12-04-2014, 11:26 PM | #41 |
Technodrome Technician
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: third earth
Posts: 4,737
|
saw the trailer and I assumed I was going to see a reboot, but I am not sure now
I actually liked the previous movie "4".
__________________
GT:Reedeamer THE TECHNODROME REDESIGN 2015 http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=51594 |
12-05-2014, 12:19 AM | #42 |
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,321
|
I'm surprised how good Emilia Clarke looks as Sarah Connor. Pretty damn close!
I have no idea what to think of this yet. Terminator 1 and 2 are among my favorite movies. I really disliked 3 and Salvation was bleh. |
12-05-2014, 02:32 AM | #43 |
Foot Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,254
|
That looks pretty cool. Looks like a mix of the original story and T2 in one plot.
Looks like we're gonna get Evil Arnold vs Good Arnold. Thats awesome. I didn't think it needed a reboot but whatever this is looks better than I thought.
__________________
Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything. |
12-05-2014, 02:45 AM | #44 |
The Agenda of Existing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vikingland
Posts: 14,596
|
Looks cool, I'm excited.
I do like the in-canon reboot, since stuff like that can be done with time travel, and you don't have to completely reboot the franchise or ignore the previous movies (similar like the last X-men movie did). I do wish it looked a bit... grittier, more like the first 2 movies, it has a bit too much of a modern movie shine to it. The future technology looks too "modern" to be a futuristic setting based from the 80's. Case in point; Alien Isolation, while being a modern video game, it still keeps the esthetics of the first movie's design of the future intact with casettes and olden times computer screens. |
12-05-2014, 08:13 AM | #45 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2014, 10:50 AM | #46 |
Overlord
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP!
Posts: 20,882
|
Only to people who never moved out of the 20th century
|
12-05-2014, 11:52 AM | #47 |
The Franchise
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,696
|
HAH. You and I agree. Really MUST be "Judgment Day".
__________________
"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/ |
12-05-2014, 10:20 PM | #48 | |
Foot Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,254
|
Quote:
How do people expect movies to look? Of course they look new. They're made today. Just like 90s looked newer than 80s and 80s looked newer than the 70s etc. It just sounds like more "back in the day" talk when I see this. Also what do you mean by the future technology looks too modern? This makes no sense. The future in the series is not set in the 80s. The future looked 80s in the original because the movie was made in the 80s. Not because the future was meant to look retro or whatever. The future is set in 2029. How is it supposed to look? It's meant to portray a long time from the present with really high technology. Obviously in real life were not close to this but in the series it's this way.
__________________
Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything. Last edited by Wildcat; 12-05-2014 at 10:26 PM. |
|
12-05-2014, 10:26 PM | #49 | |
Mutant Tiger
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hialeah, Florida, USA
Posts: 13,815
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2014, 10:34 PM | #50 |
The Franchise
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,696
|
Everybody "understands" just fine, nobody's F'n retarded. It's just that a lot of people think that when everything on screen is blatantly not there and literally everything but the actor's FACE is some CGI paint job, it really doesn't look very good.
When it's used as excessively as is the norm nowadays, CGI looks fake as hell. Whether it's a forgivable sin is up to the individual viewer's choice. I personally say it's lazy when in a lot of cases, practical effects would both look better and not be all that cost-prohibitive. Lots of times the studios Just Don't Feel Like It, and I don't agree with that at all. I mean when it's all blown up in theaters sometimes you can't tell, but watching some of these newer movies at home on a TV it's literally like watching a video game. It's just NOT the best way to do SFX, because the effects simply aren't as convincing. CGI has its place but the fact that it's The Only Way anymore is stupid. It was never supposed to go that far. I understand it's easier to just paint a gun in an actor's hand on a screen than build a goddamn prop, but it sure doesn't look very convincing. It looks like a step up from Roger Rabbit, really.
__________________
"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/ |
12-05-2014, 10:44 PM | #51 | |
Mutant Tiger
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hialeah, Florida, USA
Posts: 13,815
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2014, 10:48 PM | #52 |
The Franchise
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,696
|
Not quite, it's that it's become over-used even in places where it's entirely not necessary, to an overall detrimental effect. It's NOT just used to "enhance" things; they don't even make costumes anymore in some cases. When it's actually used right, you can do some neat things, but just slapping it all over everything because you can usually looks terrible.
__________________
"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/ |
12-05-2014, 10:52 PM | #53 | |
Mutant Tiger
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hialeah, Florida, USA
Posts: 13,815
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2014, 10:54 PM | #54 |
The Franchise
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,696
|
I'm familiar with the common list of Excuses.
"We're not gonna work, we're gonna push buttons" is all it really comes down to.
__________________
"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/ |
12-05-2014, 11:10 PM | #55 |
Foot Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,254
|
Well cgi aside I see the "too new and shiny" complaint for movies that aren't about action or don't require special effects. They're talking more of the look of the movie not the environment or actors.
I've seen people suggest some movies be made to purposely look like they were produced in the 90s or another era. How absurd is this? I know it's more of the usual "older movies were better" thing but some of it is just outrageous. I guess that there's always been stuff like this though. Some people must have criticized the 90s and 80s. Ooh you kids and your new fangled color/animatronics/cgi/high definition resolution...lol
__________________
Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything. Last edited by Wildcat; 12-05-2014 at 11:17 PM. |
12-06-2014, 12:39 AM | #56 | |
The Agenda of Existing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vikingland
Posts: 14,596
|
Quote:
and as a note, it's isn't about CGI, as a 3D modeler and animator, so I of course love CGI. What I meant, was that as a Terminator film set around the time of the first one, It didn't convey the future we saw in the first Terminator movie (granted we didn't see a whole lot). It's not about "new and shiny" It's about esthetically looking in-canon. each decade have their own idea on how the future will look like, for instance, a lot of modern futuristic movies, the future is very "iPad", sleek, minimal deign and touch screens. The future in the 80's not as much. And that's why I used Alien Isolation as an example, as they kept the esthetics of the first movie. Yes, it's set in the future, but it's set in a future designed from the late 70's early 80's, small computer screens with only black backgrounds and green letters, cassettes and big clunky radios. They kept the visuals like the original movie, instead of making a futuristic setting with the mindset from the 201x's. I personally, did not feel that the trailer showed us a similar visual esthetics when it came to the design of the future stuff we saw (like the time traveling machine). The efects are good, but not imo visually and design-wise too much "the future seen by 201x's eyes". Another example. Imagine that the Millennium Falcon, suddenly had a sleek modern Apple design with touch screens and Siri installed in Ep7, because the movie was made in 2014. |
|
12-06-2014, 05:19 AM | #57 |
Mutant Tiger
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hialeah, Florida, USA
Posts: 13,815
|
Its like that whole argument over film vs digital, Some prefer the look of film over digital, cause they like the graininess, other like the more clean look of digital. the advantages over digital is, they don't have to go through the trouble of scanning the film on a computer, with film they have to scan the entire 35mm to digital format, when they have to work on post production effects and stuff.
|
12-06-2014, 06:12 AM | #58 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
I think they wanted to be able to explain why the future (our present) doesn't look like they thought it would in the 80's, or again, in the 90's, etc. I think they're trying to straighten out the multiple timelines, the way X-men did this year. They also want to reconcile why the predicted events that were suppose to unfold over the last few decades, didn't. Time travels tricky, so they say. |
|
12-06-2014, 09:14 AM | #59 |
The Agenda of Existing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vikingland
Posts: 14,596
|
It was a minor nitpick, that I apparently had to explain in better detail.
It had nothing to do with film vs. digital, or cgi vs. practical. It's simply about the esthetics and the looks, and that they did not mesh as well between Terminator 1 and this movie. From the trailer it didn't look like they went the extra mile to make it seem like a post-apocalyptic setting in the vein of an 80's movie (which the future in Terminator is) the atmosphere wasn't there, close but no cigar. But then again its only a trailer. |
12-06-2014, 10:44 AM | #60 |
Megan Fox = April
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tokio, Italy
Posts: 9,999
|
I'm a casual fan of Terminator, I like the movies but while I do agree the first two are better I don't think they're classic films by any means, just good action movies. I thought 3 was good for what it was, sure it rehashed ideas but it was entertaining in its own right. I wanted to see Salvation but the bad reviews stirred me away but I love the concept of it actually taking place during the war, to me that was the only way to make the franchise interesting. This new trailer looks like a fun action movie but it doesn't seem to offer anything new, just another alternate timeline rehashing ideas but in a "What if" scenario, that's cool too but its nothing new, so yeah this is sort of a soft reboot the way I see it. Hell with the contradicting ways the timetravel works in this universe I don't see why people said Sarah Connors Chronicles was not in continuity, it fits perfectly in this convoluted mess of a timeline. And talking about that show I only saw the first half but really enjoyed it.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|