Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[AndyK]

Looks like DC found their replacement for Ben Afflek.

 

[MCKillswitch123]

6 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

"Infinite Jest, take away the text, and it really just wasn't a great book." 

 

That's the argument you just made. Take a moment to reflect on that. 

So what you're saying is that Avatar was made just to show off the visuals? Story, characters, acting... that doesn't matter, just the visuals?

 

Cause that's the argument you just made.

 

When you take out the text in a book, you're taking EVERYTHING away from the book (unless the book has illustrations, but it's still a heavy component of the storytelling stripped out). Visuals are just one aspect from a movie. A pretty apples to oranges comparison, right there.

Edited February 14, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[IronJimbo]

6 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

So what you're saying is that Avatar was made just to show off the visuals? Story, characters, acting... that doesn't matter, just the visuals?

 

Cause that's the argument you just made.

 

When you take out the text in a book, you're taking EVERYTHING away from the book (unless the book has illustrations, but it's still a heavy component of the storytelling stripped out). Visuals are just one aspect from a movie. A pretty apples to oranges comparison, right there.

Without the visuals it's a black screen with audio lol

[TomCruiseTop]

30 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Story, characters, acting... that doesn't matter,

Would you please explain how one would show these things visually... in a film... without said visuals? 

[IronJimbo]

Just now, JamesCameronScholar said:

Would you please explain how one would show these things visually... in a film... without said visuals? 

pff, never listened to an audio book before JSC?

[TomCruiseTop]

1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

pff, never listened to an audio book before JSC?

Ah of course! I look forward to the smoke signal edition of Avatar, although I suppose that'd be too much for killswitch as you can still see those. 

[MCKillswitch123]

27 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Without the visuals it's a black screen with audio lol

3 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Would you please explain how one would show these things visually... in a film... without said visuals? 

When he said "visuals", he meant "visual effects". It's pretty obvious. That's what film fans mean when they say "visuals". If a film doesn't have anything visual about it, it wouldn't really be a film.

 

I don't wanna call you ignorant, but I think it's really clear that was the intended meaning.

[TomCruiseTop]

45 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

When he said "visuals", he meant "visual effects". It's pretty obvious. That's what film fans mean when they say "visuals". If a film doesn't have anything visual about it, it wouldn't really be a film.

 

I don't wanna call you ignorant, but I think it's really clear that was the intended meaning.

Could you give me an example of a shot from a film that denotes this distinction between "visual" and "visual effect"? As far as I understand it without the VFX of Avatar I'd be watching a green screen rather than a black one. 

[MrGlass2]

49 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

When he said "visuals", he meant "visual effects". It's pretty obvious. That's what film fans mean when they say "visuals". If a film doesn't have anything visual about it, it wouldn't really be a film.

What he said is that a movie nominated for Best Picture wasn't acclaimed, and that Cameron isn't "subjectively" successful because he didn't like Avatar. And then he called everyone else fanboys.

[RandomCat]

14 hours ago, That One Guy said:

Smart of the mods to archive the JL thread because this article came out today lmao

 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/13/17007872/zack-snyder-justice-league-fired

 

 

Hm...looks like LucasFilm isn't the only place that'll fire a director late into production. 

 

Also, Avatar didn't deserve the best special effects Oscar, and Titanic is a mediocre love story.

[TomCruiseTop]

1 minute ago, RandomYojimbo said:

Also, Avatar didn't deserve the best special effects Oscar

You'll have to make sure to bring it up at the next Academy meeting. 

[MCKillswitch123]

30 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

What he said is that a movie nominated for Best Picture wasn't acclaimed, and that Cameron isn't "subjectively" successful because he didn't like Avatar. And then he called everyone else fanboys.

I was directly referring to what he said when he said "Avatar wasn't a great film if you take out the visuals".

 

35 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Could you give me an example of a shot from a film that denotes this distinction between "visual" and "visual effect"? As far as I understand it without the VFX of Avatar I'd be watching a green screen rather than a black one. 

Huh? Why are you complicating things? Visual effects are exactly that: they are visually appealing EFFECTS added to a movie for storytelling's sake. It can be as simple as something like an explosion that's executed through VFX (vs. a practical effect, which a form of visual effect that involves an actual real explosion), a detail that is added to a cutscene w/VFX (like, say, Iron Man's CGI suit on top of a real set), or a cutscene that's shot entirely on a green screen (not on location as there are no effects needed for those shooting sites). Those are visual effects. Visual is the movie itself: it's something that you can SEE, just like a painting. That's your distinction, right there.

 

And yes, you would be watching mostly a green screen if Avatar had no CGI, but it's not like the movie couldn't have been executed without CGI. You still have the story, characters and acting there, those being just as important elements of filmmaking as any effects. And it could've been shot in a jungle w/real blue makeup and practical effects-created creatures. There. It's not like a book, where if you take out the text, you have nothing left.

Edited February 14, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I was directly referring to what he said when he said "Avatar wasn't a great film if you take out the visuals".

 

Huh? Why are you complicating things? Visual effects are exactly that: they are visually appealing EFFECTS added to a movie for storytelling's sake. It can be as simple as something like an explosion that's executed through VFX (vs. a practical effect, which a form of visual effect that involves an actual real explosion), a detail that is added to a cutscene w/VFX (like, say, Iron Man's CGI suit on top of a real set), or a cutscene that's shot entirely on a green screen (not on location as there are no effects needed for those shooting sites). Those are visual effects. Visual is the movie itself: it's something that you can SEE, just like a painting. That's your distinction, right there.

 

Also, how can it be so hard to understand - he implied that, to him, Avatar's only positive were the visual effects, and not anything else. If anything, he's defending the CGI in Avatar (just shitting on the movie around the CGI).

For Avatar specifically though, most the film is green screen.. CGI.. visual effects.

[MCKillswitch123]

6 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

For Avatar specifically though, most the film is green screen.. CGI.. visual effects.

Yeah, I edited my post too late, but I'll repost what I said there: yes, Avatar is mostly CGI and you'd be looking at a green screen if the CGI was unfinished.

 

However, the story, the characters and the actors would still be there. The movie wouldn't be stripped of everything that makes it a movie, and if you wanted to finish it, you could just throw those things on top of, say, a real jungle, put actual makeup on the artists, etc., and there you go.

 

While in a book, if you take out the text, you take out pretty much everything from the book.

 

That's the difference.

Edited February 14, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[TomCruiseTop]

18 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I was directly referring to what he said when he said "Avatar wasn't a great film if you take out the visuals".

 

Huh? Why are you complicating things? Visual effects are exactly that: they are visually appealing EFFECTS added to a movie for storytelling's sake. It can be as simple as something like an explosion that's executed through VFX (vs. a practical effect, which a form of visual effect that involves an actual real explosion), a detail that is added to a cutscene w/VFX (like, say, Iron Man's CGI suit on top of a real set), or a cutscene that's shot entirely on a green screen (not on location as there are no effects needed for those shooting sites). Those are visual effects. Visual is the movie itself: it's something that you can SEE, just like a painting. That's your distinction, right there.

 

And yes, you would be watching mostly a green screen if Avatar had no CGI, but it's not like the movie couldn't have been executed without CGI. You still have the story, characters and acting there, those being just as important elements of filmmaking as any effects. And it could've been shot in a jungle w/real blue makeup and practical effects-created creatures. There. It's not like a book, where if you take out the text, you have nothing left.

So a visual effect isn't visual? I am totally confused right now. 

[MCKillswitch123]

3 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

So a visual effect isn't visual? I am totally confused right now. 

Ok, I'm gonna explain this to you as if you were very dumb and you needed those school systems you criticized to help you right now: a visual effect is something that's visual and that is added on top of the movie (which is also visual) through post-production.

 

Got it now, or are you gonna continue to be stubborn about a pointless argument? Because at this point, only you have not seen that to say a movie is nothing without visual effects is not AT ALL the same thing as to say a book is nothing without text. Actually, I'm pretty sure you have, but because the original sentence was sent in a negative fashion towards a JC movie, you had to argue it.

[TomCruiseTop]

37 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Ok, I'm gonna explain this to you as if you were very dumb and you needed those school systems you criticized to help you right now: a visual effect is something that's visual and that is added on top of the movie (which is also visual) through post-production.

 

Got it now, or are you gonna continue to be stubborn about a pointless argument? Because at this point, only you have not seen that to say a movie is nothing without visual effects is not AT ALL the same thing as to say a book is nothing without text. Actually, I'm pretty sure you have, but because the original sentence was sent in a negative fashion towards a JC movie, you had to argue it.

I never mentioned visual effects, that was you, I was talking about visuals from the start. I'm still no clearer as to the distinction between the two. So a purely black screen is to you a visual? If I draw a white line on that screen that white line is a visual effect? Am I getting this right? 

[MCKillswitch123]

28 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I never mentioned visual effects, that was you, I was talking about visuals from the start. I'm still no clearer as to the distinction between the two. So a purely black screen is to you a visual? If I draw a white line on that screen that white line is a visual effect? Am I getting this right? 

Okay, 1st of all, only someone who is so blinded by their fanboyism cannot see that there is no chance that the guy was not referring to the CGI of Avatar. 2nd, I bet that if he had said "Avatar had great visuals", you would've immediately what he meant.

 

And 3rd, yes, a black screen, to me, is something that's visual. Cause I see a black screen w/my eyes, and if that's the 'movie' the director wants to me to see, then sure. While a white line is indeed a visual effect if it's added through post. And of course, a visual effect is also something that's visual. See, pretty easy. 

 

I'm just gonna let you talk to yourself at this point, since I am just wasting my time w/someone who will not let go of stupid arguments unless I say "James Cameron is the best at everything, and Avatar would be a big black screen if it didn't have CGI".

Edited February 14, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[TomCruiseTop]

5 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

And 3rd, yes, a black screen, to me, is something that's visual. Cause I see a black screen w/my eyes, and if that's the 'movie' the director wants to me to see, then sure. While a white line is indeed a visual effect if it's added through post. And of course, a visual effect is also something that's visual. See, pretty easy. 

So lets say I shoot a black screen, and then paint the entire thing in white in post. How would you differentiate 'visual' from 'VFX' under that circumstance? 

 

Edit: I see you've given up - I'll leave you with this: 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by JamesCameronScholar

[MCKillswitch123]

4 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

So lets say I shoot a black screen, and then paint the entire thing in white in post. How would you differentiate 'visual' from 'VFX' under that circumstance? 

 

Edit: I see you've given up - I'll leave you with this: 

 

I had to break what I said about letting you talk to yourself, but see, that's really funny... coming from a guy who responded to "take away the visuals and Avatar is not a very good film" with "Infinite Jest, take away the text, and it really just wasn't a great book".

 

If you can't understand something well enough (like understanding damn well what someone means when they say "visuals" in a forum about Hollywood movies), then maybe you shouldn't be talking about it either.