Daenerys Targaryen to face the Terminator

Zombie_Babies · Dec 19, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
I haven't missed the point at all. I said previously that's like criticizing a classic Ford Mustang from the 60s for not being a Pagani Zonda.

I'm not trying to be a rooster about it, I really do think you're missing the point. This example leads me to believe I'm right. This appears to be some sort of misunderstanding.

Lemme try and explain: We wouldn't be criticizing the '60s Mustang because it did age well. So well, in fact, that current styling uses it as a sort of rough template. This is the opposite of what goldo is saying. Had the Mustang aged poorly, comparing it negatively to a Zonda (which, by the way, I still prefer to the Huayra - though just) would be just fine. Thing is, it didn't. Its image is classic. The SFX in whichever Terminator movie he doesn't like aren't. Cuz they failed to age well.

Basically it's like this: Can you negatively compare a '60s Mustang to a Zonda? No. They're both beautiful today. Can you negatively compare the SFX in T? to those done in some action blockbuster today? Yes. The SFX in T? look silly nowdays.

RE: Terribad CGI:

The worst CGI I've ever seen was in The Day After Tomorrow (and no, I didn't want to see that movie ... d-bag friends ...). There's these wolves and ... wow. That's all I can say. And that's a relatively modern movie.

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 19, 2013

60s Mustang because it did age well

Only if you look at it aesthetically...and on no other basis. As a whole, though, those Mustangs are more dangerous in a crash, are more difficult to handle in both normal and emergency conditions, pollute more, are less aerodynamic, are less fuel efficient, have worse power/weight ratios...and had their HP calculated by methods that inflated the numbers compared to today's standards (IOW, they were not as powerful as Ford claimed them to be). I could go on.

But on several of those engineering criteria I just mentioned, the Mustangs were state of the art when created, so criticizing them for not being as good as a Zonda in those aspects is an unfair comparison.

We appreciate those Mustangs more for what they were than how they stack up today. Outside of their context, they're terrible. Their timeless element is their aesthetics...and nothing else.

With movie SFX, the same standard applies. It is a technology-driven field, and it simply isn't fair to compare the SFX tech of the 1980s to the CGI of the movies that followed. It has aesthetic consequences, but it is, essentially, technology & engineering.

The timeless elements of films are their writing & acting. That is fair game to compare over the ages.

IMHO, while the acting in Terminator was hardly Shakespearean, I'd be hard pressed to name a better depiction of a truly soulless killing machine in human form than Arnold's. The writing made for a tight Sci-Fi thriller.

Kramodlog · Dec 19, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
Only if you look at it aesthetically...and on no other basis.

Ain't that was is important with FXs?

Their timeless element is their aesthetics...and nothing else.

T-1's FX do not even have that.

With movie SFX, the same standard applies. It is a technology-driven field, and it simply isn't fair to compare the SFX tech of the 1980s to the CGI of the movies that followed. It has aesthetic consequences, but it is, essentially, technology & engineering.

FXs, for viewers, are all about aesthetics.

The tech aspect is more of a curiosity for FX aficionados, but they are a minority. I do not think we were talking about the appeal films can have to a minority.

The timeless elements of films are their writing & acting. That is fair game to compare over the ages.

And the premise of the film, a robot from the future searching for the mother of bla bla bla..., is really what is interesting about the film. T-1 has historical value for films and sci-fi fans.

IMHO, while the acting in Terminator was hardly Shakespearean, I'd be hard pressed to name a better depiction of a truly soulless killing machine in human form than Arnold's. The writing made for a tight Sci-Fi thriller.

Arny was the better actor here. Hamilton wasn't very convincing (badly written part?) and the guy was meh too.

The idea was interesting (althought inspired from another source), that I agree, but good ideas do not make great films when they are badly executed.

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 19, 2013

Ain't that was is important with FXs?

Yes & no.

SFX are technology & engineering with aesthetic repercussions. Sure, modern CGI may look better- though there ain't no guarantee (I always thought the American Werewolf in London werewolf looked better than the one in the sequel)- but criticizing SFX that couldn't be any technically better on their aesthetics alone is, at best underinformed critique, if not outright unfair.

Are the space battles in nBSG or Bab5 more realistic than in the old Flash Gorden serials? Without question. Is it fair to criticize the serials' SFX for not looking as good as BSG? Absolutely not.

Zombie_Babies · Dec 19, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
Only if you look at it aesthetically...and on no other basis. As a whole, though, those Mustangs are more dangerous in a crash, are more difficult to handle in both normal and emergency conditions, pollute more, are less aerodynamic, are less fuel efficient, have worse power/weight ratios...and had their HP calculated by methods that inflated the numbers compared to today's standards (IOW, they were not as powerful as Ford claimed them to be). I could go on.

But on several of those engineering criteria I just mentioned, the Mustangs were state of the art when created, so criticizing them for not being as good as a Zonda in those aspects is an unfair comparison.

We appreciate those Mustangs more for what they were than how they stack up today. Outside of their context, they're terrible. Their timeless element is their aesthetics...and nothing else.

With movie SFX, the same standard applies. It is a technology-driven field, and it simply isn't fair to compare the SFX tech of the 1980s to the CGI of the movies that followed. It has aesthetic consequences, but it is, essentially, technology & engineering.

The timeless elements of films are their writing & acting. That is fair game to compare over the ages.

IMHO, while the acting in Terminator was hardly Shakespearean, I'd be hard pressed to name a better depiction of a truly soulless killing machine in human form than Arnold's. The writing made for a tight Sci-Fi thriller.

dood, we're talking about aesthetics. That's what the whole thing is about. Aesthetically speaking the SFX do not hold up. It doesn't matter how they were made, it only matters how they look - which is, compared to today, bad. We're talking about what you can actually see and that's it.

For the record, some auto makers in the '60s reduced the HP ratings on their cars for insurance purposes. They've actually tested motors like the 426 Hemi and found that the actual power produced was more than what Chrysler said it was back in the day.

The reason some seem to be 'overrated' is because the standard of measurement changed. Back then, the motor was tested on a stand and without certain accessories that could rob performance. The standard was changed because emissions became a big deal so the engines in the '70s and later were tested with performance robbing accessories on. Same motor, same potential but tested at different stages of installation, so to speak. And then some test for rear wheel HP rather than at the crank. You wanna see numbers drop, that's one surefire way to make it happen - about 30%.

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 20, 2013

dood, we're talking about aesthetics. That's what the whole thing is about. Aesthetically speaking the SFX do not hold up. It doesn't matter how they were made, it only matters how they look - which is, compared to today, bad. We're talking about what you can actually see and that's it.

I know what we're discussing. I understand aesthetics not only as a consumer, but also as a degreed student of he arts, and as an ongoing producer in several mediums.

In post#35, I brought up guitarists, bass-players, and the comparison of Lasceaux to photorealism, and later, he Flash Gordon Serials, all for a reason: all art, regardless of its medium, is inextricably tied to the technologies used to create it.. Or, in simpler terms, available tech affects aesthetics.

To say that an artwork "does not hold up" aesthetically when it was produced at or near the pinnacle of the technology used to create it is an injustice to both the artist and his creations.

Despite there being no appreciable difference between perceptive and motor capabilities of their creators, no resident of the caves of Lasceaux tens of thousands of years ago could possibly have created a photorealistic portrait because he lacked the tech to do so. Criticizing such a cave painting as "not holding up" to a photorealistic portrayal of the same subject would be simply wrong.

Certain colors only became available to artists after a certain point in time. And some have even been lost to those who only create certain kinds of physical art- the materials & processes used to create those colors are too rare or hazardous to use anymore.

Criticizing Jimi Hedrix for not using AutoTune would likewise be wrong (and for other reasons besides)- that tech was not available to him. And Beethoven or Shostakovich might have loved to have composed using the sounds of an overdriven Orange amp, but that is an impossibility.

Ditto the work of SFX makers. Tech affects aesthetics.

If you only look at the surface of what is created, you're missing out on so much of WHY it is what it is. You're only looking at the pictures on the menu, not eating the meal.

To be fair, all art has the sujective component of what the mind of the perceiver: what he or she brings to the experiences frets what he takes away. Not all artistic expressions resonate with all persons. I can respect the artistry of the writings of James Joyce or T.S Elliott without actually liking them.

But again, I don't criticize works on the basis of what they cannot possibly be.

Zombie_Babies · Dec 20, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
I know what we're discussing. I understand aesthetics not only as a consumer, but also as a degreed student of he arts, and as an ongoing producer in several mediums.

In post#35, I brought up guitarists, bass-players, and the comparison of Lasceaux to photorealism, and later, he Flash Gordon Serials, all for a reason: all art, regardless of its medium, is inextricably tied to the technologies used to create it.. Or, in simpler terms, available tech affects aesthetics.

To say that an artwork "does not hold up" aesthetically when it was produced at or near the pinnacle of the technology used to create it is an injustice to both the artist and his creations.

Despite there being no appreciable difference between perceptive and motor capabilities of their creators, no resident of the caves of Lasceaux tens of thousands of years ago could possibly have created a photorealistic portrait because he lacked the tech to do so. Criticizing such a cave painting as "not holding up" to a photorealistic portrayal of the same subject would be simply wrong.

Certain colors only became available to artists after a certain point in time. And some have even been lost to those who only create certain kinds of physical art- the materials & processes used to create those colors are too rare or hazardous to use anymore.

Criticizing Jimi Hedrix for not using AutoTune would likewise be wrong (and for other reasons besides)- that tech was not available to him. And Beethoven or Shostakovich might have loved to have composed using the sounds of an overdriven Orange amp, but that is an impossibility.

Ditto the work of SFX makers. Tech affects aesthetics.

If you only look at the surface of what is created, you're missing out on so much of WHY it is what it is. You're only looking at the pictures on the menu, not eating the meal.

To be fair, all art has the sujective component of what the mind of the perceiver: what he or she brings to the experiences frets what he takes away. Not all artistic expressions resonate with all persons. I can respect the artistry of the writings of James Joyce or T.S Elliott without actually liking them.

But again, I don't criticize works on the basis of what they cannot possibly be.

Meh, I still don't think you're seeing this correctly - you're adding weight where you shouldn't. It doesn't matter what tech they did or didn't have - most people watching don't care. What they do care about is how it looks and today it happens to look bad. That's not taking a shot at the folks that made the effects or disrespecting what they did, it's simply acknowledging that the improvements in tech have most certainly made earlier work appear worse because, comparatively, it is. That's no indictment of any artist, it's just a simple fact. The effects really don't hold up ... and you've done a really nice job of explaining why.

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 20, 2013

...most people watching don't care.

Which is a pity.

But if we're going to engage in an honest critique of an artistic expression, we should do so like the actual critics do. You don't hear pros saying a movie sucks because its SFX have been outdone by the march of technology.

Mallus · Dec 20, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
Are the space battles in nBSG or Bab5 more realistic than in the old Flash Gorden serials?

Heck, let's compare the space battles in B5 to nBSG. The latter's technical sophistication eclipses the formers, despite being just under a decade apart. I think both look great.

B5 has some marvelous design work and brilliantly composed/constructed effects sequences. They're not as technically complex as nBGS's --which is no slouch in the artist effects department -- but it doesn't matter. They're still good art, and lightyears ahead of a lot of more modern affects work, which often disregards many time-honored principles of visual art in favor of being able to model a zillion particles/shaded textured objects at once. Oh locus of interest, how I miss you sometimes.

As for the original Terminator, it's got a few standout effects that hold up, like the robot-tank rolling over the pile of skulls in the flash-forward, and the scrolling-response Terminator-vision, which has held up to the point of being an oft-parodied mainstream cultural reference.

Full disclosure: I like the stop-motion Terminator skeleton, and stop-motion animation in general. Old-school practical effects like that have their charm, and even outright advantages --like a palpable sense of weigh. [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - FYI, there's a good documentary about Ray Harryhausen on Netflix, which showcases some really terrific effects work, stuff whose artistry will always keep them "relevant".

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 20, 2013

One thing I prefer about B5's space battles to this day is that the human fighters had all kinds of maneuvering thrusters, as opposed to just being fighter planes in space. You got a little bit of that in nBSG, but not as much- usually only when the aces pulled off a nifty stunt.

Daenerys Targaryen to face the Terminator

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Mallus

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Similar Threads