BAIC Insomniacs, post here:
VIP Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,781
From: 500mi North of Montana. Enjoying free health care.
Car Info: Bugeyed Autowagon
Bill and Ted remake would feel the same as the Dumb as Dumber when Harry met Loyd prequel.
Now I'm not sure if they could pull it off but a Back to the Future movie where the kid goes to 1985 from 2015 and see his parents could be interesting. But our love and nostalgia for them older movies tends to make us harsh judges for remakes or sequels. I agree with how CGI has taken over, and not always in a good way.
Now I'm not sure if they could pull it off but a Back to the Future movie where the kid goes to 1985 from 2015 and see his parents could be interesting. But our love and nostalgia for them older movies tends to make us harsh judges for remakes or sequels. I agree with how CGI has taken over, and not always in a good way.
Thread Starter
Friendly Neighborhood Ogre
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,930
From: www.gunatics.com
Car Info: GUNATICS.COM
Yeah man, the whole CGI revolution is going to define our generation... Just because we can do everything via CGI doesn't mean we HAVE TO.
I miss the classic movies without any CG whatsoever... I can understand using it for something really obvious (like adding a monster or something) but outside of using it for necessary things it shouldn't be used at all. It's almost as if they look for things to do in CG even when they don't have to.
It all started after Terminator 2. The T-1000 in the film was the first time that kind of CG was seen on the big screen. After that film CG started increasing more and more. Yeah, it was cool back in the day but we're over it... All we want is a good movie that has a story and good acting. Visuals are important but staring at something that's not CG can be better than staring at something that is obviously CG.
Now that they can pretty much create anything in CG they now show you the monster in the horror movie (whatever horror movie) in great detail whereas before CG they wouldn't let you see the monster/bad guy and that would be where your imagination kicks in and makes it so much more scary. When you actually see the monster it just loses a sense of suspense or something, I dunno. I'd rather have it the old fashion way where they avoid shots that show the actual villains face and avoid showing any specific details but rather have you see an overall sort of fuzzy image so you can imagine what the villain looks like which makes it much scarier!
Cliff Notes: CG is teh suck. It has to be used in moderation and sadly no one knows what moderation is. It should only be used when it's absolutely needed, otherwise keep that ish off my screen!
I miss the classic movies without any CG whatsoever... I can understand using it for something really obvious (like adding a monster or something) but outside of using it for necessary things it shouldn't be used at all. It's almost as if they look for things to do in CG even when they don't have to.
It all started after Terminator 2. The T-1000 in the film was the first time that kind of CG was seen on the big screen. After that film CG started increasing more and more. Yeah, it was cool back in the day but we're over it... All we want is a good movie that has a story and good acting. Visuals are important but staring at something that's not CG can be better than staring at something that is obviously CG.
Now that they can pretty much create anything in CG they now show you the monster in the horror movie (whatever horror movie) in great detail whereas before CG they wouldn't let you see the monster/bad guy and that would be where your imagination kicks in and makes it so much more scary. When you actually see the monster it just loses a sense of suspense or something, I dunno. I'd rather have it the old fashion way where they avoid shots that show the actual villains face and avoid showing any specific details but rather have you see an overall sort of fuzzy image so you can imagine what the villain looks like which makes it much scarier!
Cliff Notes: CG is teh suck. It has to be used in moderation and sadly no one knows what moderation is. It should only be used when it's absolutely needed, otherwise keep that ish off my screen!
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,069
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2006 CGM Impreza WRX/ 1998 RBP Impreza 2.5RS
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,069
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2006 CGM Impreza WRX/ 1998 RBP Impreza 2.5RS
Thread Starter
Friendly Neighborhood Ogre
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,930
From: www.gunatics.com
Car Info: GUNATICS.COM
The above wheels (both the black and gold) would both look a lot better without the ugly polished lip. The two tone thing is played out and doesn't look good on most cars. Sometimes it can be pulled off but most of the time, especially for our cars, those wheels wont look good once mounted. I know they look pretty in pics but once they are on the car they don't look as nice. If you get the wheels in a solid color (minus the polished lip) the wheel will look so much nicer on your guys' cars. Just a tip, not trying to start crap or anything... Just trying to help.








