Page 131 of 824 FirstFirst ... 3181121127128129130131132133134135141181231631 ... LastLast
Results 1,951 to 1,965 of 12359
  1. #1951
    of Earth-1610 RockyBanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jer View Post
    I like meeting the people at the comic shop. And everytime I go, I pick up a couple of singles.

  2. #1952
    Back to formula?! Sinx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    3,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sage6paths View Post
    Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer
    Rofl. That was pretty good and very accurate.
    Aquaman Aquaman and the Others Batman Batman and Robin Justice League Wonder Woman Star Trek Brilliant Black Science Manifest Destiny Morning Glories Saga Shutter The Wake

  3. #1953
    On Vacation
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,712

    Default


  4. #1954
    Viridescent Time_to_Zap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The broccoli aisle
    Posts
    6,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jer View Post
    College applications? I thought you were much younger! ....

    Look. 1st rule. Don't Panic!

    As for Fifty years, whoa man. Stop and think on the now.

    What do you like to do, learn, favorite academic subject?

    Then once you narrowed that down. Find out about the possible job opportunities in that field and then see what you would like to major in.

    If you're really having that much trouble deciding, put down "Undecided" and figure out the details later.

    And believe me, we've all went through it. And it's all worked out.

    You seem really smart, as long as you don't get lazy. You will do just fine.
    Thanks to you and everyone else who offered me advice here. I appreciate it.

    And lol, Jer, I knew I acted immature online, but hopefully not THAT much. ^_^
    "Before you save anyone else, you have to save yourself."
    ~Gregory Maguire

  5. #1955
    Just kick it Jer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chi-Town
    Posts
    9,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Time_to_Zap View Post
    Thanks to you and everyone else who offered me advice here. I appreciate it.

    And lol, Jer, I knew I acted immature online, but hopefully not THAT much. ^_^
    Welll when you wouldn't tell us your age.
    I assumed it was because you were like 11 and your parents didn't want you talking to comic book geeks.

    Plus, you also said you wasn't allowed to drive yet. But maybe that was someone else. ... in anycase.

    Have fun going to college. Do you have any particular school in mind?
    Any scientist who isn't willing to kill for science isn't really a scientist at all.

  6. #1956

    Default

    Anyone here following the current Death of the Family arc in the Batman comics. It's been a while since I've closely followed the Batman comics. I didn't really get heavily into Court of the Owls. But after reading Batman #13, I've been totally hooked on this arc. The Joker is a great character and one of the best villains of all time, but there are times when I find stories that involve him to be overly goofy. This is not one of those stories. Not only does he have a very creepy and re-attached face, but he seems to have an entirely new approach to tormenting Batman. He's a Joker that has more of the Dark Knight elements, which I think has made the story all the more compelling. Anyone else here feel the same way? Or do they miss the more playful Joker as some have said on the Batman forum?
    Join me on the official website for X-men Supreme, home of Marvel Universe 1015. Want a fresh take on X-men? Click below to enter the official home of Marvel at it's most Supreme!

    X-men Supreme

  7. #1957
    of Earth-1610 RockyBanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarvelMaster616 View Post
    Anyone here following the current Death of the Family arc in the Batman comics. It's been a while since I've closely followed the Batman comics. I didn't really get heavily into Court of the Owls. But after reading Batman #13, I've been totally hooked on this arc. The Joker is a great character and one of the best villains of all time, but there are times when I find stories that involve him to be overly goofy. This is not one of those stories. Not only does he have a very creepy and re-attached face, but he seems to have an entirely new approach to tormenting Batman. He's a Joker that has more of the Dark Knight elements, which I think has made the story all the more compelling. Anyone else here feel the same way? Or do they miss the more playful Joker as some have said on the Batman forum?
    Funny-trickster Joker is fun, but overdone; creepy-serial-killer Joker is a refreshing change IMO.

  8. #1958
    On Vacation
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,712

    Default

    "Episodes 3 & 4" - Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome


  9. #1959
    of Earth-1610 RockyBanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Hey Plawsky, got anything fun planned for your 5000th post?

  10. #1960
    On Vacation
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RockyBanks View Post
    Funny-trickster Joker is fun, but overdone; creepy-serial-killer Joker is a refreshing change IMO.
    I agree. As someone who is used to the animated trickster Joker this evil Joker is so much more appealing. Don't get me wrong I like the Mark Hamil joker but sometiems it borders on the too funny line and then nothing becomes serious. Snyder's is a really goo mixd of the two. Every tricksterish action by the Joker always has this menacing aspect to it. I went to the Bat boards and there are a lot of haters. I wonder why because so far I am enjoying everything Snyder does. I think I said it before but he is the Hickman of the DC world. Hickman is very knowledgeable about science and snyder shows it here. He is awesome in my opinion.


  11. #1961
    Ultimate Mod! Plawsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    7,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RockyBanks View Post
    Hey Plawsky, got anything fun planned for your 5000th post?
    Oh crap... I didn't realize that was coming up! I've got some fun stuff planned, but it's not ready to go yet. I suppose I could post a preview for #5000. I just can't post 8 more times while I'm at work today*. Guess I have to be productive, huh? That's no fun.

    *For the record, I'm a glorified secretary. I have tons of free time at work where I'm required to sit at a desk and wait for phone calls and emails. So it's not like I'm blowing off my duties. I'm still a good person.
    I like Ultimate Comics. - Read them with us!

    I also buy: Captain America, Avengers, FF, New Avengers, X-Factor, among others

  12. #1962
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plawsky View Post
    Nothing proved me wrong at all. I said it can't look real. That CGI is great. And I've already mentioned how much I really like the CGI that's in a lot of video game cutscenes now. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still clearly CGI.
    But eight years on from that, facial rendering is more astounding than ever. To literally the point where it almost convinces you it's real. In The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Brad Pitt is practically all CGI. And Lucas Arts and ILM have the potential to go one step further.

    At no point during that FF trailer did I think those were real people. As for the Superman video, assuming you're talking about this one, the same thing applies. It looks great, but it doesn't look real.
    That FF trailer is eight years old and that Christopher Reeve rendering was cheaply made. The fact that you think they look great, is testament to the sheer awesomeness of today's standards. A full CGI Star Wars trilogy would look a hell of a lot better than the Prequel Trilogy ever did.

    I never said anything about wanting actors in a green room - but I would prefer that over no actors at all. If your goal is for something to look real, it has to be real people. Not almost real or realistic or close - REAL. I have nothing against CGI movies, but that's not what Star Wars should be.
    I suppose I can't really argue your opinon. But consider this. Real actors in an all CGI environment looks awful. The very transition of it makes the prequel trilogy barely watchable, and that's before you even consider the over-paid, terrible acting. You say real actors look better in Star Wars, and you're entitled to that opinon, but I strongly disagree. LucasArts in the past few years have created CGI lightsaber battles that are head and shoulders above any of action sequences in the movies. Star Wars has moved on from that, and as a result, it looks better than ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockyBanks View Post
    Do you guys prefer to fill out your collections by picking up trades or by tracking down back issues?
    I buy almost everything in collected editions and my monthly pull list is reasonably small, although it will be increasing now thanks to MarvelNOW!. I collect Ultimate Comics in both collected format and monthly issues, and all of the monthly stuff I really, really love, I also collect in trade later.

    I too have been thinking of just following one Ultimate title monthly, but I NEED to find out what happens each month, despite it being pretty expensive buying everything twice.

    I bought the first two Compendiums of The Walking Dead before collecting it in issues, which I've just started to do. But most of the time with comics I trade wait. I buy a lot of Omnibuses of different series' too, and that's how I generally explore the comicbook world. I think it's a waste of money buying hundreds of issues each year.

    I try out a lot of issue #1s and odd issues of different things every now and then. I'm very happy to dip my toes into all sorts of comicbooks, so I experiment quite a bit each month.

    Quote Originally Posted by sage6paths View Post
    "Episodes 3 & 4" - Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome

    I shall watch these later and PM you my thoughts. I'm still watching that amine, Death Note too. I'll be on episode 12 next.

  13. #1963
    of Earth-1610 RockyBanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie_Jee View Post
    I buy almost everything in collected editions and my monthly pull list is reasonably small, although it will be increasing now thanks to MarvelNOW!. I collect Ultimate Comics in both collected format and monthly issues, and all of the monthly stuff I really, really love, I also collect in trade later.

    I too have been thinking of just following one Ultimate title monthly, but I NEED to find out what happens each month, despite it being pretty expensive buying everything twice.

    I bought the first two Compendiums of The Walking Dead before collecting it in issues, which I've just started to do. But most of the time with comics I trade wait. I buy a lot of Omnibuses of different series' too, and that's how I generally explore the comicbook world. I think it's a waste of money buying hundreds of issues each year.

    I try out a lot of issue #1s and odd issues of different things every now and then. I'm very happy to dip my toes into all sorts of comicbooks, so I experiment quite a bit each month.
    I'm trying to rein in my "OMG MUST SUBSCRIBE OR I WILL MISS OUT AND BE SAD FOREVER" anxiety by cutting my pull list and buying at a more relaxed pace.

    It helps that The Ultimates #18 made me do this:


  14. #1964
    Ultimate Mod! Plawsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    7,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie_Jee View Post
    But eight years on from that, facial rendering is more astounding than ever. To literally the point where it almost convinces you it's real. In The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Brad Pitt is practically all CGI. And Lucas Arts and ILM have the potential to go one step further.
    Yeah, Benjamin Button looked good; there was also a lot of makeup and merging CGI with real video, though. There's a difference between a lot of CGI and only CGI. I can't think of a single time I've seen a CGI actor and thought he was real. Maybe I'll do a double take, but that lasts a few seconds - a minute or two at most. For a whole movie though? I've not seen anything to convince me it can be done.

    That FF trailer is eight years old and that Christopher Reeve rendering was cheaply made. The fact that you think they look great, is testament to the sheer awesomeness of today's standards. A full CGI Star Wars trilogy would look a hell of a lot better than the Prequel Trilogy ever did.
    Like I've said - several times now - looking great is not the same as looking real. I think Aladdin and Toy Story look great, too. But they don't look real. And that's fine, none of them are meant to. The Superman video is supposed to look like a CGI version of Christopher Reeves. And for that, it's outstanding.

    I suppose I can't really argue your opinon. But consider this. Real actors in an all CGI environment looks awful. The very transition of it makes the prequel trilogy barely watchable, and that's before you even consider the over-paid, terrible acting. You say real actors look better in Star Wars, and you're entitled to that opinon, but I strongly disagree. LucasArts in the past few years have created CGI lightsaber battles that are head and shoulders above any of action sequences in the movies. Star Wars has moved on from that, and as a result, it looks better than ever.
    Yeah, the PT was terrible, but that's not the point I'm making.

    -CGI environments: they're no different than CGI people, with the exception that they're easier to do. Avatar looked incredible, and most of that was fake. If the technology is there, as you say it is, to make 100% realistic people, then it's there for the scenery too.
    -Bad acting: that's not a problem that is fixed by CGI. Any realistic CGI is motion captured, so you still need good acting. That's why Andy Serkis is picked to do so much mocap work, because he's good at it. You also need good voice actors.
    -Lightsaber battles: many of the fights in the PT were already done in CGI, so your point is moot there.

    Also, Benjamin Button cost $150 million to make, and that was just one CGI person; everything else was real. The Avengers, which was real actors with a whole lot of CGI scenery only cost $220 million. It's a lot more cost effective to use practical sets and people, rather than going full CGI.

    I'm not saying they shouldn't use CGI - that would be foolish. But it would be a terrible choice to transition from real actors in the first six movies to full CGI in the seventh. Star Wars movies have a certain feel and aesthetic about them, that shouldn't change just because it's a new era. It would be like making a full CGI Bond movie.
    I like Ultimate Comics. - Read them with us!

    I also buy: Captain America, Avengers, FF, New Avengers, X-Factor, among others

  15. #1965
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plawsky View Post
    Yeah, Benjamin Button looked good; there was also a lot of makeup and merging CGI with real video, though. There's a difference between a lot of CGI and only CGI. I can't think of a single time I've seen a CGI actor and thought he was real. Maybe I'll do a double take, but that lasts a few seconds - a minute or two at most. For a whole movie though? I've not seen anything to convince me it can be done.
    I'm simply arguing that real life actors in a CGI environment looks horrendous. That bad transition is completely non-existent with full CGI. Alternatively, it would probably be best to mix CGI environment with real environments, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that when actors are in a green room, everything looks a hell of a lot more 'fake' than if it was done with motion capture instead.

    Like I've said - several times now - looking great is not the same as looking real. I think Aladdin and Toy Story look great, too. But they don't look real. And that's fine, none of them are meant to. The Superman video is supposed to look like a CGI version of Christopher Reeves. And for that, it's outstanding.
    Like I've said - several times now - the examples you're using are nearly a decade old. Toy Story is over a decade old. Technology has moved far beyond the likes of which you're referring to.

    Star Wars and full CGI motion capture is the future. The special effects are simply in a whole different league to actors that aren't motion captured. And since the Star Wars movies ended, this has been proven. Star Wars has come a long way - special effects have come a long way - since Revenge of the Sith. A non-motion captured actor cannot work within a CGI environment. LucasArts have created lightsaber battles since then that look and feel a whole lot more impressive than anything we've seen done in the movies. It's incredible.

    And please ignore the shoddy work of Avatar. The CGI in that was awful. If you disagree with that, we can discuss this further.

    Yeah, the PT was terrible, but that's not the point I'm making.
    Lol. It wasn't mine either. You too have said yourself that they're bad, so why respond like this? You act like I've been reverting away from the subject, which I haven't. I rather you didn't do that.

    -CGI environments: they're no different than CGI people, with the exception that they're easier to do. Avatar looked incredible, and most of that was fake. If the technology is there, as you say it is, to make 100% realistic people, then it's there for the scenery too.
    Well, it looks a hell of a lot better than having actors in a CGI environment. The actors need Mo-Cap.

    And Avatar was all rushed and lacked a lot of attention to detail. Everything they couldn't motion capture looked like a giant bloody pokemon. And when something landed, there was no impact, no soil being flung up, everything was really floaty and light.

    -Bad acting: that's not a problem that is fixed by CGI. Any realistic CGI is motion captured, so you still need good acting. That's why Andy Serkis is picked to do so much mocap work, because he's good at it. You also need good voice actors.
    Uh.. yeah. Motion Capture is what's needed. That's what I've been saying..

    -Lightsaber battles: many of the fights in the PT were already done in CGI, so your point is moot there.
    Much of it was, but most of it wasn't. And the effects failed because of the extreme lack of motion capture. Whereas, the effects were at their best when motion capture WAS used.

    Also, Benjamin Button cost $150 million to make, and that was just one CGI person; everything else was real. The Avengers, which was real actors with a whole lot of CGI scenery only cost $220 million. It's a lot more cost effective to use practical sets and people, rather than going full CGI.
    I'd love to know how much of those budgets went on cast. You seemingly do not consider how far we've come since 2005 in our technology. Star Wars was using special effects that we had back in the late nineties, that Christopher Reeve Superman is FAN-MADE, The Avengers had not just one or two actors to pay a lot of money for, but a very large group of them, all of which probably recieving a pay check similarly to their last films. I rather you didn't talk to me about film budgets when neither of us can accurately assume production costs. This is a desperate argument which I myself will be forced to assume things also, if I am to get into a debate with you about this.

    I'm not saying they shouldn't use CGI - that would be foolish. But it would be a terrible choice to transition from real actors in the first six movies to full CGI in the seventh. Star Wars movies have a certain feel and aesthetic about them, that shouldn't change just because it's a new era. It would be like making a full CGI Bond movie.
    Bond films can use real life environments and don't need to rely on motion capture. These are two huge fundamentals, that you're not considering. And if it did one and not the other, the transition would make the film look very, very fake.

    I think if audiences were to see a full CGI Star Wars Episode VII, they'd be be completely flabbergasted, and would very quickly forget they're watching any CGI. People accepted the horrible renditions of Avatar pretty well, dispite the rushed nature of its animation. A full CGI Star Wars with actors being Mo-Capped would look and feel a great deal better than the plastic feel of the prequel trilogy and would look... the way Star Wars is supposed to look. Star Wars would actually look perfect with today's technology.

    Once again, I suggest you look up some LucasArts Star Wars animation and see what the lightsaber battles looked like almost five years ago. Even then, it was miles and miles ahead of any of the effects displayed in the Star Wars movies. It's so much more impressive than anything the Star Wars franchise has ever produced. That is the future for Star Wars, and I think even the most casual of fans would agree, full heartedly.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •