Starring: Ben Stiller

 

Directed By: Shawn Levy

 

Release Date: Christmas

Trailer | IMDB | Official Site

This seems like a really good idea for a movie, should be entertaining.

 

oh and I'm a big teddy roosevelt fan

The concept is funny, though I don't know if I'll check it out in theaters.

Is this Jumanji 3?

Everyone should visit this museum at least once in their lifetime.

Is this Jumanji 3?

Its Indian in the Cupboard meets Jumanji.

Actually doesn't look too bad and that's coming from someone who hates CGI.

Yeah, we get it, you hate CGI. You're so much more elite than us. Go watch some claymation movies.

Actually doesn't look too bad and that's coming from someone who hates CGI.

Yeah, we get it, you hate CGI. You're so much more elite than us. Go watch some claymation movies.

 

Are you hating on Wallace and Gromit?

 

OMG CGI IS SO OVERRATED! Hollywood bamboozlers!

This movie looks rather stupid besides Robin Williams as Teddy.

Actually doesn't look too bad and that's coming from someone who hates CGI.

Yeah, we get it, you hate CGI. You're so much more elite than us. Go watch some claymation movies.

 

Where did I say I was better than anyone? It's just a personal preference based on experience. I'd rather take pre-CGI entertainment films over snoozefests like the King Kongs, new Star Wars, etc.

 

And that brings up another point, if you want to see a direct consequence of the implementation of CGI, look at the two different eras of Star Wars films. There lies your answer.

 

 

And are you studying to be a animated graphics designer or something? You are the only one that ever flips sh*t whenever I mention my dislike of CGI and yet when I provide my reasons you never respond. If there is a point to be made, please make it.

 

I think it's stupid to get all worked up over CGI, but who cares?

Actually doesn't look too bad and that's coming from someone who hates CGI.

Yeah, we get it, you hate CGI. You're so much more elite than us. Go watch some claymation movies.

 

Where did I say I was better than anyone? It's just a personal preference based on experience. I'd rather take pre-CGI entertainment films over snoozefests like the King Kongs, new Star Wars, etc.

 

And that brings up another point, if you want to see a direct consequence of the implementation of CGI, look at the two different eras of Star Wars films. There lies your answer.

 

 

And are you studying to be a animated graphics designer or something? You are the only one that ever flips sh*t whenever I mention my dislike of CGI and yet when I provide my reasons you never respond. If there is a point to be made, please make it.

No, I'm not studying to be a graphics designer, however, you constantly mention your dislike for CGI as if it's some badge of honor amongst movie elitists.

 

So wait...because the OT didn't have CGI it's innately a better film? I'll go ahead and agree that they're better, but they're far from excellent films. Also, I felt King Kong was a very good movie that's main flaw had nothing whatsoever to do with CGI, but more to do with horrible pacing and plotholes and questions left unanswered in a sloppy way.

 

I don't see how CGI makes a movie bad or unenjoyable. Heck, in a lot of movies, it's one of the only redeeming qualities.

Sin City effectively used CGI.

 

But, yeah, Lucas and his overuse of it sucks.

 

The right director though can the exactly what you say they're not, however; kind of early in CGI's use to say, "I hate ALL CGI because..." But, like I said, it's a moot point.

So, you see a long list of a hundred names and immediately discount it because it's CGI?

 

I'm not a big Lord of the Rings fan either, but it looked damn good. Plus, it's hard to discount it's awesome use in Terminator 2. I don't see how it was used any differently. I mean, Terminator 2 used CGI NOT NEARLY to the extent that Lord of the Rings did, but I fail to see how it ruined the movie in any way. I mean, it's not like you see CGI and come to the realization it's fake.

 

I think you're having more of a problem with the genre and directorial/story aspects and blaming it on CGI. If you don't like Toy Story, that's your problem. But I thought it was such a visual bombardment of color that it was worthwhile.

 

Plus, with your complaints it seems like you could make that argument about movies in general. "I like these movies, but there's a whole lot of crap out there," seems to be your general thesis, which has almost nothing to do with CGI.

Gee, weak scripts weren't produced before CGI? Who knew. Guess it's the downfall of movies as we know it.

Gee, weak scripts weren't produced before CGI? Who knew. Guess it's the downfall of movies as we know it.

If you read my post you would have noticed the part where I said bad movies were indeed made before the 1990s' rise of CGI. And you also would have noticed the part where I said the current weaker scripts are more noticeably bad because excessive and repetitive visuals detract from ANY screenplay (good or bad) no matter how you cut it.

 

Our current bad films are proportionately worse because scripts that were BAD to begin with lose their human elements and promote that detached silicon world mentality. An emphasis on a purely silicon world undermines art as a whole. The Covenant was one of the worst films I've seen. The screenplay was bad but if the tedious and repetitive visuals made the movie a chore to watch. That's why new bad movies are worse than old bad movies.

 

And this is the third time I've said this.

 

Buckeye if you aren't going to take the time to read my posts and respond intelligently I'm not going to take the time to attempt to refute what you are saying anymore.

 

"Silicon world undermines art as a whole," right. I'm guessing you're in an intro to film class right now?

 

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and the exact same thing was said about film 60-70 years ago.

I heard Ben Stiller was in a new movie.

Gee, weak scripts weren't produced before CGI? Who knew. Guess it's the downfall of movies as we know it.

If you read my post you would have noticed the part where I said bad movies were indeed made before the 1990s' rise of CGI. And you also would have noticed the part where I said the current weaker scripts are more noticeably bad because excessive and repetitive visuals detract from ANY screenplay (good or bad) no matter how you cut it.

 

Our current bad films are proportionately worse because scripts that were BAD to begin with lose their human elements and promote that detached silicon world mentality. An emphasis on a purely silicon world undermines art as a whole. The Covenant was one of the worst films I've seen. The screenplay was bad but if the tedious and repetitive visuals made the movie a chore to watch. That's why new bad movies are worse than old bad movies.

 

And this is the third time I've said this.

 

Buckeye if you aren't going to take the time to read my posts and respond intelligently I'm not going to take the time to attempt to refute what you are saying anymore.

 

"Silicon world undermines art as a whole," right. I'm guessing you're in an intro to film class right now?

 

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and the exact same thing was said about film 60-70 years ago.

 

I don't believe in film classes. This is the second time you've accused me of this. I'm against them philosophically. :thumbup

 

And I don't know what you mean by the 60-70 years comment. You may feel the need to quote textbooks, but that won't really help you any.

My point is film wasn't seen as an art form and merely a diversionary or entertainment facility for idiot masses. They just didn't think pioneers like Chaplain were creating art. You're essentially saying the same thing about CGI.

 

Phyl's original post was correct. Everytime it comes up you have to jump on it.

Gee, weak scripts weren't produced before CGI? Who knew. Guess it's the downfall of movies as we know it.

If you read my post you would have noticed the part where I said bad movies were indeed made before the 1990s' rise of CGI. And you also would have noticed the part where I said the current weaker scripts are more noticeably bad because excessive and repetitive visuals detract from ANY screenplay (good or bad) no matter how you cut it.

 

Our current bad films are proportionately worse because scripts that were BAD to begin with lose their human elements and promote that detached silicon world mentality. An emphasis on a purely silicon world undermines art as a whole. The Covenant was one of the worst films I've seen. The screenplay was bad but if the tedious and repetitive visuals made the movie a chore to watch. That's why new bad movies are worse than old bad movies.

 

And this is the third time I've said this.

 

Buckeye if you aren't going to take the time to read my posts and respond intelligently I'm not going to take the time to attempt to refute what you are saying anymore.

 

"Silicon world undermines art as a whole," right. I'm guessing you're in an intro to film class right now?

 

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and the exact same thing was said about film 60-70 years ago.

 

I don't believe in film classes. This is the second time you've accused me of this. I'm against them philosophically. :thumbup

 

And I don't know what you mean by the 60-70 years comment. You may feel the need to quote textbooks, but that won't really help you any.

My point is film wasn't seen as an art form and merely a diversionary or entertainment facility for idiot masses. They just didn't think pioneers like Chaplain were creating art. You're essentially saying the same thing about CGI.

 

No, I am most definitely not saying the same thing about CGI. All film stylistic techniques up to CGI were essentially humane, while CGI exists predominantly in a SILICON LIFE world. You are leading me to think you don't understand what silicon based biochemistry entails, based on that comment. Just try to picture the manner in which we as human beings can detach ourselves from our creations most significantly.

 

 

There is most definitely NO precedent for this aspect of filmmaking. And I don't even know why you are clinging to that one aspect so heavily since it clearly wasn't that main point of my argument. It was merely an observation of how detached from humanity cinema as an art is now becoming.

 

I honestly think you pulled that out of your butt. SILICON LIFE, come on. It's not any different than the PAINTED or DRAWN life Disney offers. And yet you offered that as an alternative or better. How is CGI any more or less detached than cartoons, really?

Because hand drawn animation is more directly affected by human artistry and can be entirely unique from one artist to another. Hand drawing makes the art completely yours, while in computer animation you owe much to the program itself. When you render things in a computer program, effects begin to look more uniform. There is NO intermediate.

 

Basically what it comes down to is that it is much more humanizing to know that in production an entire model might have to be rebuilt by human hands for what the shot necessitates, whereas in a CGI model it can be resized, rotated, and desaturated with a few clicks of the mouse.

 

Buckeye you are beginning to become a chore to discuss things with because you hold on to your Film 101 textbook with dear life and dismiss others' opinions without hearing them. You might be skimming the words, but based on your recent responses, you aren't reading them.

 

I've never taken a film class in my life. It's like you stole my line.

 

Doesn't matter, I'm of the opinion you're a complete tool and 90% of what you say is complete b.s.