| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 3:41:31 PM
I posted this on gamedev a few days ago, but they seem more interested in MS using stolen software instead of information related to the video game industry.
Anyways, the other day I was surfing to see if a Serenity trailer would be release anytime soon. Unfortunately there is no word on a preview trailer yet, but I did come accross some information about a new DOOM movie.
If you go to http://www.universalpictures.com/ (flash required) you'll see the Coming Soon and In Production sections at the bottom. Serenity is in the "Coming soon" section and Doom is in the "in production" section.
The website mentions that the movie will be based on the Doom 3 storyline. Also, doomthemovie.com is registered to Warner Bros. Entertainment, but doommovie.com is registered to Universal Pictures. The latter domain name will probably be the official website whenever it gets launched. The website registered to WB is probably from an earlier (2001 or 2) deal to make a movie that never succeeded. That movie was supposed to be PG-13. Yeah, that's stupid for a movie based on DOOM, and that's probably why that deal with WB was never finalized. Hopefully the movie from Universal will be good, but the credits list "The Rock" as being in the movie, so don't get your hopes up.
Oh, and go see the movie Serentiy when it comes out in theaters next year. That moive is going to be cool, trust me. |
| Peter |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 9:26:20 PM
I think one movie that did CGI effects very very well is the lord of the rings movies. True, it did help that they were already a "fantasy" but they had an awesome idea of using real actors to portray the CGI characters and then render over them. Its a lot better then George Lucas' plastic characters where actors just speak at blue screens all day.
Sometimes CGI effects can be very good, even in the original matrix, when they do bullet time and the room rotates all around the character (like in the Neo/Smith fight in the subway) the entire room is computer rendered, the actors are just shot by a ring of cameras in a green room. Its actually pretty cool, I never caught that.
What always catches my eye in movies though is when blue screens are done poorly, I can almost always tell when they have actors in front of a bluescreen OR a painted soundstage, thats the worst. The worst I can think of recently is T3 when Arnie appeared in the desert with painted on rocks and sky ;)
But I'm actually a big proponent of using actual stunts and reality instead of gratuitious CGI, usually it looks a lot better. I guess directors go nuts with it a bit too much, just like lensflare back in the day when 3d accelerators first came out. |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 8:34:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Knight Chat X
Yeah same here, Angel and Firefly was cool, well there's always Battlestar Galactica.
The special effects company that did the effects for the recent Battlestar Galactica movie is the same company that did the effects for Firefly. In one of the scenes in the movie you can see the ship Serenity flying overhead. It's a very quick scene, but it was still pretty cool. |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 8:32:15 PM
Too difficult to explain. You really need to see it to appreciate it. It's a mix of science fiction and a western. The characters live in a post civil war era on the outskirts of civilization. There's the typical Federation type government that tries to control everything, but out in the far reaches of space where the laws don't hold much sway, you get all kinds of interesting situations and characters. There's just lots of depth to the show, and I'm not doing it any justice by trying to describe it. You should download an episode or two from a file sharing network to see what it's all about. And if you like it then you can always get the DVD set. |
| cbx |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 8:09:45 PM
OK,... but what was the show about? |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 8:05:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cbx
Firefly? Was firefly a show on tv? On the fox channel? I don't ever recall a show called firefly on the fox channel? What is firefly?
Fox did a horrible job of promoting it. They played the series out of order and didn't keep a consistent schedule for it. They would play an episode one week and then nothing the next, it was very annoying and difficult for people to follow what was happening. To sum up the stupdity of Fox, they played the very first episode that introduces all the characters as the last episode.
|
| cbx |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 6:28:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Eric Coleman
I'm so glad there are other people that know what "Firefly" is! I urge anyone interested in science fiction to get the Firefly DVD set. You can actually view the shows in order (stupid Fox) and you get 3 episodes that were never aired. And I seriously hope to see Angel on the big screen, however, the show ended well but I still miss watching it.
I never really started to watch angel until the last few episodes. I knew of it and like the fact that both angel and buffy criss crossed shows ever now and then. And yes it was a good ending for the series, but it also kinda kills off any ideas for a come back special! lol
Firefly? Was firefly a show on tv? On the fox channel? I don't ever recall a show called firefly on the fox channel? What is firefly? |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 6:20:45 PM
I'm so glad there are other people that know what "Firefly" is! I urge anyone interested in science fiction to get the Firefly DVD set. You can actually view the shows in order (stupid Fox) and you get 3 episodes that were never aired. And I seriously hope to see Angel on the big screen, however, the show ended well but I still miss watching it. |
| Knight Chat X |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 5:49:49 PM
Yeah same here, Angel and Firefly was cool, well there's always Battlestar Galactica. |
| Brykovian |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 5:13:43 PM
I *really* enjoyed Buffy, and Angel had a lot of good moments too ... I was just getting into "Firefly" when it was cancelled. I'm happy to see Joss moving forward with that storyline. Also glad to see that he's retained the original cast too -- they worked well together. Think I'm going to have to see that!!
As for the Doom movie ... okay. {shrugs} 
-Bryk |
| cbx |
Posted - Nov 17 2004 : 4:42:20 PM
Oh boy,... I hope they don't go reality with it. (But I'm sure they are) What do I mean by reality? Take, for example, the X-Men movies. These movies are based on comic book heroes, and are drawn as such. A transition to a movie that uses real life actors to portray those heroes simply does not work, or do justince to the characters themselves. The X-Men movies (and all of the marvel movies being made) would have been far better off rendered with the same graphic realism as the graphics the the Final Fantasy movie. That way you get the best of both worlds. When you look at the movie to see a simulated/fantasy world yet it still keeps that world closly based in the medium in which they come from. In marvels case, comic books.
So as for the Doom movie, the doom games are PC Games, and are rendered with pc graphics. Hence they are and never will be "real life". So to re-invision the game and portray it in reality using real life actors, just does not work.
What I would much rather start seeing is hollywood using the same engine we used to play the game, to make the movie! That way the characters ring true to where they come from (a PC simulated world) AND people who see the movie will know that thay can actually play the game with the very same graphic realism that they see on the big screen! I can't think of a better way to showcase a game engine technology then that!
Also, all this talk latley (since the first jurassic park movie) of "wow I can't tell what's real and what's not on screen any more" is BS! Spoken by outsiders (non technical people). Ask any tech geed such as the people here on VBGamer who know this stuff and have an understanding on how it's made and 99% of the time we can tell in the first fraction of a second what is real and what is computer generated on screen. The Matrix: Reloaded anyone! Neo's fight scenes. Hint Hint. The perfection of integrating live action with computer generated imagery is still a decade away, and it's use should be highly restricted.
This is why I firmly believe that when making a movie about something not already based on reality it is best to keep the genre in the media from which it came from. In the case of the Doom movie, they should be using the Doom 3 engine to present the movie on the big screen. (pre rendered of cource) |
|
|
