MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Dec 28, 2018 23:51:55 GMT
Unrelated to the film, but as someone who has never played any of the Final Fantasy games, I was really surprised by the artwork that Cervantes posted. I just assumed that the early games had used the same sketchy, TV-grade anime look that FF VII had, but they seemed much more creative and original in regards to their art direction. FF VIII and FF X seemed to improve the art direction significantly based on what little I've seen of them. I'll always despise FF VII's look, though.
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,821
|
Post by Cervantes on Dec 29, 2018 1:31:44 GMT
|
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Dec 30, 2018 0:15:40 GMT
Cervantes Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. You seem to know your art quite well.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Feb 28, 2019 11:05:29 GMT
Finally got around to watch this thing. I must say I was surprised how well it looked. I did underestimate it a little bit, but still:
"Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within looks extremely good for its time. There was nothing quite like it from that time period at all. The realistic movement of characters are years ahead of anything else. That said however, it has not aged very well. It just goes to show that even though the CGI is cutting edge it will still age poorly when trying to make something look like real life. In the discussion of what has aged better of The Incredibles and this, the choice is clear as good quality ice, The Incredibles looks so much better because it does not fall into the uncanny valley like this does. And as for what movie is best? These movies do not belong to the same ball park. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is so boring. It is essentially a generic science fiction movie with the most generic tropes one could think of. Military squad members dying one by one, alien invaders just being misunderstood, villain not understanding how to defeat aliens and dies to his own hubris, main character saving the world with some incomprehensible magic along with more stuff that has slipped my mind the second I finished watching this. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is essentially a tech demo with a terrible movie attached. The film without the CGI is probably a 1/5 or 1.5/5, but since it does have an important place in film history, I will give it 2.5/5." 2.5/5
|
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Mar 1, 2019 20:31:53 GMT
Finally got around to watch this thing. I must say I was surprised how well it looked. I did underestimate it a little bit, but still: "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within looks extremely good for its time. There was nothing quite like it from that time period at all. The realistic movement of characters are years ahead of anything else. That said however, it has not aged very well. It just goes to show that even though the CGI is cutting edge it will still age poorly when trying to make something look like real life. In the discussion of what has aged better of The Incredibles and this, the choice is clear as good quality ice, The Incredibles looks so much better because it does not fall into the uncanny valley like this does. And as for what movie is best? These movies do not belong to the same ball park. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is so boring. It is essentially a generic science fiction movie with the most generic tropes one could think of. Military squad members dying one by one, alien invaders just being misunderstood, villain not understanding how to defeat aliens and dies to his own hubris, main character saving the world with some incomprehensible magic along with more stuff that has slipped my mind the second I finished watching this. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is essentially a tech demo with a terrible movie attached. The film without the CGI is probably a 1/5 or 1.5/5, but since it does have an important place in film history, I will give it 2.5/5." 2.5/5 Ha, I knew you hadn't seen it.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Mar 1, 2019 21:34:04 GMT
Finally got around to watch this thing. I must say I was surprised how well it looked. I did underestimate it a little bit, but still: "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within looks extremely good for its time. There was nothing quite like it from that time period at all. The realistic movement of characters are years ahead of anything else. That said however, it has not aged very well. It just goes to show that even though the CGI is cutting edge it will still age poorly when trying to make something look like real life. In the discussion of what has aged better of The Incredibles and this, the choice is clear as good quality ice, The Incredibles looks so much better because it does not fall into the uncanny valley like this does. And as for what movie is best? These movies do not belong to the same ball park. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is so boring. It is essentially a generic science fiction movie with the most generic tropes one could think of. Military squad members dying one by one, alien invaders just being misunderstood, villain not understanding how to defeat aliens and dies to his own hubris, main character saving the world with some incomprehensible magic along with more stuff that has slipped my mind the second I finished watching this. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is essentially a tech demo with a terrible movie attached. The film without the CGI is probably a 1/5 or 1.5/5, but since it does have an important place in film history, I will give it 2.5/5." 2.5/5 Ha, I knew you hadn't seen it. Did I ever say that I saw it? I always comment on a film discussion when I've seen it.
|
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Mar 4, 2019 3:57:38 GMT
Ha, I knew you hadn't seen it. Did I ever say that I saw it? I always comment on a film discussion when I've seen it. You made all those arguments on my The Incredibles Vs FF Spirits Within thread from a while back. Even at the time it was pretty obvious to me that you hadn't seen Spirits Within, based on your posts. You lose a lot of credibility with me when you do stuff like that.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Mar 4, 2019 8:17:48 GMT
Did I ever say that I saw it? I always comment on a film discussion when I've seen it. You made all those arguments on my The Incredibles Vs FF Spirits Within thread from a while back. Even at the time it was pretty obvious to me that you hadn't seen Spirits Within, based on your posts. You lose a lot of credibility with me when you do stuff like that. I looked at some parts of the film, and I still stand by those arguments, firmly. The Incredibles has aged gracefully, while FF looks like a video game.
|
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Mar 5, 2019 1:37:11 GMT
You made all those arguments on my The Incredibles Vs FF Spirits Within thread from a while back. Even at the time it was pretty obvious to me that you hadn't seen Spirits Within, based on your posts. You lose a lot of credibility with me when you do stuff like that. I looked at some parts of the film, and I still stand by those arguments, firmly. The Incredibles has aged gracefully, while FF looks like a video game.Mark Bussler made the exact same remark about the star wars prequels in his review of Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith for Xbox, where he denounced the special effects in those films as "looking like a bad video game", which I thought was the most douchey, disrespectful thing anyone ever said about the films. Funnily enough, when I brought this up in the CGR Vault thread you posted for his review of the game, you agreed with me. Hypocritical much? Regardless, Spirits Within is still an exceptional looking film even after all these years whereas The Incredibles looked completely average by Pixar standards; I would argue that it actually looked quite bad coming out a year after Finding Nemo, which was easily the most impressive looking Pixar film of its time, with better lighting effects and production values than The Incredibles, not to mention a noticebly greater polygon count. So saying animation along the lines of Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within or the Star Wars prequels looks like a bad video game while praising The Incredibles is kinda like saying a Mickey Mouse short from the 1930s has aged more gracefully than the innovative Little Nemo animation made by Winsor McKay roughly decade earlier. Remarks like these definitely say a lot about your taste in art.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Mar 5, 2019 7:55:39 GMT
I looked at some parts of the film, and I still stand by those arguments, firmly. The Incredibles has aged gracefully, while FF looks like a video game.Mark Bussler made the exact same remark about the star wars prequels in his review of Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith for Xbox, where he denounced the special effects in those films as "looking like a bad video game", which I thought was the most douchey, disrespectful thing anyone ever said about the films. Funnily enough, when I brought this up in the CGR Vault thread you posted for his review of the game, you agreed with me. Hypocritical much? Regardless, Spirits Within is still an exceptional looking film even after all these years whereas The Incredibles looked completely average by Pixar standards; I would argue that it actually looked quite bad coming out a year after Finding Nemo, which was easily the most impressive looking Pixar film of its time, with better lighting effects and production values than The Incredibles, not to mention a noticebly greater polygon count. So saying animation along the lines of Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within or the Star Wars prequels looks like a bad video game while praising The Incredibles is kinda like saying a Mickey Mouse short from the 1930s has aged more gracefully than the innovative Little Nemo animation made by Winsor McKay roughly decade earlier. Remarks like these definitely say a lot about your taste in art. Dude, you hide behind insults because no agrees with you. This is no longer a discussion about FF and The Incredibles, bit a damn pissing contest. Since you fail to convince anyone that FF has aged better, you feel the need to attack people personally. It's just shitty of you Maestro.
|
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Mar 7, 2019 2:11:25 GMT
Mark Bussler made the exact same remark about the star wars prequels in his review of Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith for Xbox, where he denounced the special effects in those films as "looking like a bad video game", which I thought was the most douchey, disrespectful thing anyone ever said about the films. Funnily enough, when I brought this up in the CGR Vault thread you posted for his review of the game, you agreed with me. Hypocritical much? Regardless, Spirits Within is still an exceptional looking film even after all these years whereas The Incredibles looked completely average by Pixar standards; I would argue that it actually looked quite bad coming out a year after Finding Nemo, which was easily the most impressive looking Pixar film of its time, with better lighting effects and production values than The Incredibles, not to mention a noticebly greater polygon count. So saying animation along the lines of Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within or the Star Wars prequels looks like a bad video game while praising The Incredibles is kinda like saying a Mickey Mouse short from the 1930s has aged more gracefully than the innovative Little Nemo animation made by Winsor McKay roughly decade earlier. Remarks like these definitely say a lot about your taste in art. Dude, you hide behind insults because no agrees with you. This is no longer a discussion about FF and The Incredibles, bit a damn pissing contest. Since you fail to convince anyone that FF has aged better, you feel the need to attack people personally. It's just shitty of you Maestro. I love how you didn't even respond to my points. But I will continue to offer arguments regardless whether or not you respond to them. Anyone who has studied art in school knows that realism is more difficult to produce than cartoons or expressionism, due to the fact that realism requires knowledge on perspective and anatomy in order to look accurate, whereas expressionism by nature does not follow specific guidelines in regards to technique, so it can be produced without any knowledge on artistic technique. That said, even by cartoon standards, The Incredibles falls very short of the best the genre has to offer. Both The Triplets of Belleville and Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure display a far more extensive knowledge on art, as both films use advanced techniques such as cross-hatching and perspective shots not seen in the former film. And as I previously said even earlier 3D animation by Pixar like Finding Nemo and their short film Geri's Game were far more ambitious. Judging by your profile pic (which looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old) you clearly have no training in realism so I don't think you're in a position to be issuing objective statements on the subject. Personally, as a hobbyiest artist who draws realism I find it disrespectful that you're talking down to me on the matter.
|
|
scipioafricanus
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Sega Does What Nintendon't... except the 32X
Posts: 3,574
|
Post by scipioafricanus on Mar 7, 2019 2:45:33 GMT
Dude, you hide behind insults because no agrees with you. This is no longer a discussion about FF and The Incredibles, bit a damn pissing contest. Since you fail to convince anyone that FF has aged better, you feel the need to attack people personally. It's just shitty of you Maestro. I love how you didn't even respond to my points. But I will continue to offer arguments regardless whether or not you respond to them. Anyone who has studied art in school knows that realism is more difficult to produce than cartoons or expressionism, due to the fact that realism requires knowledge on perspective and anatomy in order to look accurate, whereas expressionism by nature does not follow specific guidelines in regards to technique, so it can be produced without any knowledge on artistic technique. That said, even by cartoon standards, The Incredibles falls very short of the best the genre has to offer. Both The Triplets of Belleville and Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure display a far more extensive knowledge on art, as both films use advanced techniques such as cross-hatching and perspective shots not seen in the former film. And as I previously said even earlier 3D animation by Pixar like Finding Nemo and their short film Geri's Game were far more ambitious. Judging by your profile pic (which looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old) you clearly have no training in realism so I don't think you're in a position to be issuing objective statements on the subject. Personally, as a hobbyiest artist who draws realism I find it disrespectful that you're talking down to me on the matter.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Mar 7, 2019 10:24:08 GMT
Dude, you hide behind insults because no agrees with you. This is no longer a discussion about FF and The Incredibles, bit a damn pissing contest. Since you fail to convince anyone that FF has aged better, you feel the need to attack people personally. It's just shitty of you Maestro. I love how you didn't even respond to my points.
Okay, let's get down to it. Doesn't seem like any reason is going through that skull of yours, so fuck it. Let me explain one last time. If you were actually paying attention to what I was writing I said I wouldn't continue discussing because the discussion weren't about the movies anymore, it was about ripping into me as a person and what I like. We like different things, and there was no way of convincing the other person. But you just couldn't let it go, could you?
Anyone who has studied art in school knows that realism is more difficult to produce than cartoons or expressionism, due to the fact that realism requires knowledge on perspective and anatomy in order to look accurate, whereas expressionism by nature does not follow specific guidelines in regards to technique, so it can be produced without any knowledge on artistic technique.
That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said Maestro. It's completely untrue. Realism and Expressionism are quite different, but none of them are objectively better than the other or requires more effort. If you've ever studied art, you'd know that there is subjectivity and great art is what a person think is great art. Personally I think Realism is boring as fuck as there usually aren't any deeper meanings to things. What you see is what you get. The most famous art person in Norwegian history is Henrik Ibsen, an international famous playwright, who exclusively made Realism and Naturalism works. I don't even like most of his stuff.
I love how you call FF realism, because it couldn't be farther from the truth. It has nothing to do with realism. It's fucking sci-fi for fucks sake. Realism is not about the presentation, but about the themes.
That said, even by cartoon standards, The Incredibles falls very short of the best the genre has to offer. Both The Triplets of Belleville and Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure display a far more extensive knowledge on art, as both films use advanced techniques such as cross-hatching and perspective shots not seen in the former film. And as I previously said even earlier 3D animation by Pixar like Finding Nemo and their short film Geri's Game were far more ambitious.
Haven't seen the stuff you're mentioning except Finding Nemo, and it's not as good as The Incredibles.
Judging by your profile pic (which looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old) you clearly have no training in realism so I don't think you're in a position to be issuing objective statements on the subject. Personally, as a hobbyiest artist who draws realism I find it disrespectful that you're talking down to me on the matter.
Okay, here's where you went too far. I was going to ignore responding to you because nothing good is going to come out of this discussion, but now you're just being a grade A asshole. So listen here you little shit: Yes, I drew my profile pic, and it may look like it was drawn by a 12 year old, but I was in fact I drew that when I was 18. Some backstory: I hadn't drawn anything since I was in elementary, and I've always been fascinated by people who could draw, but I never took the time to learn how to draw. So here at 18 I decided I would at least try to draw something, and I drew 4 drawings that day. 3 of them didn't really mean anything to me, but this one stuck with me. It's not a good drawing, one can easily see that it's drawn by a complete amateur, but art isn't about Realism or expertly drawings, but more about what they mean. I use that drawing for every account I use. I love that shitty drawing, because it reminds me of when I was 18 and I dared to do something I sucked at. It reminds me of High School, that dead-end job I was working, having little responsibilities and could spend my time playing video games all day, getting my driver's license and my first car, hanging around with friends getting milkshakes and having LAN parties every other weekend and so much more. That drawing there has more depth to it than you can imagine. So when you talk shit about it, I just know that you haven't a single clue about what you're talking about, because you haven't sat down just to look at something and see something more than what it looks like. So fine, go back to your Realism where you don't have to worry about interpretation because everything is laid out to you like the baby you are. I'll hang back here to look at some of my favorite art pieces from Jackson Pollock, Vincent van Gogh and the experimental short film Wavelength (1967).
|
|
scipioafricanus
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Sega Does What Nintendon't... except the 32X
Posts: 3,574
|
Post by scipioafricanus on Mar 7, 2019 11:55:30 GMT
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Mar 7, 2019 12:16:27 GMT
Wow, what a sad man. Imagine hating Modern art so much that you have to give money to organizations that support "good taste". I'm sorry scipioafricanus, but that man is simply incredibly oblivious to good Modern art. Some of the examples he used are not my taste in art, but cherry picking some "good" art from the past and then taking some of the "worse" Modern art and comparing them is obviously him trying to push his agenda.
|
|