New redband survival of the dead trailer

[dschoenike]

Greetings. Just saw a new trailer for Survival of the Dead. Its a nice hard red band trailer Saw quite a bit of cgi, but a good mix of practical effects also.. Im posting this from my phone, so im sorry i cant copy and paste the link. But if you go to www.imdb.com and search survival of the dead, youll see the llink on the title page. I liked it
dschoenike

[The Dead Walk!]

Damn. Shitty CGI.

[Flyboy]

Here's a link to it:

www.traileraddict.com/trailer/of-the-dead/red-band-promo-trailer

I think it looked pretty good but there were a few TERRIBLE CGI effects. They made me laugh out loud. Practical, George. Go that route. You did it in the past with less money. You can do it now. Please hop out of the CGI trend. You're better than that.

[The Dead Walk!]

Yeah I know, the CGI was laughable. The fire extinguisher scene would have been awesome if it had been done with practical effects. The one headshot where the top of the head lands on the blown-off part of the head was ridiculous looking. Made me sigh with disappointment.

I'll of course reserve final judgement until after I watch the whole movie, but I can already tell that effects like these will bring it down a few pegs.

[Flyboy]

Haha that one headshot is on par with the zombie priest from Land of the Dead in the "horrible effects" category.

[Flesh Eater]

CGI looks like it's on par with Diary. Ugh...

[omer135]

The gore is FANTASTIC. the effects too (Perhaps not perfect ,but who cares, it's not a mega-budget blockbuster). I really don't get what you're talking about guys. Why can't you just enjoy the movie and its grisly effects instead of nitpicking? This trailer made me even more eager to see this movie.

[The Dead Walk!]

We're not nitpicking. It's an obvious, distracting FLAW.

Nitpicking would be if we complained about a character's hair color, or a specific camera angle we didn't like. Shitty CGI is a major issue with the film--it cheapens the overall look, it distracts the viewer and takes them out of the moment, and makes what is likely supposed to be a badass/scary scene into something laughable.

The very fact that it ISN'T a "mega-budget blockbuster" is what depressed me that CGI is even being used. CGI doesn't belong in a zombie movie. It belongs in Transformers. There is a big difference. If you honestly don't get what we're talking about, then you need to pull your head out of your ass. Hell, use CGI to make it look more "realistic".

[Flyboy]

Omer, shut the fuck up & don't start.

Either your vision is impaired or you're just trying to spark an argument(I think it's the latter) because a few of those CGI effects were terrible.

And I can enjoy a movie & its grisly effects. I love Land of the Dead but some of the CGI gags are terrible. And it's not like you've never nitpicked about effects before ie the original Dawn of the Dead so do us all a favor & shut up, please.

[The Chief Archivist]

Ugh. Those effects are NOT fantastic.

REALLY want to like this film. I'm on George's side here, really. I remember, as I'm sure Tony does, how much he talked about cutting cost corners last year in Chicago. He said that CG effects and shooting digital were two big cost cutters. The real cost (or rather, toll) of these things, it seems, has yet to hit George.

[Flyboy]

I would figure that practical effects would cost less than CG effects but due to the quality of those CG effects, I'm sure that they cost a pretty cheap price.

Shooting digitally is the lesser of two evils here. I'm sure that I'll still dig Survival but I'm going to be laughing at the poor CGI effects just like I did with Land & Diary. As a fan of GAR who has spent loads of money & time with his movies, I have the right to critique any aspect I find poor in his movies. The CGI effects are shitty so therefore I critique them. Hopefully he makes up for that with some decent practical effects, character development, & good story.

[The Chief Archivist]

I would figure that practical effects would cost less than CG effects but due to the quality of those CG effects, I'm sure that they cost a pretty cheap price.

You would think that, but it turns out that practical effects are quite expensive. Jack Pierce, the man behind the original Frankenstein and Wolf-man makeups, was eventually let go from Universal because they didn't want to pay for three to six hours of makeup per character. One of his assistants eventually replaced him, one who could do it in half the time, albeit with a different process.

Mark Shostrom did phenomenal work on Phantasm's II and III, but when the money ran out for Phantasm IV, they went with the much cheaper KNB (all of whom were his assistants but none of whom actually visited the P4 set) and the film's makeup effects suffered dearly.

I think setting aside budget for practical effects is a wise investment because digital effects date the film to whatever technologies are prevalent at the time. Night, Dawn and Day are timeless films in a way that Land and Diary can never be, in my opinion.

[The Dead Walk!]

Nov 4, 2009 12:27:08 GMT -5 The Chief Archivist said:

I think setting aside budget for practical effects is a wise investment because digital effects date the film to whatever technologies are prevalent at the time. Night, Dawn and Day are timeless films in a way that Land and Diary can never be, in my opinion.

I agree with this statement infinity percent. Worded perfectly, Dustin.

[omer135]

Nov 4, 2009 12:27:08 GMT -5 The Chief Archivist said:

I think setting aside budget for practical effects is a wise investment because digital effects date the film to whatever technologies are prevalent at the time. Night, Dawn and Day are timeless films in a way that Land and Diary can never be, in my opinion.

In the same way you can say that Night is already dated because it's in Black & white- which is a dated technology. Also Dawn & Day are dated, because of the hairstyle, clothing ,music of that period . In conclusion No film is timeless.

[The Chief Archivist]

Nov 4, 2009 15:02:07 GMT -5 @omer135 said:

Nov 4, 2009 12:27:08 GMT -5 The Chief Archivist said:

I think setting aside budget for practical effects is a wise investment because digital effects date the film to whatever technologies are prevalent at the time. Night, Dawn and Day are timeless films in a way that Land and Diary can never be, in my opinion.

In the same way you can say that Night is already dated because it's in Black & white- which is a dated technology. Also Dawn & Day are dated, because of the hairstyle, clothing ,music of that period . In conclusion No film is timeless.

Wrong, Omer.

Hate to draw you out like this as I know you take a weekly beating here on this forum, but you're wrong. By 1968, most films were shot in color. Black and white was not seen as an outdated technology, but rather a stylistic choice. Psycho, for example, was shot in 1960 using BW consciously.

Night of the Living Dead, Young Frankenstein, Eraserhead, Raging Bull, Schindler's List, Ed Wood, Clerks, Manhatten, The Man Who Wasn't There, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavre, Coffee and Cigarettes, Good Night and Good Luck and Automatons are just SOME of the post-1968 films shot in black and white. All but one of those were shot in BW not because they couldn't afford color - it was a creative direction. Many feel that BW has advantages to it that filming in color don't have.

I said that "Night, Dawn and Day are timeless IN A WAY that Land and Diary can never be." Note the words in caps. Night, Dawn and Day were point and shoot - which was not the case in the post-effects extravaganzas that were Land and Diary. Point and shoot will always be timeless. And you mention hairstyle, music and clothing - which one of those things exactly dates either Night, Dawn or Day? Hardly any of them, I say.

If you're interpreting "timeless" to mean ANYTHING that could possibly date a film - then no film is timeless. Such petty nitpicking is immature. When people say something is timeless, they mean that large portions or facets of it transcend time. The messages, weapons and technologies used in Night, Dawn and Day are still used today. The language used is not unlike the one we speak today. The clothes aren't even THAT dated. So to say that these films are timeless is appropriate in a way that Land and Diary can never be with their post-production effects, cell phones, digital video cameras, etc.

And again, black and white is not a dated technology. The first color film was shot well before 1920. Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz were shot in 1939. It's not that Hollywood didn't think color was the greatest thing ever - it's just that BW has merits of it's own. Many people still feel that way.