstrosity for an hour and a half.
  6. Man, the trailer actually looks alittlebit of fun seeing how it doesnt take itself seriously at all. Jim Carry looks like he´s having a blast, but its all ruined by the terrible terrible Sonic design.
  7. Did people seriously expect this movie to be some bombastic action movie finale? Thats not Nights deal at all and not the impression I got from the trailers, either. I havent seen the movie yet, but if thats supposed to be the "bait and switch" people are talking about, then ooooh boy. From the trailers and the movies this is a sequel to, I fully expect this to be a slow, methodic and emotional drama.
  8. The way Paramount has handled their franchises has been really weird in general. The Transformers franchise could be in a very different position now if they changed their strategy after the completion of the first trilogy. Both with Star Trek and Transformers Paramount has these incredible juggernauts of movie franchises, they just dont seem to plan far ahead enough and dont know what do to with them after the first couple of movies.
  9. As a filmmaker myself, this is not true. Having a large audience is a great feeling, but whats more important is that your movie is watched by the right audience, because only they will be able to properly appreciate it. If you make a movie purely to generate money your statement might hold true (and even then its debatable), but artists hold other things in higher regard. Though money is great to have, too.
  10. This is spot on. Anyhow, Im not sure when I will actually get around to seeing this movie. Unbreakable is a great movie, but I havent seen Split yet.
  11. Well yes, when a movie is divisive, the people that dislike it often times scream the loudest. But also often times divisive movies are the best of movies, because great art is not everyone and never will be.
  12. There are many people like me that love and appreciate the Transformers movies. As I always like to say, Michael Bays work has a great deal of artistry to it that I think far to few people can appreciate. Michael Bay is a director that has a very specific style unique to him that he uses to tell his stories and his style definitely doesnt appeal to everyone. But thats the thing, art often times is divisive and not for everyone and thats ok. You dont have to like his movies, but you are wrong in thinking that there arent also alot of people who see alot of value in Michael Bays work.
  13. You are terribly misinformed. What happened with Transformers 2 happened because of the writers strike. Yes, the script was rushed and Bay was the first to admit that. He didnt move the release date because he was confident that he could make a quality product anyways and he also made preparations for the writers strike before it happened so the writers and the entire production team had an easier time. That they didnt move the release date WAS an act of dedication and care, in Michael Bays own way (he´s also a director that really cares about staying on budget). This is a terrible example of yours and means nothing. Even Transformers 2 is a movie made with alot of dedication and care, it was just a victim of its circumstances. They build a town in the desert for it just so they have something to blow up for the final act. They filmed on-location in egypt and to my knowledge it was the first movie in many many years that got the permission to film at and ON the Pyramids. Michael Bay flew halfway across the world just for a single day, just so he could personally direct the CGI crew when they were creating the films only (and franchises first) fully CGI animated sequence (the decepticon scene on the crashed decepticon spaceship). They also created the most complex CGI shot of the time for this movie with Devastator taking down the Pyramids. Michael Bay worked on the final cut of the movie personally up until HOURS before the movies initial premiere. That Transformers 2 didnt need to move its release date is a testament to Michael Bays work ethic. I personally think he should have moved the release date as writing the script in just two weeks definitely resulted in a worse movie, but it was not an easy decision. Transformers 2 is a flawed movie, but its still a labor of love. If you want to judge a man and his work, be sure to inform yourself properly first, because what you are saying here is just wrong.
  14. That statement was in regards to dispelling myths that lead into question Michael Bays integrity as a filmmaker. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of facts. What Michael Bay does and does not and wether or not his movies were made with dedication and care put into them (no matter if you like the end result or not) is a matter of facts, not a matter of opinion. I stated the objective facts. Opinions are irrelevant on this matter. Glad you like my "review", though.
  15. Alright, finally went to see this one. Before I talk about my thoughts on the movie, let me preface with the history that I have with the Transformers movies. The first Transformers movie by Michael Bay is my favorite movie of all time and it changed my life forever by inspiring me to become a filmmaker myself, a goal I have been working on ever since and I have worked on many personal and professional projects since then. Seeing that movie in the cinema for the first time was an experience I will never forget, it was the first movie that really showed me the value that movies as art can have. I think its an expressive and artful masterpiece - in general I think theres a truly nuanced artistry to Michael Bays work that far to few people are capable of appreciating. The second one I think is a very flawed but overall good movie with some standout qualities. The third one is great. The fourth one is alright and the fifth one unfortunately is one of the worst movies Ive ever seen and nobody is more unhappy about that then me. Nonetheless, that we can have a blockbuster titled "Bumblebee" in 2019 that is capable of holding its own at the box office is a testament to the formidable movie franchise Michael Bay and his team created here and how these movies (especially the first three) really managed to connect with audiences. With that out of the way, onto "Bumblebee". From back when the first trailer dropped for this movie, I was curious to see how a different director would approach a Transformers movies that follows in the footsteps of Bays work. Overall, I think its pretty decent with some really good stuff in it, but unfortunately it also has quite alot of flaws. The movie opens up very strong with some pretty good action sequences. As seen in the trailers, parts of this movie takes place on Cybertron. These scenes are also the best thing about "Bumblebee". The thing with this movie is, it almost feels like two different halves that dont quite fit well together. You have the stuff on Cybertron thats leaning more towards G1 and its genuinly different from the things we saw in Bays movies while still paying homage to his work here and there. That stuff is really good, I really like the G1 designs in this film. The G1 inspired stuff in this movie feels like its own vision that is capable of standing on its own. And then you have the stuff on earth, which honestly feels like a worse version of things we have already seen in the first Michael Bay Transformers movie. Its funny how Bumblebee´s design in this film is a perfect example of this. He looks alot like in the Bay movies, just worse and less inspired. And thats how alot of the things that happen on Earth in this film feel like, it feels like if a less creative and inspired team worked on the first Transformers film. We have already seen the story of the teenager that gets his/hers first car that happens to be Bumblebee in the first Transformers movie, but there it was done significantly better, because in the first Transformers movie that plot was woven in neatly with the greater overall narrative of the movie and just in general executed better with better directing, cinematography and actors. We have already seen Bumblebee getting captured by the military. We have already seen the teenager trying to keep the secret from everyone. This was all covered in the first 40 minutes of the first Transformers movie. The main problem with this plot is just how generic it feels. In the first Transformers movie, this wasnt the case because of what they decided to focus on, but in this movie the human element and the overarching plot is as generic as it gets. It literally feels like your generic "teenager/kid meets extraordinary creature and they bond" story that has been done a million times and this movie just has nothing to add to the formula. It also doesnt help that the cinematography and directing in this movie is also as generic as it gets, even if they are some good shots here and there. The incredible score from Steven Jablonsky from the Michael Bay movies gets replaced here with really incredibly forgettable tunes - for the most part. There are some really nice more electronic score elements in this movie that go very well with some of their G1 stuff. There are also some callbacks to the themes from the Michael Bay movies and everytime those get used it works really well, so good job on that. The CGI and sound design in this movie is also significantly worse than what we have seen in the Bay movies. The two villan decepticons in this movie are also another good example of what I mean: Their designs look like rejected designs from the Bay movies. They look like designs from the Bay movies, just less inspired and worse. Which is a shame, because the fighter jet in the beginning actually has a really good design and again, the G1 stuff is excellent. And this is a shame, because when the movie does its own thing and pulls further away from what came before in the Bay films and goes more into G1 territory, thats when the movie comes into its own. I think we would have been better off if this movie would have been a full reboot that goes all-out on the G1 stuff. Ive also read on the internet that apparently this movie was made with more "heart" than the Michael Bay films. To those people I say, you are full of shit and you should feel bad for judging the hard work of an artist and his team based on shallow superstitions you read on the internet. Michael Bay is an incredibly passionate filmmaker that puts his heart and soul into his craft and everyone who has ever worked with the guy will tell you as much. Quick example, the guy took a 40% cut to his paycheck on the first Transformers movie just so he could work with his long-time team. The Transformers movies by him are not some assembly line productions and I advise you to look up some of the making-of material regarding them. Each one of these movies were enourmous undertakings, both artistically and from a technical standpoint. New technologies were created for each one and existing technologies pushed to their limits and the artists that worked on these movies, for example CGI and the sound designers, pushed their abilities with each entry. Which is why the first three movies were nominated for 7 oscars in total. While Marvel had actors playing pretend infront of a greenscreen, Michael Bay and his team split a bus at 80 miles per hour, flipped actual cars into actual buildings and build an entire town in the desert just so they have something that they can blow up with actual explosives. And they build that town twice! A movie doesnt have "heart" because it caters to G1 fans or something. Michael Bay cares about the Transformers franchise and he listened to fans where it actually mattered (for example, casting Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime), but he wasnt interested in making a G1 adapation, he was interested in making Transformers movies that stand on their own with their own artistic integrity. Another thing: There seems to be this notion going around in some of the "critics" reviews that this movie is more "nuanced" then the Michael Bay films. That is just completely wrong. As a filmmaker myself, I like to think that I have a more nuanced opinion on movies as art than the common movie-goer and I can tell you there is nothing subtle or nuanced about this movie. Everything is laid out infront of you to make sure everyone can understand it without thinking. And if critics think that an incredibly generic human plotline that we have seen in the same manner a hundred times over counts as nuanced or subtle, then I would say the artful cinematography in the Michael Bay films that connects the audience emotionally much more with whats going on adds more subtlety and nuance to a film than a generic drama plotline. I felt like it was worth adressing these points with all the senseless vitrol on the internet that gets directed at Michael Bay and his work and to dispel some of these myths. In any case, its a decent movie, definitely better than the fifth entry in the franchise, but it would have been better off if it would have been a full reboot that focuses on the new vision of a more G1 inspired Transformers. The rest of the movie just made me appreciate the first Michael Bay Transformers movie even more and how it wasnt a painfully generic "teenager meets extraordinary creature tale" that we were presented with here.
  16. Wow that trailer didnt impress me at all. The cinematography, staging as well as costume and make-up effects look really cheap and terrible from a first glance, almost like its a fan-made movie. I didnt like the other Hellboy movies all that much either, but atleast they were quality productions and Ron Perlman was great.
  17. Will Smith as the genie looks precious, even without CGI. I look forward to his performance, I hope he knocks it out of the park. Outside of that, Im not convinced by what we have seen so far, which to be fair, is very little.
  18. You are exactly right. Its a narrowed down list of movies that will be considered more closely for an exceptional achievement in VFX, and Black Panther shouldnt be anywhere near a list like that. Black Panthers VFX are not even mediocre, they are straight up terrible and most definitely nowhere near exceptional. Every run-of-the-mill blockbuster released this year has better VFX than Black Panther.
  19. While I agree that Transformers by Michael Bay definitely should have won best VFX oscar that year as it was a game changer, the VFX oscar isnt decided by the VFX branch. All people that are a member of the Academy, which are many thousand people, vote on EVERY oscar category. You can be sure that most voters dont really think too hard about most of the more specific categories, outside of actor, actress, best picture and best director. Decisions like that arent the result of many sleepless nights of consideration from members in the Academy, in actuality very little thought goes into an oscar win like that.
  20. Peter Jackson is a legend. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece and some of the finest movies in the history of film. You cant top something like that. His other work is all solid too and that the Hobbit movies were mostly misses is not his fault, those movies were horribly mismanaged from the studio side of things and that in the end a movie as good as Desolation of Smaug still ended up coming out of that shows how talented and dedicated Jackson is.
  21. I havent seen Valerian or Mortal Engines yet (though Im planning to), but knowing the behavior of the GA, a movie like that flopping doesnt have to come down to quality. Alot of people on this board and the GA today (and I guess most of the people on this board belong to the GA) display a great inability to appreciate movies that do not fall into a very limited niche. As soon as a movie is interested in beeing a worthwhile piece of art and tell their stories in more expressive and artful ways, it seems like most audience members of today are completely incapable of understanding and reading that movie, leading them to dislike it and call it "bad™". In an environment like that, its very hard for movies who aspire to be anything more than generic to succeed. Now I cant say if this also applies to these two cases, but if you are complaining about not enough original movies succeeding, the fault probably lies in part with you and how you define "quality".
  22. I get that what you wrote is an opinion that gets shoved down peoples throats at every corner of the internet and that people feel clever when saying it (which is more important to alot of people than ACTUALLY thinking), but the "George Lucas" syndrome doesnt really apply here. Rowling is a book author, not a filmmaker. For the most part she always had complete control over her franchise, especially after the first few books were a success. And most definitely when the movies were getting made. The reason that this entry in the Potter Universe presumably isnt that big of a success has other reasons.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.