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.

Seeing Alien first time it came out as a kid. It was scarey. Dang scarey.
Seeing Aiens though its "FETH YA YOU GO COLONIAL MARINES!"

 Wyzilla wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Both we're awesome and completely different in their own right

If your anadult it's probably not going to scare you anyway

The hunt continues however. I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

Thatt's because you aren't willing to suspend disbelief and let yourself be immersed in the movie universe.

At least, that is what I am interpreting from your previous statements. I maybe way off.

I find movies that is not in the horror genera more scary. I like to be scare but I hate being scare or creep out by a movie that is already finished...that is not an enjoyable feeling to me.

I have a list of (top of my head) of film that I can't watch by my self in the dark. Might be stupid to you lol.
Mulholland drive
Blare witch project
Any of david lynch film after muholland drive

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

And fewer Lens Flares!

With apologies to Mr. Abrams and Mr. Bay.

The Auld Grump

 LordofHats wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

You have put your finger on something there. Everything looked well put together and real because it was real.

The computer screens were real. The keyboards were actual keyboards with buttons that punched. The Alien was a very tall, thin Masai man in a suit, not CGI.

It wasn't created in Photoshop and After Effects.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

You have put your finger on something there. Everything looked well put together and real because it was real.

The computer screens were real. The keyboards were actual keyboards with buttons that punched. The Alien was a very tall, thin Masai man in a suit, not CGI.

It wasn't created in Photoshop and After Effects.

I think that's actually why special FX is starting to go back to models, animatronics and puppetry. It's something that is being done for the new Star Wars movies for example.

CGI can be exceptional when used well, sometimes though film makers can be lazy with it, and resort to "we'll just CGI it in later". Part of the reason Alien, and other films like it, were so effective was because the camera work was so cleverly done. Having the alien come out shot in a blur, and letting your imagination build a lot of it, was so much more effective than the full-screen and exposed Aliens in the third and fourth movies.

I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

People are anti-CGI because of the appalling showcasing done in the Star Wars prequels, and similar movies, but especially Lucas's abominations. Done well CGI looked real, and has done for a long time. Jurassic Park is a good example of that, the dinos were mostly CGI, no one complains about CGI then and the tech has improved considerably since 1993.

CGI hasn't got crap, it has got lazy.

 Orlanth wrote:
People are anti-CGI because of the appalling showcasing done in the Star Wars prequels, and similar movies, but especially Lucas's abominations. Done well CGI looked real, and has done for a long time. Jurassic Park is a good example of that, the dinos were mostly CGI, no one complains about CGI then and the tech has improved considerably since 1993.

CGI hasn't got crap, it has got lazy.

There's actually a really good reason why the Jurassic Park CGI looks so good, even after all these years... There was a documentary/extra that I watched on special effects, and they had one of the "greatest" puppet makers in Hollywood on... He was hired on to create animatronic dinos for JP, and when the scope of the film got larger and larger, they "ditched" the puppet dinos for CGI. They ended up approaching him, and said, "hey, sorry bout all the work you did on the puppets you made that we're not going to use, but since you know how to make things look real and organic, you mind becoming the head of the CG department, and oversee the animators to make sure they get it right? For a "small" raise of course"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
For a "small" raise of course"

They certainly...

*sunglasses on*

... spared no expense.

I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I feel like this wasn't really detailed as much in the movie. The book actually explains it quite well and makes you understand why he did it. The movie kind of goes "eh, money money money" and leaves it at that.

Yeah, it'd be harder to laugh at the stupid fat guy getting gutted* if you knew the reason he tried to do what he did was because he forced to work insane amounts of overtime without pay, threatened to have his other clients be "told how unreliable and gak he is" etc, by InGen if he didn't, etc.

*I'd still laugh. Regardless of backstory. I'm a monster.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I get the impression Nedry was well paid, but didnt handle money well.

Debt problems don't necessarily means low pay but poor money management.
Hammond forgave Nedry's financial irregularities and kept him on but insisted he repair them himself, Hammonds attitude was fine, he just didnt anticipate Nedry's disloyalty, corporate security being overly focused on things with sharp teeth rather than human resources.

Everything about Nedry was greed and quick money. Nedry was obviously highly skilled and wanted to sell out for a one off payment. That money would not have lasted and Nedry would be unemployable at any level beyond that point. Even the monies he was to get from Dodgeson was poor recompense for a corporate traitor. Dodgesons employers knew this, offered him dollar signs and no worries. Nedry didn't think beyond that.

The character, while a caricature was also believable.

Dennis Nedry was from Cambridge, Massachusetts. He worked at Integrated Computer Systems. As Project Supervisor of the Jurassic Park Project, he was first told to "design a module for record keeping". Nedry was never told everything, and was always working in the dark. He had become very annoyed with InGen system; Hammond wanted things done that hadn't been included in his original contract, yet InGen demanded that it be done. Lawsuits were threatened, and letters were written to Nedry's other clients, and Nedry had no other choice but to give in to Hammond's demands.

Where are you getting what you got from? Is it something from the film, because I generally remember the book better.

To be more open, I'm talking about the book too. The film Nedry just comes across as a greedy feth, which is fine. I just like thinking of the Hammond line about expense + how Hammond is in the book.

Sadly in the movie version the entire undertone of Hammond screwing Nedry over is totally glossed over and instead of being an Everyman hero who’s forced into a corner by an awful boss. He’s just a fat guy who wanted to steal dinosaurs, which to be fair, still kind of makes him relatable and also still our hero.

Then again, I like how in the book Hammond and Malcolm die (though that got retconned). So for me, book > film.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I never thought of that

I just recently rewatched Jurassic Park and yeah. Those CGI Raptors and the Rex especially have held up really well considering that was 1993 CGI! The movie is still awesome fun too

I'm trying to think of stuff that hasn't held up well, and Babylon 5 immediately sprung to mind. I've watched it recently, and oh man has that CGi just not lasted. Predator too. The special effects for the cloak and the plasma caster do not hold up imo (but the actual predator costume still looks great).

Battlefield Earth held up well...

*ducks*

Honestly I just don't remember that movie. That's how forgettable I found it. I remember not a damn thing XD

Robocop. It's still a good movie, don't get me wrong, but I don't fell like any of the special effects in the first 2 movies have stood the test of time (I don't much remember the third either ). Not even the Robocop costume itself.

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I never thought of that

I just recently rewatched Jurassic Park and yeah. Those CGI Raptors and the Rex especially have held up really well considering that was 1993 CGI! The movie is still awesome fun too

I'm trying to think of stuff that hasn't held up well, and Babylon 5 immediately sprung to mind. I've watched it recently, and oh man has that CGi just not lasted. Predator too. The special effects for the cloak and the plasma caster do not hold up imo (but the actual predator costume still looks great).

Babylon 5 had a budget smaller than most sitcoms. The CGI always looked cheap. It's what they did with it that made the show memorable. The Shadow War could never have been done with old motion control effects, and CGI allowed them to make really exotic ships.

Robocop will always be good in my eyes due to the almost appropriate amount of squibs (there can never be enough, but god did they try).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Babylon 5 had a budget smaller than most sitcoms.

In that case it's actually kind of impressive

CGI's a tool. You can find great examples, and terrible examples. It's at it's best when it is integrated into a project from conception- and at it's worst when it is shoehorned in decades later. The worst of that I can recall is the dogfights over the first Death Star in Star Wars IV Special Edition. When those CGI X-wings poped up immersion just disintegrated!

I think the best part about the Special Editions was the insertion of Christen Hayden. It was also a very good use of CGI that highlighted how good a tool in film making it can be.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I think the best part about the Special Editions was the insertion of Christen Hayden. It was also a very good use of CGI that highlighted how good a tool in film making it can be.

That is some concentrated sarcasm there.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Battlefield Earth held up well...

*ducks*

You need not duck.

Battlefield Earth didn't fail on its SFX, but on almost everything else.

I tried to watch it recently. I couldn't. I genuinely couldn't get through it all in one sitting.

Had to stop.

Needed to breathe.

I have to agree, with the 70s Sci-fi because it feels real, not Sci fi at all

 welshhoppo wrote:
I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

It's not that it's crisp, the lighting and movement is simply off. Even IN 2015, CGI still looks like unbelievable crap unless it's carefully hidden. IMO, Jurassic Park still has some of the best CGI thanks to those night scenes. They did a great job of blending the CGI and animatronics to the point it's hard to tell which one's which at times. But costumes and animatronics will always be superior to CGI until we can further increase the detail and light simulation on CGI models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Both we're awesome and completely different in their own right

If your anadult it's probably not going to scare you anyway

The hunt continues however. I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

Thatt's because you aren't willing to suspend disbelief and let yourself be immersed in the movie universe.

At least, that is what I am interpreting from your previous statements. I maybe way off.

It's not that I'm not willing. I simply recognize it as fiction. It doesn't help how damn predictable Horror movies are either, especially modern ones. ALIEN at least did a better job then most given its lack of music, which makes it hard to anticipate when the Xenomorph is going to pop out compared to the Lady in Black for example (I pretty much nailed every appearance of the ghost in that movie due to musical cues).

 Wyzilla wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

It's not that it's crisp, the lighting and movement is simply off. Even IN 2015, CGI still looks like unbelievable crap unless it's carefully hidden. IMO, Jurassic Park still has some of the best CGI thanks to those night scenes. They did a great job of blending the CGI and animatronics to the point it's hard to tell which one's which at times. But costumes and animatronics will always be superior to CGI until we can further increase the detail and light simulation on CGI models.
.

And yet, because practical effects are expensive and require more work, studios will not pay for them