Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who knows, maybe Trump can help.
But who exactly will he be helping?
Tweeting, yelling and with bribes
The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
91–100 of 100 posts
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#92My favorite movie of all time. It's incredible how much of the technology had to be invented just to make Terminator 2 possible.
More than 30 years later, the VFX still hold up-and with today's AI revolution, the film feels even more relevant than ever.
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#93[flagged]
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not in Endgame , it’s actually in Infinity War , but everyone knows The Snap. It’s a generationally iconic movie moment that seeped into the entire U.S. culture. I had 65 year old lawyers referencing it in work meetings, and these were not MCU people at all. Sort of like how everyone knows who Darth Vader is even if they know nothing else about Star Wars.
That's impressive, from my vantage point "The Snap" or anything MCU doesn't come anywhere near Darth Vader or the Terminator in notoriety.
It doesn't. MCU is slop that caters to Redditor man-child Funko-Pop people. No one will remember it in 10 years, and I've never heard anyone reference it outside.
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you are getting that idea. The entire movie is soaked with cg from every angle. https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual...
And now compare to an Marvel or Transformers movie where many shots don't have a single real thing in it
What the person up to said:
In the last 20 years, everything’s just CGI. Movies like Mad Max: Fury Road and Fall Guy are few and far between.
There is no world where naming a random longer movie with more effects makes mad max an example of a movie that doesn't use cgi. Something completely unrelated doesn't make a false statement true. There was some marketing that got people to believe this and it's an outright lie.
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now compare to an Marvel or Transformers movie where many shots don't have a single real thing in it
What the person up to said: In the last 20 years, everything’s just CGI. Movies like Mad Max: Fury Road and Fall Guy are few and far between. There is no world where naming a random longer movie with more effects makes mad max an example of a movie that doesn't use cgi. Something completely unrelated doesn't make a false statement true. There was some marketing that got people to believe this and it's an outright lie…
Miller repeatedly stressed that the MM: Fury Road stunts were real and the physics was real world - that got turned into a false "quote" about less than 10% CGI .. and that became mythical when the MM: Furiosa trailer had obvious in your face digitally artificial characters, etc.
Of interest, perhaps:
* The 'Fury Road' Practical Effects Myth Is Hurting 'Furiosa' - https://textualvariations.substack.com/p/fury-fx-furiosa
[ * The visual effects of Mad Max: Fury Road - https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual... ]
( oops, my bad, I put the second link in not realising you had already referenced that up thread )
The distinction, for now I guess, would be "movies with real actors really moving on real props" versus "movies that are damn near fully generated including much of the actors (eg: lead actor speaks and provided body capture, doesn't actually appear "raw" at any point).
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#97The 4K remaster of this is back in theatres next month for “Judgment Day” and the 35th anniversary. https://www.fathomentertainment.com/news/fathom-entertainmen...
If that's the same 4K remaster that was released on UHD Blu-Ray then I'd skip it - that one is de-noised to hell making it significantly worse looking than the previous 1080p master used for home media.
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 4k remasters of the classic Cameron films look awful. It's like someone cranked the denoise filter up to 200 and left it there.
Cameron himself doesn't like film grain, and he did indeed sign off on the excessive denoising.
There's disliking film grain and then there's preferring awful inhuman wax figure faces. Cameron is definitely in the latter camp for some reason. GP isn't exaggerating - they 4K remasters are significantly worse looking than previous 1080p home media releases and T2 is a particularly badly affected example.
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they'll show the director's cut? I was in high school when the movie came out, and we were on a 6 week road trip all over the USA that summer, so I couldn't see the movie. Those days they also published books for a lot of the popular movies (sold at gas stations), so I bought and read the book. I only got to see the movie a month or 2 after release when we were back home in Baton Rouge. The book was the d…
My understanding is that it's not so much that the novelisation is of the director's cut, but that the people writing them are typically working from (at best) the shooting script (and at worst, an earlier version of the script). The book needs to come out at around the same time as the movie, and there simply isn't enough time to re-edit it and print it after the final editing decisions are made. You'll frequently f…
That makes sense yes, thanks!
Re: The tech of 'Terminator 2' – an oral history (2017)
#100As a T-1000 nerd, i thought this was pretty cool.
Your recent submission got auto-killed, probably because you're a new user. I can't really answer your specific question, other than to suggest buying some low $ advertising, or modestly and transparently shill it by asking for people to try it i out in relevant social forums. IF that goes poorly, try anonymous forums like /biz/.