Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I’ve seen the two Venom movies. And whilst I couldn’t tell you much of anything about them? I’d watch them again, as whilst not brilliant I do recall them being quite good fun.

Honestly, I think my biggest problem with them is that Venom's voice isn't right. It's goofy instead of scary. That and the dodgy CGI, which is disappointingly common in the vast majority of movies these days.

I really, really wish directors would stop using CGI unless they have the budget to do it properly. I would rather have imperfect practical effects than imperfect CGI.

I mean, I don't know how you would do a convincing Venom without CGI, but that doesn't change the point.

 insaniak wrote:
Honestly, I think my biggest problem with them is that Venom's voice isn't right. It's goofy instead of scary. That and the dodgy CGI, which is disappointingly common in the vast majority of movies these days.

I really, really wish directors would stop using CGI unless they have the budget to do it properly. I would rather have imperfect practical effects than imperfect CGI.

I mean, I don't know how you would do a convincing Venom without CGI, but that doesn't change the point.

I mean... they made The Thing without CGI and Terminator 2 with minimal CGI.

The problem is that no part of venom is practical. This stuff ALWAYS looks better when it's CGI enhancing practical instead of pure CGI.

That being said I agree with the voice and goofiness of the character. Instead of doing any of the really good venom stories they seem to have picked his personality out of that run where he was obsessed with eating chocolate and Eddie Brock was cross dressing as a nun.

For what it's worth, I don't mind the stories they choose, and I don't mind the goofiness of the symbiote's behaviour... it's solely the voice I don't like, because it sounds more like Fozzy Bear doing a Venom impression than a fearsome alien predator.

I mean... they made The Thing without CGI and Terminator 2 with minimal CGI.

The problem is that no part of venom is practical. This stuff ALWAYS looks better when it's CGI enhancing practical instead of pure CGI.

Yup, T2 worked because the majority of the time it was just Robert Patrick running around Robert Patricking all over the place, which let them put more time and resources into getting the liquid metal effects right. And as a result, for their time, they were stunning.

But the current trend of using CGI everywhere but having insufficient budget to do that properly is resulting in movies looking significantly worse than they did a decade ago despite the technology being better. And that's disappointing and annoying.

It also runs into the issue of CGI dating faster than practical effects, so even those CGI-heavy movies that are done better to begin with start to look off a very short time later. I remember being blown away by Avatar in the cinema... and amazed by how cartoony it looked on a second watch 4 or 5 years later.

Also worth noting Jurassic Park used a lot of practical effects, despite like T2 being hailed as a CGI milestone.

I’m definitely one for practical with a CGI polish where possible.

Look at Alien Ressurrection. Predominantly practical effects, with CGI reserved for “proper usage”, like the sinuous swimming motion of the Xenomorph, particularly as the underwater setting covered up any rough edges.

And say what you like about the recent Star Wars media, its preponderance of practical over the prequels “CGI EVERYWHERE!” is to their credit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Look at Alien Ressurrection. Predominantly practical effects, with CGI reserved for “proper usage”, like the sinuous swimming motion of the Xenomorph, particularly as the underwater setting covered up any rough edges.

Not to mention Ripley making the basketball shot.

So... finally got around to checking the Last Dance out.

The MacGuffin is nonsense, and there is some amazingly clunky exposition here and there, but otherwise this was fun.

 insaniak wrote:
So... finally got around to checking the Last Dance out.

The MacGuffin is nonsense, and there is some amazingly clunky exposition here and there, but otherwise this was fun.

The MacGuffin made me pause and wonder if GW hasn't tried to copywrite that word. And if they can't, why haven't they switched over to a fun made-up word yet.

I enjoyed a decent chunk of the film, some of it felt like they could've mentioned it in part 1 or Part 2. And some of .

It was worth a rental.

Codex is very much an existing word. Not something you can copyright. It just mostly means book, though "old book" is the more modern usage. In any case, its way too generic to copyright, which is why its the Codex Astartes.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
...made me pause and wonder if GW hasn't tried to copywrite that word. And if they can't, why haven't they switched over to a fun made-up word yet..

You can't 'copyright' a word. That's not what copyright is.

You can register the word as a trademark, which GW did back in 1996. That doesn't stop anyone else from using that word, just from using it in the registered context.

So Warlord Games releasing a rulebook and calling it a Codex would potentially be trademark infringement, but a movie about aliens referring to a nonsensical MacGuffin as a codex is fine.

The same would apply if GW chose to call their rulebooks 'Pageruffle Ruletomes' instead, although that would at least make it less likely that anyone else would be at all interested in using the name in any other context.

Sorry to be a dick here, but not for being a dick in general?

Copyright

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sorry to be a dick here, but not for being a dick in general?

Copyright

Sorry to use the wrong word that sounds like the right word.

And yes I checked... "copywrite" is a real word. Copywrite is a rarely occurring backformation from copywriter—which refers to a writer of copy, especially in advertising.

Copywrite is a word, but I don't think its cannon.

 LunarSol wrote:
Copywrite is a word, but I don't think its cannon.

Good Work.