|
Post by Flyboy on Jul 22, 2009 17:08:23 GMT -5
This isn't going to top Land, Land was a big-studio film and had great actors like Hopper and Leguizamo and top-notch special effects, this is an indie film with less known actors so it's unlikely to be that good. There's a chance that it will top Diary though because the story is more interesting this time,no annoying shaky cam and more gore. We'll see. Yeah because everything with a big budget & well-known actors is automatically good. Land's effects were top notch when CGI wasn't used but Dawn & Day's effects were still better. Hell, the acting & effects in Dawn & Day are better than a lot of big budget films I've seen, especially modern big budget wankfests. It has the potential to top George's previous two films. It'll be harder for it to top Land than Diary since Land is the better of the two. Land is a good movie but it's not one of the most amazing movies ever filmed. Far from it.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Jul 22, 2009 18:52:10 GMT -5
Yeah because everything with a big budget & well-known actors is automatically good. It's not what I said. Not everything with big budget & well known actors is good but the good acting in Land definitely helps the film, and the big budget helped a lot for getting those actors and making those great effects & awesome look for the zombies . Land's effects were top notch when CGI wasn't used but Dawn & Day's effects were still better. Hell, the acting & effects in Dawn & Day are better than a lot of big budget films I've seen, especially modern big budget wankfests. I agree that Day of the Dead effects are awesome, especially for the time it was made. It was really the top of Savini's work. However I can't say the same for Dawn of the Dead. the movie itself was ok but the effects were too fake in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Jul 22, 2009 21:03:59 GMT -5
It's not what I said. Not everything with big budget & well known actors is good but the good acting in Land definitely helps the film, and the big budget helped a lot for getting those actors and making those great effects & awesome look for the zombies . Yeah but pretty much elsewhere on this board you praise big budget movies & act like they're automatically better because they're higher budget than most independently made films. And you flat out said low budget = bad effects, which is a huge load of bullshit. I think the CGI was not apparent at all in Land of the Dead. I couldn't even notice when it was CGI. In contrast, Diary of the Dead CGI was really bad, probably because Low Budget = bad effects . ^Right there. I agree that Day of the Dead effects are awesome, especially for the time it was made. It was really the top of Savini's work. However I can't say the same for Dawn of the Dead. the movie itself was ok but the effects were too fake in my opinion. They're still awesome & inventive almost 25 years later. The same goes for Dawn, which is over 30 years old. When I see effects in this day & age, especially your precious CGI, I'm just like "meh" for the most part. Some modern movies have some good practical effects but nothing that has completely wowed me enough for me to drop a few turds in my shorts. I'm actually surprised that you like Day of the Dead because it's not a modern big budget Hollywood blockbuster movie & doesn't use CGI.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 23, 2009 0:00:37 GMT -5
This isn't going to top Land, Land was a big-studio film and had great actors like Hopper and Leguizamo and top-notch special effects, this is an indie film with less known actors so it's unlikely to be that good. There's a chance that it will top Diary though because the story is more interesting this time,no annoying shaky cam and more gore. We'll see. I'm honestly sorry, but this post is full of so much bullshit. Land of the Dead is by FAR inferior to DAWN and DAY, especially in the effects department. Whenever I see a CGI effect, the whole scene is ruined. Knowing it's a legit effect, whether or not it looks "real", doesn't take me out of the moment like ANY CGI effect does. Plus, saying "this is an indie film with less known actors so it's unlikely to be that good" earns you a HUGE .
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Jul 23, 2009 6:57:28 GMT -5
Land of the Dead is by FAR inferior to DAWN and DAY, especially in the effects department. . You can argue than Dawn is better than Land overall, that's alright some people don't like the intelligent zombies of Land or the story, But saying that the effects in Dawn are better is just bullshit, When I watch Dawn I laugh at how the blood&gore &zombies look fake, while in Land of the Dead every death is gruesome and realistic. And there's hardly any CGI in Land, other than the flipping head scene that's very brief anyway. Mostly just great practical effects by Nicotero.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Jul 23, 2009 8:20:16 GMT -5
I like the intelligent zombies story of Land minus Big Daddy, who was just stupid as shit. The storyline is a continuation of Day's story & I find that pretty cool.
Haha @ ALL of the deaths in Land being gruesome & realistic. Yeah that guy getting his arm ripped in half down the middle is realistic as hell. At least they used practical effects for that one.
I really think your posts are more suited for the IMDb boards than a board dedicated to Romero's zombie movies. That & 99% of them are the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet. Not to mention headache inducing. I really hope you pop in Dawn just to laugh at it because that would be a funny sight.
Nicotero's practical effects are good stuff but remember who basically taught him the craft: Tom Savini & his "fake-looking" effects from Dawn of the Dead.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Jul 23, 2009 8:47:16 GMT -5
Nicotero's practical effects are good stuff but remember who basically taught him the craft: Tom Savini & his "fake-looking" effects from Dawn of the Dead. I like Tom savini but his effects in Dawn of the Dead were indeed fake. Perhaps because it was his first movie and he wasn't experienced like in his other movies. Accept it, the effects are fake. And I'm not the only one who think that. And Your posts about CGI are much dumber than mine because you basically say that everything CGI is bad, you hate even good CGI effects. So why most modern filmmakers use them if they are so bad? are they all dumb? Even Romero uses CGI in his new films.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Jul 23, 2009 9:27:27 GMT -5
Actually he did make-up effects on about three movies before Dawn. Do some research, genius. I'm not going to accept it because I don't think they look fake for a movie that's supposed to have a comic book feel. Quit barking orders because you aren't in any position to do so. Oh & you're alone in thinking that here in addition to being alone with many of your other thoughts.
Really? I don't mind CGI if it's used for an effect that can't be done practically & if it's executed properly. You basically suck the idea of CGI off until ejaculation. Everybody in Hollywood these days seems to like the idea of CGI probably because they won't have to deal with as many effects on set & can do all of that shit with CGI in post production. Saves time blah blah blah. Looks fake most of the time blah blah blah.
I'm going to tell you this one last time: you'd better be changing your tone, especially when it comes to arguing. I see you as nothing but a troll who has nothing better to do than to try & start shit almost daily here. And since you're a troll, I'm going to treat you like a troll & give back(harshly) what you give here. None of us should even respond to you & "feed the troll."
So either shape up or leave the board. One or the other. I'm not the only one here who can't stand you.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Jul 23, 2009 9:37:01 GMT -5
And Your posts about CGI are much dumber than mine because you basically say that everything CGI is bad, you hate even good CGI effects. I'm done with your shit. Up until now I have let this be something between you and Flyboy. No longer. You constantly start arguments just for the thrill of it. We can't blame you for not liking DAWN, but when all you do is harp on how bad it is just to get a rise out of people, enough is enough. Your account is now disabled for a day, maybe that will give you enough time to watch DAWN 12 times and appreciate it for what it is: the cornerstone of the genre. It's really about your constant knack of starting shit. So now it's time out.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Jul 23, 2009 9:46:46 GMT -5
It's really about your constant knack of starting shit. So now it's time out. That's exactly it too. I could give a shit about who likes what but when someone constantly trashes on something just to get a rise out of people, it gets tiresome. It's called trolling. And when that person is warned about it constantly, calms down for awhile, then goes back to it, it gets tiresome too. When people try to start shit with me, I throw more shit back in their faces. Just how I am. I'm not a fan of CGI. Many people know that. I'm more into old school effects. Many people know that too.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 23, 2009 10:28:10 GMT -5
Land of the Dead is by FAR inferior to DAWN and DAY, especially in the effects department. . You can argue than Dawn is better than Land overall, that's alright some people don't like the intelligent zombies of Land or the story, But saying that the effects in Dawn are better is just bullshit, When I watch Dawn I laugh at how the blood&gore &zombies look fake, while in Land of the Dead every death is gruesome and realistic. And there's hardly any CGI in Land, other than the flipping head scene that's very brief anyway. Mostly just great practical effects by Nicotero. I don't ever say this, but this post is an epic fail. I still think one of the most effective scenes in ANY Romero movie is when that black dude takes a couple chomps out of the screaming woman in the apartment raid. While the blood looks fake (for the comic book feel), the biting and ripping of flesh is quite convincing, for me anyway. You seem to have a hard on for real looking gore. I honestly don't watch a zombie movie JUST to see some real looking guts being eaten... I watch them for much more (especially a Romero one). You can't deny that DAWN is popular. And why do you think that is? Because it has "shitty, fake effects"? It's popular because it's the fuckin' cat's pajamas. And saying there's hardly any CGI in LAND is like saying there's hardly any awesomeness in DAWN. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Jul 23, 2009 10:32:20 GMT -5
Has anyone ever thought about how funny a cat in pajamas would look?
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 23, 2009 10:34:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Jul 23, 2009 10:36:56 GMT -5
My point exactly.
Thanks for the smile!
Couldn't they get the poor guy something better than pink with bunnies on it? Shit, atleast get him some jammies with mice or something.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Jul 23, 2009 10:57:37 GMT -5
Yeah really. I mean you can tell by the look on the poor cat's face that even HE thinks his situation is bullshit.
|
|