The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$archive_pages - Line: 2 - File: printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code PHP 8.5.11 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code 2 errorHandler->error_callback
/printthread.php 287 eval
/printthread.php 117 printthread_multipage



CDBZ Archive
The Like/Hate Thread - Printable Version

+- CDBZ Archive (http://alex.zulenka.com)
+-- Forum: Out of Character Forums (http://alex.zulenka.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: The Legendary Asylum (http://alex.zulenka.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=133)
+--- Thread: The Like/Hate Thread (/showthread.php?tid=13015)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765

The Like/Hate Thread - Super Buu - 01-03-2012

Piper Juunanagou Wrote:He's dusting of all the movies to put in the 3D, which include the almost 40 year old one.

And please, at least they're sci-fi films. 3D will at least seem okay.

Fucking James Cameron is re-releasing Titanic in 3D.

I'll see it, but still. Titanic. In 3D.

"I don't like this but I will still pay to watch it" dude explain D=

The Like/Hate Thread - Jarka - 01-03-2012

Dude resting your elbow on my desk: get that shit out of here we only have about twelve inches of personal space and you are INVADING MINE.

I hate you, elbow dude.

The Like/Hate Thread - Rafael - 01-03-2012

Just put food there. Or stab him.

The Like/Hate Thread - Vad - 01-03-2012

Belle Hibiki Wrote:[Image: fuckyou.png]



Sorry what? I was distracted by your signature, Belle.

The Like/Hate Thread - Mr. Zhu - 01-03-2012

Jarka Wrote:Dude resting your elbow on my desk: get that shit out of here we only have about twelve inches of personal space and you are INVADING MINE.

I hate you, elbow dude.

Passive aggressive actions work very well in these situations.

The Like/Hate Thread - Belle Hibiki - 01-03-2012

Vad Wrote:Sorry what? I was distracted by your signature, Belle.

distracted by how hideous it is, I'm sure

The Like/Hate Thread - Piper Juunanagou - 01-04-2012

Rose Wrote:"I don't like this but I will still pay to watch it" dude explain D=

I hate James Cameron.

I never said I hate Titanic. Titanic is amazing.

Joe, you can go die now, btdubs.

The Like/Hate Thread - Anzekay - 01-04-2012

Fuck 3D movies. It's a stupid gimmick that I wish would die already.

The Like/Hate Thread - Piper Juunanagou - 01-04-2012

It's only a gimmick when a 2D movie is converted into 3D after it's completed to jack up the price of tickets. (like the most recent Resident Evil film, Priest, or 80% of most 3D releases).

When 3D is used as a tool in the process of making the film, it more than often makes the movie a much better experience. This is especially the case with animated features.

The Like/Hate Thread - Jarka - 01-04-2012

I always feel sad when people say 3D is a gimmick.

It can be gimmicky, yes. When it is done in post-processing, yes, it looks like shit and lowers the quality.

When it is done right, it can be absolutely breathtaking. If I had the money, I would purchase a 3D television just so I can experience Up, How to Train Your Dragon, Legends of the Guardian, and Avatar to their fullest - with the added benefit to gaming, probably the easiest conversion to 3D vision ever.

A film ought to be made with the intent for it to use 3D, not added as an aftereffect. The same way that adding color to a black and white image usually comes off as tacky (unless put in some very capable hands). To achieve the effect, it is best to take a full color image and desaturate it. Post-process compared to process.

With the films I mentioned before (and any CGI film, for that matter), depth was considered with the other elements of the aesthetics. CGI films are easily able to add and manipulate a second camera (used to a phenomenal, deeply moving effect in Up, where the depressing scenes within the house in the beginning reduced the depth to give it a more claustrophobic effect). Avatar was also filmed with cameras designed to imitate our perspective.

Post-processing 3D basically sends the film to an Asian workshop (I believe most of them are in South Korea, but don't quote me on that), where they literally cut the figures out and put them in photoshop layers. It's basically a shadowbox collage, which is why it looks dorky, tacky, and shitty.

Just because something has the capacity to be crap, just because 80% of its usage is crap, does not mean it is inherently crap.

Also, a great deal of the crappy 3D movies have nothing to do with the 3D with why they are crap. They are crap with a shoeshine, which still results in crap.

I would love to see some acclaimed director like Matrin Scorsese create a 3D film... see if they can get certified fresh and a 4/4 from Ebert. OH SHI-.

/rant

The Like/Hate Thread - John Doe - 01-04-2012

How to Train Your Dragon gave me a digital boner.

I agree with Jarka.

The Like/Hate Thread - Belle Hibiki - 01-04-2012

Coraline's 3D felt well used.

Loved that fucking movie. It was like a modern version of a Grimm fairy tale.

The Like/Hate Thread - Kaden - 01-04-2012

I can't see 3D.

EDIT: I will say, though, that 3D, as it exists now, can't really be anything more than a gimmick in gaming. At most it can enhance the visuals, but, really, that is just one very small part of what a game is. Would a game like Mass Effect or Bioshock be a completely different experience with 3D? No. They would look better, but they are compelling experiences because they tie together all the elements of what a game is to create an incredible interactive experience. 3D is not interactive right now and, in my opinion, the use of it dilutes what a good game is about.

And no, I'm not saying a game can't be good and have 3D. I'm saying 3D does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. It just looks pretty. Or... I assume it does for the people who can see it.

The Like/Hate Thread - Belle Hibiki - 01-04-2012

Like: http://youtu.be/rHG-JO8gIGk

The Like/Hate Thread - Jarka - 01-04-2012

Kaden Wrote:And no, I'm not saying a game can't be good and have 3D. I'm saying 3D does nothing to enhance the gaming experience. It just looks pretty. Or... I assume it does for the people who can see it.

3D has not done anything to enhance the gaming experience... YET. 3D TVs have not become enough of a presence for the major game design companies to really push the usage of depth. As I mentioned, my personal favorite use of 3D is to enhance emotional quality. Most games as a storytelling medium just aren't there yet.

What if Skyrim took a page from HTTYD. The scenery was already breathtaking at points, imagine an added sense of expansive depth. Or, a game like Bioshock with 3D enhancements like in Up.

You're right that using 3D in games currently is pretty much just a prettifier. It could be so much more, though.

The Like/Hate Thread - Pinky - 01-04-2012

3D is a gimmick.

it will be replaced with holographic projections in the near future. actually, a lot of things will be replaced with holograms

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/surface-computing-augmented-reality-microsoft-lightspace/7553

edit: imagine this stuff intergrated with tech like xbox kinect... *drool*

The Like/Hate Thread - Anzekay - 01-04-2012

My problem with 3D in movies is that you can pretty much count on one hand the number of movies that not only were designed to have 3D from the get-go, but also had 3D effects that were worthwhile and added anything positive to the movie at all. That's less than 20%, as far as I can tell.

In every other instance, be it stupid post-processing or a movie designed to have 3D that just executed it poorly, it's merely a marketing ploy to get people to go see the movie in 3D and pay that extra surcharge and the movie makes more money, or it's an excuse to re-release an old movie with added 3D to get people to go see it again and make even more extra money!

But that's not the thing about 3D that irritates me the most; it's that 3D is so often used as some sort of catch-all addition to try and make a movie better or more appealing, and actual quality film-making is left at the wayside in exchange. Money is put towards adding these stupid 3D effects when they could instead be used on just making the movie better in general.

The same idea applies to CGI used in live-action movies these days. I studied this a lot last year in all my film and TV classes at uni, but it was brought fresh into my mind this week when I watched those Red Letter reviews of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Time and time again they sacrificed good direction, screen writing and all sorts of other things that actually make films good, just so that they could add all these flashy CG effects to make the movie look cool. In the end they had a lame, cool-looking movie that was so shallow a bird wouldn't bath in it.

So yes, to me 3D in almost every case is a gimmick. It's something that is used to try and make a movie more appealing, almost always in exchange for actually making the movie decent to begin with. Every time I see some shit movie with 3D some part of my screams out that the money spent on all that 3D tech should have been given to some budding screenwriter or director or whoever who is itching to make a movie that is actually good.

/end rant

The Like/Hate Thread - Jonathan Meer - 01-04-2012

Anzekay Wrote:My problem with 3D in movies is that you can pretty much count on one hand the number of movies that not only were designed to have 3D from the get-go, but also had 3D effects that were worthwhile and added anything positive to the movie at all. That's less than 20%, as far as I can tell.

In every other instance, be it stupid post-processing or a movie designed to have 3D that just executed it poorly, it's merely a marketing ploy to get people to go see the movie in 3D and pay that extra surcharge and the movie makes more money, or it's an excuse to re-release an old movie with added 3D to get people to go see it again and make even more extra money!

Sounds like you have a problem with a specific type of 3D, rather than 3D itself. You even admit that there are uses of 3D that are worthwhile, and add positive things to a movie.

Quote:But that's not the thing about 3D that irritates me the most; it's that 3D is so often used as some sort of catch-all addition to try and make a movie better or more appealing, and actual quality film-making is left at the wayside in exchange. Money is put towards adding these stupid 3D effects when they could instead be used on just making the movie better in general.

Except you don't improve the quality of the creative aspects of a film by throwing money at them.

I imagine the same argument you've made here was made eight or nine decades ago with the advent of non-silent films.

Quote:The same idea applies to CGI used in live-action movies these days. I studied this a lot last year in all my film and TV classes at uni, but it was brought fresh into my mind this week when I watched those Red Letter reviews of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Time and time again they sacrificed good direction, screen writing and all sorts of other things that actually make films good, just so that they could add all these flashy CG effects to make the movie look cool. In the end they had a lame, cool-looking movie that was so shallow a bird wouldn't bath in it.

They didn't sacrifice those things. It's not as though you can either have good direction/screen-writing/etc OR cgi. You can have good direction/screen-writing/etc WITH cgi.

It may be used by many as a crutch, but that's only a reason to criticize those that use it as a crutch, and not a reason to criticize cgi.

The Like/Hate Thread - Anzekay - 01-04-2012

Jonathan Meer Wrote:Sounds like you have a problem with a specific type of 3D, rather than 3D itself. You even admit that there are uses of 3D that are worthwhile, and add positive things to a movie.



Except you don't improve the quality of the creative aspects of a film by throwing money at them.

I imagine the same argument you've made here was made eight or nine decades ago with the advent of non-silent films.



They didn't sacrifice those things. It's not as though you can either have good direction/screen-writing/etc OR cgi. You can have good direction/screen-writing/etc WITH cgi.

It may be used by many as a crutch, but that's only a reason to criticize those that use it as a crutch, and not a reason to criticize cgi.

I have a problem with how 3D is used in almost every case, yes, and the root of that problem is with the general perception of 3D and the gimmicky nature of it- that you can add it to something and it instantly becomes more appealing to the mass market.

Alright, fine that was a little bit of hyperbole. Make it "money, time, effort etc". All those things that are put towards adding the 3D could be put to other uses, all of which will undoubtably have a better effect on the quality of a film than adding 3D would. Of course, it wont increase the profits...

You're commenting on a specific example (the Star Wars PT). In that specific example they sacrificied good production (and pre-production) quality for CGI. Over and over and over again. Just watch some of the making of videos and you'll see examples of this happening in the production process.

I don't recall actually criticizing CGI. That would be pretty funny though, if I were to, since I'm studying animation and all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that what you quoted was me criticizing the use of CGI in a paticular set of films, rather than CGI itself...

The Like/Hate Thread - Pinky - 01-04-2012

Anzekay Wrote:I have a problem with how 3D is used in almost every case, yes, and the root of that problem is with the general perception of 3D and the gimmicky nature of it- that you can add it to something and it instantly becomes more appealing to the mass market.

Alright, fine that was a little bit of hyperbole. Make it "money, time, effort etc". All those things that are put towards adding the 3D could be put to other uses, all of which will undoubtably have a better effect on the quality of a film than adding 3D would. Of course, it wont increase the profits...

You're commenting on a specific example (the Star Wars PT). In that specific example they sacrificied good production (and pre-production) quality for CGI. Over and over and over again. Just watch some of the making of videos and you'll see examples of this happening in the production process.

I don't recall actually criticizing CGI. That would be pretty funny though, if I were to, since I'm studying animation and all. In fact, I'm pretty sure that what you quoted was me criticizing the use of CGI in a paticular set of films, rather than CGI itself...
the new SW movies were the first movies of their kind. of course there is a learning curve to all new things, that doesn't make it wrong or bad. it's amazing that lucas was able to spearhead the film industry into a paradigm shift by combining complete digital film with extensive use of digital effects. it's been a little more than ten years since episode1 and things are not just better, it's getting better at an accelerating rate.

the same can be said of 3D technology. sure, it's a gimmick and is often poorly used today. by definition of it being new tech, the industry doesn't have many people who know what to do with it. what's really crazy is that things are changing so fast these days, 3D is going to be obsolete before the end of the decade.