2012

Originally posted by -Pr-
they were cgi of dinoasaurs, something we have zero points of reference for. it wasn't perfect. it was just harder to criticise because we don't have real dinosaurs walking around to compare them to. cgi people are much harder to make believable. look at the matrix, for example.

they look more real than some animals we have in real life. 😐

i know what you mean though. theres an actual phrase for what the eye can automatically denounce as whats real and what isnt i forget what it is though.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel

i know what you mean though. theres an actual phrase for what the eye can automatically denounce as whats real and what isnt i forget what it is though.

Is it: "paying ****ing attention"? I bet that's it, jackass.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
they look more real than some animals we have in real life. 😐

i know what you mean though. theres an actual phrase for what the eye can automatically denounce as whats real and what isnt i forget what it is though.

exactly. if there was a cgi dog or cat, you're going to have an easier time telling it it's not real than you would a dinosaur. don't get me wrong, i love the work done in jurassic park, but cgi is still a ways off from making believable humans...

far as 2012 goes...

i watched this last night. going in to it, i wanted to like it. i really did. i usually love disaster movies, but watching this? it just seemed, i dunno... weak?

not even the plot or the acting or the dialogue, but even the FX. there wasn't enough destruction. it's supposed to be the world going belly up, and instead we get treated to all these family moments and speaches about how the world is ending and humanity is doomed and so on and so forth...

also, the death of

Spoiler:
the russian bodyguard/pilot just seemed, well, mean. it didn't further the plot. it was just cruel, imo, and served no purpose..

Originally posted by Spartan005
you know believe it or not, special effects do take work. It's not like three's some magical machine that the director plugs into which translates his thoughts into a beautifully rendered CGI world.

It also takes a lot of work to get through a bowel movement, sometimes. Just because something takes a lot of work doesn't mean the final product is going to be good. I'm not shitting on the CGI artists. just the writers and Director for not making an actual movie. Although, i do think many of the effects sequences were, at times, sub-par to down right awful.

Originally posted by -Pr-
they were cgi of dinoasaurs, something we have zero points of reference for. it wasn't perfect. it was just harder to criticise because we don't have real dinosaurs walking around to compare them to. cgi people are much harder to make believable. look at the matrix, for example.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not it looks real but, instead, whether or not it's believable. Watch Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers and compare those effects to, Jurassic Park. Which movies effects are more believable?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
It also takes a lot of work to get through a bowel movement, sometimes. Just because something takes a lot of work doesn't mean the final product is going to be good. I'm not shitting on the CGI artists. just the writers and Director for not making an actual movie. Although, i do think many of the effects sequences were, at times, sub-par to down right awful.

I can understand why you hated it, but believe it or not, it is an actual movie. There's hundreds of movies out there that are far worse than this.... Meet the Spartans, Date Movie, etc. At least some thought goes into this one. As for the CGI, I thought it was excellent. There were some shots that didn't look quite right (I counted maybe 4 or 5, mainly in the LA destruction and Volcano bit) but nothing awful

Finally got around to seeing it last night. My only major gripe was that it was far too long. Almost an hour for the final scenes involving the giant ships. Completely pointless. There were also characters for which there was no need for and some of the coincidences that allowed them to survive were hilariously unbelievable.

1 |1|<3d 17
17 w45 pr177y g00|)

They survived death so many times, it's ridiculous.

Good movie, though would've been better if the writer dude got killed off.

I liked it.

It's the answer to the question: Given the current state of CGI, how much destruction can we show in under 3 hours? This was not so much a movie as a ride. There was (what I thought) one perfect moment, but overall, there was so much cliche after cliche, I started wondering if Emmerich was subtlely spoofing himself. If so, Cusak was perfect.

this movie should been in imax 3d. o well.

i liked it. story was a bit on the generic side. the effects were dope. my friend's funny. he said the best part of the movie was woody harrelson.

You're just happy because Africa ends up being the center of human civilization (again). Don't worry, I'm sure by 2014, the whities have taken over it again. 🙂

And by, 2037 the moon will crumble down.

Crumble, crumble like cheeseeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're just happy because Africa ends up being the center of human civilization (again). Don't worry, I'm sure by 2014, the whities have taken over it again. 🙂

ha.

how's the saying go, "it's popular in Texas." fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.

and I don't think letting whitey run things again is good idea. look at what happened to the world, forget the country, the last time a white dude ran it, lol... 2012's prequel basically..(economically speaking)

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
ha.

how's the saying go, "it's popular in Texas." fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.

and I don't think letting whitey run things again is good idea. look at what happened to the world, forget the country, the last time a white dude ran it, lol... 2012's prequel basically..(economically speaking)

Barack's a white-guy, don't fool yourself.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I don't think it's a question of whether or not it looks real but, instead, whether or not it's believable. Watch Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers and compare those effects to, Jurassic Park. Which movies effects are more believable?

jurassic park did rely less on cgi, and more on animatronics and good stunt work than LOTR did.

Originally posted by Robtard
Barack's a white-guy, don't fool yourself.

nah, the only white Obama has in 'em is a white-guys hand up his hawaiian arse since he's their puppet, ha.

w/e. all politicos are worse than car sales men to me. reps, dems all of 'em in between.

I rememeber watching one disaster movie like 2012 a couple of years back and the scared wife in the film yelled out at her husband, shocked after some revelation he made, and she yelled "How could that be?! That's not possible, the Government would never lie to us.." and like a third of the theatre audience started laughing their arses off.

This whole 2012 thing is silly!

2013 the tv show's been confirmed..it's about 2012 nonafrican-continent survivors that were not on the arks. It's supose to take the "Lost" schedule bracket.

Funny this is, is that the movie ended with the film saying "Year 0001".

w/e