Quake3World

http://www.apple.com/trailers/warner_in ... arkly.html

PKD

Looks like it has a lot of potential, but isn't this cel-shading thing going a bit far?

Woah...that looks pretty wicked. The cel-shading is really distracting though. Everyone looks like they have quad damage or something.

nice

That's not cel shading.

Looks like Photoshop posterizing. Remember Waking Life?

darn, Keaneau Reeves (i don't care if i spelled it wrong)

I thought it was something about the Primal Scream track.

Looks interesting. Not sure if I like Wynona Ryder anymore though. Hope there will be more music from the Animatrix.

looks interesting. I've also heard good things about Phillip K. Dick

2005, year of the visual gimmicks :icon14:

mkj hit it right the nail right on the head

im tired of visual gimmicks. i need meat and potatoes, not just potatoes. (this is right about where i would mention sin city, but lets not get into that atm)

...or the laughable Skycrapton

I really like the way movies are going, more digital; more and more movies are been shot entirely on green-screens and being composed in post-. I like it.

I hope they do "The three stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" eventually. That was a wicked book.

Yeah looks great

MKJ wrote:2005, year of the visual gimmicks :icon14:

I don't think this (or Sin City for that matter) count as visual gimmicks. The style adds something to the movie or attempts to set it in a certain recognizable style. I think Sin City won't be the same movie without it's visual style.

And I don't think there's many movies taking post processing this far. Other than Sin City and this movie, I don't know of any.

SplishSplash wrote:I hope they do "The three stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" eventually. That was a wicked book.

yeah... but: is this P.K.Dick as well?

ive not seen the movie sky capt and the world of tomorrow yet

Me neither, but i was gonna rent it - or is it horribly shitty and shouldn't i bother?

This isn't cel-shading or posterizing or any sort of automatic process. It's traced by hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope

Also, gimmick or not, every movie has a style. Something shot on film has a very different style from something shot on video. Some productions just take it further.

this will be awesome

if you want to see a similar process, check out waking life

Ryoki wrote:Me neither, but i was gonna rent it - or is it horribly shitty and shouldn't i bother?

visually it's pretty cool. story is ABSOLUTE crap. acting is terrible. to be honest, it has a certain visual flair, but since all of it was shot blue-screen, there's a certain color, intentional or not, on the actors that's quite annoying. the entire film looks like a B&W that's been colorized. so, when i was finished watching it, i muted the colors on my set and i thought it looked better in B&W. :icon28:

rgoer wrote:check out waking life

Fucking ace film. :icon14:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:...or the laughable Skycrapton

Hey, SkyCaptain had one good quality: It's HD cameras went on to be used in a high quality television show that was just nominated for a handful of emmy awards.

Eraser wrote:

MKJ wrote:2005, year of the visual gimmicks :icon14:

I don't think this (or Sin City for that matter) count as visual gimmicks. The style adds something to the movie or attempts to set it in a certain recognizable style. I think Sin City won't be the same movie without it's visual style.

And I don't think there's many movies taking post processing this far. Other than Sin City and this movie, I don't know of any.

hm...you see i thought sin city was all style. so when you say the style adds something to the movie, i see it that the style added something to nothing...in which case it would still just be all style. so its all gimmicky to me.

i guess it would be something if the style appealed to me. im just tired and bored of OMFG OMFG OMFG NOIR SO DARK--monologues up the wazoo blah blah blah

cheers if you like it, but i thought it was shite.