THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Bloodwake on January 13, 2008, 03:30:50 PM
-
OH SHIT
Picture quality = fucking awesome.
DTS sound = fucking awesome.
MOVIE IN GENERAL = fucking awesome.
For those with Blu-Ray players, buy now. Hell, this is the killer app for the PS3, and it's not even a game.
-
get blade runner too
-
Next on my purchase list.
-
This movie looks fucking NUTS in HD. So much gorgeous scenery.
How did they build these sets and not have the movie cost a zillion dollars? There's no way that there are ruins like some of these places in Europe, and they don't look like CG. FUCK.
I guess when you don't have to work with Shitty Hollywood unions, you can make a 100+ million dollar-looking movie for about 30 million. Fuck the Hollywood unions.
-
The visuals are stunning even on DVD, so I can't WAIT to see it in HD. IMO the only thing that looked fugly in the entire movie was the giant frog thing, especially when it belched on the girl
-
I wish I had gotten the superior HD-DVD version so I could take screencaps :( Me am dumb. Actually, they didn't have it in stock when I bought it.
-
This movie looks fucking NUTS in HD. So much gorgeous scenery.
How did they build these sets and not have the movie cost a zillion dollars? There's no way that there are ruins like some of these places in Europe, and they don't look like CG. FUCK.
I guess when you don't have to work with Shitty Hollywood unions, you can make a 100+ million dollar-looking movie for about 30 million. Fuck the Hollywood unions.
How much did Cloverfield cost to make? I heard it wasn't going to be a big-budget movie but HOLY FUCK IT WAS INSANE.
-
Looks like 25 million.
-
Oh ok, I thought it was less than that. Still, it was about 10x as intense as Transformers at like 1/8 the price.
-
Ofelia in Pan's Labyrinth is so sweet <3
What part of Spain is this? The landscape and exterior shots are absolutely breathtaking. I was expecting cool looking monsters and ruins, and while I'm getting that, the buildings and the outdoors are kind of stealing the movie for me.
-
Unions and high priced talent and crew make production costs ridiculous. You don't need million dollar actors, overpaid cameramen and effects crews to make a decent looking movie.
-
The thing is, if you're a studio director, aren't you kind of trapped into all that bullshit?
-
The thing is, if you're a studio director, aren't you kind of trapped into all that bullshit?
Not all studios are forced to use unions, so that's not necessarily a problem.
-
The thing is, if you're a studio director, aren't you kind of trapped into all that bullshit?
Not all studios are forced to use unions, so that's not necessarily a problem.
Is there a quick description of how it works? Does it depend which production company is doing it?
-
The thing is, if you're a studio director, aren't you kind of trapped into all that bullshit?
Not all studios are forced to use unions, so that's not necessarily a problem.
Is there a quick description of how it works? Does it depend which production company is doing it?
I'm not exactly sure of the specifics, but yeah it does depend on which production company happens to be doing it.
The production company I worked with just recently, CRC Entertainment (they did Tales of the Dark Side), didn't use unions for their newest movie, for example.
-
The coloring of scenes in this blows me away. It uses so few colors per scene. It really adds a lot of character and texture. Lots of pretty blues and greens and browns.
-
Yikes, there's some crazy lighting going on here, too. This got the academy award for cinematography, right?
-
Yikes, there's some crazy lighting going on here, too. This got the academy award for cinematography, right?
Yep. Only movie that surpassed it in cinematography that year (even though the Academy gave the nod to this) was Children of Men IMO. Still, the movie looks fantastic.
-
Yikes, there's some crazy lighting going on here, too. This got the academy award for cinematography, right?
Yep. Only movie that surpassed it in cinematography that year (even though the Academy gave the nod to this) was Children of Men IMO. Still, the movie looks fantastic.
It'd honestly be difficult for me to pick between the two, but I think Children of Men would end up winning, for both sheer variety, and the lack of the few janky CG moments Pan's has. Both are wonderful movies in HD.
-
Yikes, there's some crazy lighting going on here, too. This got the academy award for cinematography, right?
Yep. Only movie that surpassed it in cinematography that year (even though the Academy gave the nod to this) was Children of Men IMO. Still, the movie looks fantastic.
It'd honestly be difficult for me to pick between the two, but I think Children of Men would end up winning, for both sheer variety, and the lack of the few janky CG moments Pan's has. Both are wonderful movies in HD.
Oh yes, yes they are. (owns both)
-
Yikes, there's some crazy lighting going on here, too. This got the academy award for cinematography, right?
Yep. Only movie that surpassed it in cinematography that year (even though the Academy gave the nod to this) was Children of Men IMO. Still, the movie looks fantastic.
It'd honestly be difficult for me to pick between the two, but I think Children of Men would end up winning, for both sheer variety, and the lack of the few janky CG moments Pan's has. Both are wonderful movies in HD.
As much as I loved Pans, I'd have to give the cinematography award to CoM as well. The amount of lengthy shots (albeit some tied together with CG, which made them even more visually interesting) and the whole photography of the movie was brilliant. I can't wait to grab Pans in HD, CoM looks amazing on hd-dvd.