What's something modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?

[jamespowers]

Shhhh, if that gets around he'll never buttle again.

There is no one today worth buttling for.

 

[Tomasso]

There is no one today worth buttling for.

Not a one out of 7 billion?

 

[Stearmen]

Go buy one dude.

I would, but all my money is tied up in motorcycle futures!

 

[Zombie_61]

modern action movies use too much CGI for special effects, I prefer the old school special effects when they actually made props and used real locations

these days all the movies are like watching a kids video game, like the last Planet of the Apes movie, all the stunts were modern CGI and looked like a cartoon

I dont want to pay to go to a movie to watch a bunch of phoney looking CGI, even the explosions are fake and look just like a cheap video game.

I agree with you; I much prefer practical effects over CGI. That said, I've seen my fair share of poorly done practical effects over the years as well. In a discussion about practical vs CG effects on another forum, one of the members made this comment about CGI: "It still looks fake, it just looks fake in a way we're not used to yet." And I think he was right.

 

[jamespowers]

Not a one out of 7 billion?

Not a one.

 

[jamespowers]

I would, but all my money is tied up in motorcycle futures!

lol lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree with you; I much prefer practical effects over CGI. That said, I've seen my fair share of poorly done practical effects over the years as well. In a discussion about practical vs CG effects on another forum, one of the members made this comment about CGI: "It still looks fake, it just looks fake in a way we're not used to yet." And I think he was right.

Personally, I think radio has much better special effects than movies.

 

[Tomasso]

Yep, the theater of the mind trumps anything you'll see at the cinema.

 

[sheeplady]

I agree with you; I much prefer practical effects over CGI. That said, I've seen my fair share of poorly done practical effects over the years as well. In a discussion about practical vs CG effects on another forum, one of the members made this comment about CGI: "It still looks fake, it just looks fake in a way we're not used to yet." And I think he was right.

This is why certain films stand the test of time... look at a film like Bladerunner. Still a spectacular movie. The opening sequence when they are flying over the city is still as dramatic and realistic looking as it was decades ago.

Although, my husband and I just watched the Jurassic Park movies, and the CGI was pretty well done in that movie for the dinosaurs- at least as good as some of today's CGI- and that was 20 years ago.

But, to counter that, I found the first Hobbit movie to be overly CGIed.

 

[Zombie_61]

...Although, my husband and I just watched the Jurassic Park movies, and the CGI was pretty well done in that movie for the dinosaurs- at least as good as some of today's CGI- and that was 20 years ago...

Here's my theory on that. We've never actually seen dinosaurs in real life, so it's easier to "sell" that imagery as being realistic. But when they use CGI to replicate humans, animals, cars, aircraft, etc., i.e. things that we see in everyday life, it's much more difficult to "sell" them because everyone has a real-life frame of reference to compare those images to, and our brains immediately recognize movements and proportions that don't ring true.

One of the things Jurassic Park did brilliantly was blending the practical effects with the CG effects. For example, Stan Winston Studio built a full-size Tyrannosaurus Rex (and other mechanical creatures) for the movie. While most special effects artists and makeup artists were worrying about CGI artists taking jobs away from them, Stan Winston embraced the new technology and worked with the CGI artists to make sure most audiences wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the practical/physical creatures and the CG creatures.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I think one of the worst CGI movies was the new 'Planet of the Apes' which has been repeatedly shown on TV. Just so gawd awful that I couldn't even come close to making it through the whole thing. The special affects of the monkey's action and swinging movements are so terrible that it made me immediately change channels.
HD

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think one of the worst CGI movies was the new 'Planet of the Apes' which has been repeatedly shown on TV. Just so gawd awful that I couldn't even come close to making it through the whole thing. The special affects of the monkey's action and swinging movements are so terrible that it made me immediately change channels.
HD

Well then you're in luck as I just saw a preview for a sequel.

[video=youtube;v0wP5ZkaUGg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=v0wP5ZkaUGg[/video]

 

[sheeplady]

Here's my theory on that. We've never actually seen dinosaurs in real life, so it's easier to "sell" that imagery as being realistic. But when they use CGI to replicate humans, animals, cars, aircraft, etc., i.e. things that we see in everyday life, it's much more difficult to "sell" them because everyone has a real-life frame of reference to compare those images to, and our brains immediately recognize movements and proportions that don't ring true.

Yes, you get a bad case of uncanny valley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

When a movie is overly CGIed, I feel like it's not acting in front of a green screen. Acting is something you do in the presence of things and people- not in front of an empty screen. It may be harder to act in front of a green screen, but I feel like it is not really acting. I am sure people said the same about theater versus film.

 

[Jeremy James Cook]

Cocktail Party at the British Library next Friday
Hello, my name is Jeremy and I have just joined Fedora Lounge. cannot see how to start a new thread, hence I am posting on this thread to say that we need more people to come to a 1920s style cocktail party next Friday at the British Museum in London. In particular we would like to get a few more blokes to come as most attendees coming at the moment are women (fashion industry). The cocktail party takes place in the entertainment room of the British Library and follows a talk on 1920s Hollywood fashions. The famous art deco band 'Alex Mendham and his Orchestra' will be playing on the night. regarding what to wear there is no rigid dresscode in case it might deter people from coming but I would have thought black-tie would be expected given nature of event. best of all cocktail party only costs £5 as event is sponsored by an American cultural organisation. below are details of the event, or if you would like to see original website then please see - http://www.bl.uk/whatson/exhibition...er&ns_source=blogs&ns_linkname=glitz&ns_fee=0 or to book a ticket please look at separate website - http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/puttin-on-the-glitz-the-cocktail-party-tickets-6101532849?aff=efbbt


Puttin' on the Glitz - Fashion & Film in the Jazz Age


Fri 28 Mar 2014, 18.30-22.30

Conference Centre, British Library

£8, (£6 Over 60s) and £5

Amber Jane Butchart

Book now for 28 Mar 2014


Film Pictorial Annual 1935, British Library Shelfmark PP.1912.FECFashion extraordinaire Amber Jane Butchart transports you to the glitz and glamour of Jazz Age Hollywood and the costumes that took London by storm. She draws on the Library's collection of vintage magazines in this talk with Christopher Laverty, editor of the popular blog Clothes on Film, who examines the flamboyantly dressed 'Dandy Gangster' as portrayed in the HBO series Boardwalk Empire.

Joan Crawford in Letty Lynton,MGM, clothesonfilm.comFrom Theda Bara and Ginger Rogers to the costume designers who became celebrities in their own right, Amber explores fashion on the big screen during the 1920s – 30s. Magazines like Photoplay and Vogue featured Hollywood stars and every detail of their costumes, exciting fans and retailers to recreate dresses like the famous ruffled gown worn by Joan Crawford in the 1932 film Letty Lynton.

London Art Fashion Journal, July 1900.British Library Images Online

Gangsters from the 1920s Prohibition era cared more for their suits, hats and shoes than anything else. They wore lavish fabrics and glaringly bright tones. Chris examines the history of the 'dandy gangster' and the specifics of his attire. He gives us exclusive access to the costumes in award-winning series Boardwalk Empire and the influence these colourful men still have on fashion today.

This event is perfect for fashion designers and students, bloggers, costume designers, film-makers and anyone interested in fashion and film.

Followed by a cocktail party hosted by The Vintage Mafia.


Step into our boudoir and get your hair done in jazz-age style by Pretty Me Vintage before getting snapped in Hanson Leatherby’s Travelling Portrait Studio. The Vintage News will be interviewing the glitziest guests and Alex Mendham and his Orchestra - the UK’s foremost deco era dance band – will make you Charleston the night away!

Sponsored by The Eccles Centre for American Studies. Food by Peyton & Byrne.

If you can only join us for the cocktail party, please book your tickets here.

About the speakers:

Amber Jane Butchart

Amber Jane Butchart photo by Jo DuckFashion historian, writer, broadcaster and lecturer at London College of Fashion, Amber's website Theatre of Fashion is recommended by the British Fashion Council and Italian Grazia. She's appeared on BBC and has been featured in Vogue and the Guardian. Her book Amber Jane Butchart's Fashion Miscellany is out in February 2014 published by Ilex.

Christopher Laverty

Christopher Laverty photo by David WadeWriter and broadcaster Christopher Laverty has written for Mr Porter, Stylist and Empire and has been featured on HBO television. He's the creator of Clothes on Film which has made countless 'best blogs' lists, is endorsed by Ralph Lauren and hailed by BBC Radio 6 DJ Lauren Laverne as a 'Proper indie website made with mad love for its subject'.

 

[Gregg Axley]

Spammers.

 

[Zombie_61]

I think one of the worst CGI movies was the new 'Planet of the Apes' which has been repeatedly shown on TV. Just so gawd awful that I couldn't even come close to making it through the whole thing. The special affects of the monkey's action and swinging movements are so terrible that it made me immediately change channels.
HD

I never once believed Caesar or any of the other apes in Rise of the Planet of the Apes were living breathing creatures, but then I never believed Cornelius, Zira, or any of the ape characters in the original Planet of the Apes movies from the late-60s and early-70s were actually apes either; sometimes it all boils down to how much you're willing to suspend disbelief. With Rise of the Planet of the Apes I found it engaging enough to be able to accept the fact that Caesar didn't look real, put it aside fairly quickly, and get on with watching the movie. [huh]

 

[Zombie_61]

Spammers.

I haven't seen that one yet. Was it any good?

 

[HudsonHawk]

This is why certain films stand the test of time... look at a film like Bladerunner. Still a spectacular movie. The opening sequence when they are flying over the city is still as dramatic and realistic looking as it was decades ago.

Blade Runner is a MASTERPIECE!

 

[rjb1]

"Here's my theory on that. We've never actually seen dinosaurs in real life, so it's easier to "sell" that imagery as being realistic. But when they use CGI to replicate humans, animals, cars, aircraft, etc., i.e. things that we see in everyday life, it's much more difficult to "sell" them because everyone has a real-life frame of reference to compare those images to, and our brains immediately recognize movements and proportions that don't ring true."
You are absolutely right. The "uncanny valley" concept is mostly psychological and applies mostly to humanoid images.
For most everything else there are engineering rules of scaling that have to be met that determine whether smaller-scale or animated items look real or function realistically or not. Engineers use these to properly design small-scale models for wind tunnel testing and such (including movie special effects).
The three rules are that the model has to have proper geometric scaling, proper kinematic scaling, and proper dynamic scaling. These mean that it has to look right (length scales the same), have the same velocity ratios (kinematic similarity), and have the same force ratios (dynamic similarity).
The best place I know to see this is the "Destruction of Washington, DC." scene in the movie "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers". When the aliens destroy the Washington Monument and other buildings, the wreckage falls at an "odd" rate and you can see that it's wrong even if you have never heard of the three rules of scaling (and few have). We know how things fall (non-linearly, not linearly) and as you said, "our brains immediately recognize movements and proportions that don't ring true."
Whether the movie special effects are CGI-generated or small-scale with real objects, if the three rules of scaling are met they look good, otherwise they don't.

 

[sheeplady]

Blade Runner is a MASTERPIECE!

Totally and entirely agree.