Best Visual Effects of 1999?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

mcm7...@rosie.uh.edu

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to

Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?

I was more impressed with the effects in The Matrix myself and I actually
thought the effects in Episode I looked fake at many points.

thomas

KBusby2256

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to
If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
the story. Of course, I'd also nominate The Matrix for:
Best Score
Best Editing
Best Cinematography
Best Sound/SoundFX Editing
Best Art Direction


"Hope is a good thing. Probably the best of things. And no good thing ever
dies"
-- Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)

Dr. Wag T. Frog

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to
<mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...

>
> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?

Yes. Star Wars will win simply because it's Star Wars. The ballot wil probably
come with this category checked-off already.


> I was more impressed with the effects in The Matrix myself and I actually
> thought the effects in Episode I looked fake at many points.

I agree on both counts. The Matrix used a great combination of computer Fx and
wire-stunts for a very impressive and original style. I've literally never seen
anything that was done quite like The Matrix was - perfectly blending computer
and "old-style" Fx. OTOH, Star Wars looked like Antz on steroids in practically
every scene. Some of the computer effects were just horrible too. I especially
remember a wide shot near the beginning when Qui-Gon(sp) & Obi-Wan jumped down
from a platform and looked like a couple of jellybeans. The only thing that
really impressed me about the Fx in Star Wars was the sheer number of them!
It's just the same computer Fx stuff we've seen a million times multiplied by
10.

--
Dr. Wag T. Frog
Ph.D., B.S., B.A., ASPCA, E=MC²

Dennis Ferguson

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to

<mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>
> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?

'Star Wars' is most likely to win, but I wouldn't call it 'a given' --
Bullet-Time was very hyped and helps give 'The Matrix' a fighting chance.
SW is the winner for the sheer scale of the visual effects, but 'The Matrix'
was better at using them within the movie and using effects in new ways.

What other movies will be nominated, I wonder?

Dennis
----
df...@erols.com (Erol's Internet)
dfe...@gl.umbc.edu (UMBC)


Gabriel Neeb

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to
mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
>
>Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?

Maybe. Apollo 13 was supposed to be a given back in 1995 but lost to
Babe. I hope E1 loses to Matrix simply because Matrix effects were used
as a tool to help the story, what Lucas has always claimed he uses
effects for.
>


The Razor

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to
The MATRIX impressed me far more than STAR WARS did.

Helen & Bob

unread,
Oct 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/3/99
to

McNeeley wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:59:38 -0400, "Dennis Ferguson" <df...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >
> ><mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
> >news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
> >>

> >> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
> >

> >'Star Wars' is most likely to win, but I wouldn't call it 'a given' --
> >Bullet-Time was very hyped and helps give 'The Matrix' a fighting chance.
> >SW is the winner for the sheer scale of the visual effects, but 'The Matrix'
> >was better at using them within the movie and using effects in new ways.
>

> Scale Schmale... The CGI in Phantom paled along side Jurrasic Park
> dinos from (in technological years) 100 years ago.


>
> >What other movies will be nominated, I wonder?
>

> I wonder too. Is THE MUMMY worthy of tech nods? I missed it, but the
> trailers make me think it might be an FX feast.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "LIAM! LOOK AT THE GODDAMN MUPPET!" McNeeley
>
>

Yes, IMHO, THE MUMMY is worth at least a nomination for fx. Very, Very good.
IMHO, better than MATRIX. OK.OK.OK. All you MATRIX freaks, I don't need 6,728
posts telling me you like MATRIX better, I know you do. I SAID it was just my
opinion.
Bob

Bob Carrick

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
The Matrix *lol*, half those effects where done in Gap ads before that
movie.

Bob

--
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary...
For those who do not, none will suffice...
http://www3.sympatico.ca/bcarrick/


<mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>
> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>

> I was more impressed with the effects in The Matrix myself and I actually
> thought the effects in Episode I looked fake at many points.
>
>
>

> thomas

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On 03 Oct 1999 22:15:32 GMT, kbusb...@aol.com (KBusby2256) wrote:
>If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
>it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
>the story. Of course, I'd also nominate The Matrix for:
>Best Score
>Best Editing
>Best Cinematography
>Best Sound/SoundFX Editing
>Best Art Direction

I really enjoyed the hell out of THE MATRIX when it opened. That's why
it was free of hell when the rest of you saw it :-)

I think it was solid science fiction, with very competent performances
(and a surprisely good show from the typically lackluster Reeves). All
the intellectual masterbation with mythology and Eastern religious
icons made for excellent atmosphere and color, and of course, plenty
of zealous debate.

I'm from Chicago and the Wachowski Bros lived right up the street from
(although I never knew or met them) where I live now. I enjoyed that I
knew where all the addresses in the film actually were (despite the
film's city being fictional and shot in Australia) because all the
names used correlate to Chicago locales.

Until AMERICAN BEAUTY, I was calling THE MATRIX my favorite film,
maybe even best, of the year.

However, being realistic, THE MATRIX stands a strong chance of
garnering nods for Visual FX and Sound FX, but all that other stuff is
gonna get gobbled up by traditional fare.

Which brings me to a question. Does anyone else get tired of seeing
technical awards used as throwaways for movies that don't have the
highbrow clout for the big six awards? Or is it just me?

Further, I cannot believe that each year, only three films are worthy
of FX nods. Can't tech catagories get five flix too?

Cheers,

Todd "Douglas Trumbul was robbed!" McNeeley

email: mcneeley at donet dot com

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:36:28 -0500, "Dr. Wag T. Frog"
<Crai...@SPAMSUXworldnet.att.net> wrote:
><mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>>
>> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>
>Yes. Star Wars will win simply because it's Star Wars. The ballot wil probably
>come with this category checked-off already.

STARS WARS had MORE CGI, not better CGI, than other FX movies. In
fact, it proved the axiom, "Less is more."

Cheers,

Todd "Less really is more, more or less" McNeeley

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:59:38 -0400, "Dennis Ferguson" <df...@erols.com>
wrote:
>
><mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
>news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>>
>> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>
>'Star Wars' is most likely to win, but I wouldn't call it 'a given' --
>Bullet-Time was very hyped and helps give 'The Matrix' a fighting chance.
>SW is the winner for the sheer scale of the visual effects, but 'The Matrix'
>was better at using them within the movie and using effects in new ways.

Scale Schmale... The CGI in Phantom paled along side Jurrasic Park
dinos from (in technological years) 100 years ago.

>What other movies will be nominated, I wonder?

I wonder too. Is THE MUMMY worthy of tech nods? I missed it, but the
trailers make me think it might be an FX feast.

Cheers,

Todd "LIAM! LOOK AT THE GODDAMN MUPPET!" McNeeley

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On 3 Oct 1999 23:12:04 GMT, Gabriel Neeb <armi...@ucla.edu> wrote:

>mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
>>
>>Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>
>Maybe. Apollo 13 was supposed to be a given back in 1995 but lost to
>Babe. I hope E1 loses to Matrix simply because Matrix effects were used
>as a tool to help the story, what Lucas has always claimed he uses
>effects for.

Also (man, I'm posting a lot of crap to this thread) The MATRIX broke
ground in FX. Not just computer FX, but in mechanical, hands on, in
the camera, for the love of god, visual FX.

STAR WARS was just more CGI. In a few years, kids will make Star Wars
quality movies with Fisher Price video gear.

Cheers,

Todd "www.whatisthevisualfx.com" McNeeley

HBOMB

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
-
ICQ Activelists:
Eagle's Nest
Home of Philadelphia Eagles Fans
List #48937781

The Cantina
Star Wars Hangout
List #48845580
McNeeley <nu...@slug.edu> wrote in message
news:37fc1d3c....@news.21stcentury.net...


> STAR WARS was just more CGI. In a few years, kids will make Star Wars
> quality movies with Fisher Price video gear.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "www.whatisthevisualfx.com" McNeeley

Sure. And today you see people putting together their own motion control
cameras and doing their own model work at least as well as it was done back
in '77, right? Riiiiight.

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

1. Be careful not to take all my comments too seriously.

2. No, today people are doing things that are far more inventive than
that.

Cheers,

Todd "I exaggerated. Kill me." McNeeley

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 23:02:02 -0700, Helen & Bob
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>
>McNeeley wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:59:38 -0400, "Dennis Ferguson" <df...@erols.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> ><mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
>> >news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>> >>
>> >> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>> >
>> >'Star Wars' is most likely to win, but I wouldn't call it 'a given' --
>> >Bullet-Time was very hyped and helps give 'The Matrix' a fighting chance.
>> >SW is the winner for the sheer scale of the visual effects, but 'The Matrix'
>> >was better at using them within the movie and using effects in new ways.
>>
>> Scale Schmale... The CGI in Phantom paled along side Jurrasic Park
>> dinos from (in technological years) 100 years ago.
>>
>> >What other movies will be nominated, I wonder?
>>
>> I wonder too. Is THE MUMMY worthy of tech nods? I missed it, but the
>> trailers make me think it might be an FX feast.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Todd "LIAM! LOOK AT THE GODDAMN MUPPET!" McNeeley
>>
>>
>
>Yes, IMHO, THE MUMMY is worth at least a nomination for fx. Very, Very good.
>IMHO, better than MATRIX. OK.OK.OK. All you MATRIX freaks, I don't need 6,728
>posts telling me you like MATRIX better, I know you do. I SAID it was just my
>opinion.
>Bob

That's why I skirt around the MATRIX posts. I loved the movie because
it was two solid hours of exploding fun, with a tight, logical,
kinetic script and all that jazz.

I, however, failed to undergo the religious epithany that others have,
and have failed to understand that Neo is really the "one" and that I
must break out of my Duracell slumber-ball and join Neo, and Trinity,
and Morpheous, and the gang on a journy into the never reaches of the
Matrix...

I get tired just thinking about how much other people think about this
movie.

Cheers,

Todd "I know kung fu" McNeeley

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
>Scale Schmale... The CGI in Phantom paled along side Jurrasic Park
>dinos from (in technological years) 100 years ago.

Are you serious? Have you seen Jurassic Park recently? Its effects are still
impressive, but nothing close to Phantom Menace.
I don't mean to single you out, because really -- all of you are crazy! I
think you're taking your personal dislike of the film and using it as an excuse
to ignore the reality that, like it or not, The Phantom Menace is an astounding
technical achievement. There are many, many people on newsgroups who will call
anything that is perceivably cgi bad. But Phantom Menace is leaps and bounds
ahead of any other film to date as far as painting an imaginary world using fx.

It's an entire film of cities populated by hundreds of different creatures,
some of the CGI, some of them puppets, some of them costumes. Model buildings
and spaceships combined with live action and CGI creatures and sunsets and...
And there are many scenes that are incredibly intricate but where you don't
even think about the effects, like in the Jedi Council where Yoda is a puppet,
and through the window there's a sunset and an enormous cityscape with air
traffic - it's incredibly complex, but you just think of it as a dialogue
scene.
And then there are other scenes, like the Gungan battle and some of the
podrace, where I figure it's probably completely computer generated, but you
don't think of it that way while you watch it.
Sure, we all hate Jar Jar, but it's his overly cartoony movements that make
him look phoney. He is still impressively combined with the live action, my
favorite shot of him being his walking in from the sandstorm into Anakin's
house. The better animated Watto fares much better, despite a more cartoony
design. And let's not forget Sebulba, the battle droids, etc.

I mean come on, let's be serious here. I can understand why you might
personally prefer the use of effects in The Matrix, but to claim that The
Phantom Menace has bad special effects - you're just playing make believe
because you didn't like the movie.
And to say that it's not worthy of an Oscar nomination? Wasn't Godzilla
nominated last year? Phantom Menace topped Godzilla with three superior
monsters in one of its most forgettable scenes, a tiny smidgen of its effects
work.

Let's be honest, the effects are downright spectacular. Next you'll be saying
that the costumes are ugly and unimaginative.

--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss

"I wanna give a shout out to the eskimos. I wanna give a shout out to the
submarines. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines." --Ol' Dirty Bastard

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
>STAR WARS was just more CGI. In a few years, kids will make Star Wars
>quality movies with Fisher Price video gear.

It's not all CGI. Obviously, Yoda and C3PO are puppets. The viceroy and a lot
of the other characters are costumes. Many of the buildings and vehicles are
models. The waterfalls are salt filmed in slow motion. The stands at the pod
races are, in some shots, Q-tips painted different colors.
Yes, it has an enormous amount of astounding computer effects, but like any
big special effects movie it is an intricate combination of techniques.

Tyrannorabbit

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
In article <sxTJ3.3854$iZ....@news21.bellglobal.com>,

"Bob Carrick" <bcar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> The Matrix *lol*, half those effects where done in Gap ads before that
> movie.

I don't see how this is even a contest - people can deride the SW
film as a whole (which I understand, and still chuckle because as fun
as _The Matrix_ was, it's getting a lot of silly praise which it didn't
earn - well, then again, *silly* praise is easily earned), but _The
Matrix_'s effects are dimestore compared to what we get from TPM. As
you said, the biggest FX "hooks" in _The Matrix_ were done to death in
Gap ads and rock videos and already, half of them looked stale in the
film - sure, nobody here's as annoying as Jar-Jar but what are _The
Matrix_'s most impressive visual effects? For each of them I can think
of, I can think of ten more from TPM.

Yeah, some of TPM's FX were cartoony, even many if you want to
push just what "cartoony" means - but then so were those in _The
Matrix_. (specifically - take the baby harvesting scene, the giant gun
rack, the look around the towers were people are kept immersed in the
Matrix, every single time an Agent pushes its way into/out of an
unlucky person, the ruined city in the "real" world, when that squid
flops and dies - no CGI effect yet has convincingly given the
impression of being affected by gravity - Super-Keanu flying off into
the sky...I could go on)

I'm not saying that _The Matrix_ doesn't have great FX, because it
does. But there's never been an FX movie in history with entirely
convincing FX - so to say that some of the shots in TPM (or any movie)
"looked fake" in order to discredit it is totally inane, not to mention
selectively forgetting the limitations of the other films.

On another note...SW:TPM and _The Matrix_ seem to be getting
almost all of everybody's vote for best FX of the year (so far; the
year ain't over yet, but I don't see a lot of FX coming). Other
possible candidates..._The Mummy_, which I don't think quite deserves
it although I thought the film was a hoot. _The Haunting_ might get a
nod, but shouldn't - its FX were good, but the way they were used was
dreadful. (CGI use changes the "look" of the shot they're in, for some
reason, so you can almost always see them coming, and how can you build
suspense when you know which shots are going to have effects and which
won't?)

Four movies, two of which are really questionable choices. I
dunno - it seems that this year has less FX-driven movies than any
other in recent memory. Or maybe the bar for FX has been driven up so
high that we've become hard to impress.

--
-Brian J. Wright
"Would you suffer eternally...or internally?" -Type O Negative
YOU CAN'T RESIST OVER 450 REVIEWS OF SCHLOCK:
http://www.geocities.com/tyrannorabbit


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Helen & Bob

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

KBusby2256 wrote:

> If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
> it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
> the story.

I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too much.
Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no substance
to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with ZERO
fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
Bob

> Of course, I'd also nominate The Matrix for:
> Best Score
> Best Editing
> Best Cinematography
> Best Sound/SoundFX Editing
> Best Art Direction

But not for Story, Direction, Acting, m or f, or best film. In other words, for
NO major Oscars.
Bob
Now, I'm done discussing this film, and will not answer any posts about it.
Bob

Helen & Bob

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

Excellent analysis, Mr. T. You hit it exactly.
Bob

Helen & Bob

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

McNeeley wrote:

> I get tired just thinking about how much other people think about this
> movie.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "I know kung fu" McNeeley
>
>

REALLY???? I've known Kung and the family for years. In fact, Kung and his wife Tow
went out with Helen and I for an Italian dinner just last week. Nice people.
Bob

No1U2Fan

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
"Bullet Time" was NOT ever used in a Gap Ad. It is a completely new and I say
revolutionary effect that we will probably see in damn near every movie made
now. The gap ads were done digitally with three cameras, interpolating the
different frames. "Bullet Time" uses something like 100 Canon EOS cameras
timed together to move around the character.

TPM's effects were childish, and frankly, bad. There were moments where the
effects worked, but there were so many more where it simply didn't. I found
the effects distracting and not that realistic. I found the costumes, while
orginal, certainly not anything that helped the film.

Lucas needs to learn that less is more when it comes to everything. 2000
effects shots do not make a good movie. The matrix was still effects heavy,
but never did the effects seem to be what the movie was about. I guess we'll
finally get to see if the academy shops in bulk, or in quality...

Keiser

I guess we'll finally get the

az...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
I was amazed by FX in Three Kings which turned out (the whole cadaver
thing...) to be not FX at all (the flesh stuff).

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On 04 Oct 1999 09:44:35 GMT, frank...@aol.com (Mr. Bryan

Frankenseuss Theiss) wrote:
>>Scale Schmale... The CGI in Phantom paled along side Jurrasic Park
>>dinos from (in technological years) 100 years ago.
>
> Are you serious? Have you seen Jurassic Park recently? Its effects are still
>impressive, but nothing close to Phantom Menace.
> I don't mean to single you out, because really -- all of you are crazy!

I'll take the lumps, I don't mind.

The difference to me is this.

In JP, I believed that the world was filled with dinosaurs.
In SW, I believed that the world was filled with special effects.

The relative sparseness of the first three films worked to their
advantage. The forth is so amazingly overpopulated that you can't help
be aware of the FX all the time. If you are always thinking about the
FX, then really, how effective are they?

>I think you're taking your personal dislike of the film and using it as an excuse
>to ignore the reality that, like it or not, The Phantom Menace is an astounding
>technical achievement.

Some of the lessor posters to the newsgroup may do that, but a person
of my chilling intellect? No way... ;-)

>There are many, many people on newsgroups who will call
>anything that is perceivably cgi bad. But Phantom Menace is leaps and bounds
>ahead of any other film to date as far as painting an imaginary world using fx.

Which is better? The FX film where you are dazzled by the FX created
characters and the transported to another FX created universe?

Or, the FX film where you are dazzled by the characters and the
transported to another universe?



> It's an entire film of cities populated by hundreds of different creatures,
>some of the CGI, some of them puppets, some of them costumes. Model buildings
>and spaceships combined with live action and CGI creatures and sunsets and...
>And there are many scenes that are incredibly intricate but where you don't
>even think about the effects, like in the Jedi Council where Yoda is a puppet,
>and through the window there's a sunset and an enormous cityscape with air
>traffic - it's incredibly complex, but you just think of it as a dialogue
>scene.

The planet that serves as home for the Jedi Council and the Imperial
Senate, (whatever its name is) is the only location I can stand in
this film. It was a beautiful planet, and the FX were pretty
effective, despite the weird "bumper boat" Senate seats. Oddly enough,
compared to the garish and stupid Tatooine, this location seemed
sterile and underpopulated.

> And then there are other scenes, like the Gungan battle and some of the
>podrace, where I figure it's probably completely computer generated, but you
>don't think of it that way while you watch it.

Not true. The Pod Race has the audience looking around to see where
the theater owners hid the joysticks.

> Sure, we all hate Jar Jar, but it's his overly cartoony movements that make
>him look phoney. He is still impressively combined with the live action, my
>favorite shot of him being his walking in from the sandstorm into Anakin's
>house. The better animated Watto fares much better, despite a more cartoony
>design. And let's not forget Sebulba, the battle droids, etc.

All of which by design. Most of these characters would been aborted by
evolution. At the very least, they fail to be even mildly plausable,
even within the realm of the Star Wars universe. I'm saddened by this,
but from a purely physiological point of view, Jar Jar turns out to be
the only mildly believable character in the bunch.

Further, his cartoony movements are evidence that the effect is bad.
It may be Lucas's fault. Maybe the animator wanted more sedate
movement. But its still bad animation, any way you slice it.

> I mean come on, let's be serious here. I can understand why you might
>personally prefer the use of effects in The Matrix, but to claim that The
>Phantom Menace has bad special effects - you're just playing make believe
>because you didn't like the movie.

I hated ID4 (I mean, HATED it), but I thought the effects were pretty
good. (except for the Randy Quaid's jet flying into the ship bit)

If I used the "bad" then that was emotionally tainted. But they aren't
groundbreaking. They are run of the mill big money FX, only in greater
quantity than we usually see.

>And to say that it's not worthy of an Oscar nomination? Wasn't Godzilla
>nominated last year?

Be fair. The academy isn't serious about FX. If were, BLADE RUNNER
would have beat ET.

> Let's be honest, the effects are downright spectacular. Next you'll be saying
>that the costumes are ugly and unimaginative.

Since you bring it up...

Look. I'm not gonna apologize for hating Phantom. The movie sucks the
ass end of a rhino. ATTACK OF THE GIANT GILA MONSTER is a better film,
if only because it seems the obviously inept filmmakers cared more.

I'm not holding PHANTOM to unreasable expectations. I am not guilty of
any of the critical flaws that most Phantom apologists tend to claim.

I do hold the film to a high standard. It's the same standard that
George Lucas and the other producers of Phantom claim to hold the film
to. I say, they undershot the goal by light years.

Cheers,

Todd "The farce is strong with this one" McNeeley

John Pestka

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:

> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>

> I was more impressed with the effects in The Matrix myself and I actually
> thought the effects in Episode I looked fake at many points.

No matter how much you hated him, you have to admit that Jar Jar was amazing
from a visual standpoint. Ep. I wins hands down.

jlp


Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
John Pestka wrote in message <37F8B39C...@email.sps.mot.com>...

It's clear that his human co-stars were in awe of him, since none of them
was able to look him in the eye.

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
>TPM's effects were childish, and frankly, bad.

How do effects get described as "childish"? I don't get it.

>There were moments where the
>effects worked, but there were so many more where it simply didn't.

Let me mention a few "moments" I thought worked extremely well:

*The Jedi Council scenes
* The Senate scenes
* The droids leading the captured queen through the palace square
* All of the various cityscapes
* The podrace
* Jar Jar walking in from the sandstorm
* Watto
* The lightsaber duel (some of which was inside a cg set, I believe)
* That classic shot of the ship that gets shot down and falls to the ground
* Hundreds of battle droids coming out on racks
* Creatures and Jedis stampeding away from the tanks
* The submarine's lights shining across the big fish
* The sub surfacing near the palace

I'm sure if I'd seen the movie recently I could list about 100 more. I guess
I can kind of understand the intense hatred so many people have for the movie
(sort of) but pretending that the effects are bad is just silly. "Childish"
even.

> I found the costumes, while
>orginal, certainly not anything that helped the film.

The queen's gowns didn't help the film? Darth Maul's badass look didn't help
the film? Of course they did.

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
>I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too
>much.
>Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no
>substance
>to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with
>ZERO
>fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
>Bob

Please don't ignore me, because my rebuttal is not specific to THE MATRIX. I
totally disagree with you. I think a good FX movie uses the FX organically with
the story. But the idea that the movie should stand on its own with the FX
removed is silly. Is KING KONG a bad movie then? And where do we draw the lines
as to what is an effect? Do we have to take out all of Boris Karloff's scenes
in FRANKENSTEIN because he's wearing such great makeup? Do we have to take out
the many editing tricks, etc. that the medium uses to distort/create reality?
Many movies, including the ones discussed in this thread, are visually
creating for us a world that does not exist. And creating a world that doesn't
exist on film by definition requires "special effects."

Dr. Wag T. Frog

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
Norman Wilner <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote in message
news:Gr8K3.11523$48.2...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...

LOL!
Unfortunately, Jar Jar certainly seemed more "animated" than his human
companions.

--
Dr. Wag T. Frog
Ph.D., B.S., B.A., ASPCA, E=MC²

Dr. Wag T. Frog

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
=McNeeley <nu...@slug.edu> wrote in message
news:37fa1bd2....@news.21stcentury.net...

>
> STARS WARS had MORE CGI, not better CGI, than other FX movies. In
> fact, it proved the axiom, "Less is more."

Um, yea...that's exactly what I said in my previous post.

Tesiae

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

No1U2Fan wrote:

> "Bullet Time" was NOT ever used in a Gap Ad. It is a completely new and I say
> revolutionary effect that we will probably see in damn near every movie made
> now. The gap ads were done digitally with three cameras, interpolating the
> different frames. "Bullet Time" uses something like 100 Canon EOS cameras
> timed together to move around the character.
>

Actually, this method had already been used in some health insurance and
car commercials.. well before the Matrix. It bothered me that the
"inventor" of bullet time kept insisting that this was a new effect in the
documentary included with the DVD. I had actually seen the very same
thing done by some British photographer on a Discovery Channel
special.


McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:54:24 -0700, Helen & Bob
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>KBusby2256 wrote:
>
>> If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
>> it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
>> the story.
>
>I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too much.
>Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no substance
>to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with ZERO
>fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
>Bob

Not true. Don't get hung up on the Zen. That's just style. Strip away
the veneer and your got a pretty straighforward, but altogether there,
story about a man seeing the world for the first time. It's
derivative, but what isn't.

A good film uses all the tools it needs to tell its story. FX is a
tool. Imagine Star Wars (the real one) with no FX. Heck, all films
have FX if you want to get nitpicky about it.

>Now, I'm done discussing this film, and will not answer any posts about it.
>Bob

That's not true and you know it.

Cheers,

Todd "Waiting for your reply" McNeeley

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

I will not even bother to answer this corny...

Wait...

This is an answer...

DAMN BOB, YOU FOILED ME AGAIN!

Cheers,

Todd "I'll get you my pretties" McNeeley

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:20:22 -0500, "Dr. Wag T. Frog"
<Crai...@SPAMSUXworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>=McNeeley <nu...@slug.edu> wrote in message
>news:37fa1bd2....@news.21stcentury.net...
>>
>> STARS WARS had MORE CGI, not better CGI, than other FX movies. In
>> fact, it proved the axiom, "Less is more."
>
>Um, yea...that's exactly what I said in my previous post.

I know. I just simplified it for the kids... ;-)

Cheers,

Todd "Don't yell at me! Whaaa!" McNeeley

Douglas E. Thompson

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
Actually, I'm pretty sure the "Bullet Time" effect used in 'The Matrix' is
basically a new flavor of the various 3d rotation effects seen in ads for
The GAP, the trucks (I forget the company, but Judge Reinhold is in the
ads), a few other television ads, and the movies 'Lost in Space' and 'Enemy
of the State'.

I remember when those ads first came out, and the first online flurry of
"how'd they do that?" questions happened. There were two general methods,
one involving 3 (or slightly more) cameras with all the intermediate frames
interpolated, and the higher-quality method involving many cameras (into the
hundreds). So in that respect, 'Bullet Time' is similar since it uses a
similar multi-camera setup as the previous effects.

But why is 'Bullet Time' still a new and different technique? Because in all
of the examples listed above, the action that the 3d rotation is focusing on
freezes in time. So in the GAP ads, the dancers freeze in midair as the
camera rotates around them, or in Enemy of the State, everything in the
Lingerie store freezes as the camera rotates around Will Smith's character
to see the bag he is carrying.

In 'The Matrix', however, the action continues to move (just at a much
slower rate). So you have the sweeping camera move, which is usually quite
fast, and you ALSO have the action (like Keanu Reeves' character falling
backwards to try to avoid the bullets) continuing on in slow motion.
Sometimes the action starts out slowly and speeds up and slows again, all
while the virtual camera appears to be rotating around the action at a
constant speed. It's the continuation of motion that I think sets 'Bullet
Time' apart from its predecessors.

The calculations and synchronizations required to accomplish 'Bullet Time'
with its continuing action surely are far more difficult/complex than the
"snap all the cameras at once and string the shots together to form a
sequence" technique similar to the GAP ads.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
--
Douglas E. Thompson
dt...@columbus.rr.com


Tesiae <ord...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37F91A20...@worldnet.att.net...

mcm7...@rosie.uh.edu

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
In article <7t8n4i$od0$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, "Dennis Ferguson" <df...@erols.com> writes:
>
><mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
>news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
>>
>> Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>
>'Star Wars' is most likely to win, but I wouldn't call it 'a given' --
>Bullet-Time was very hyped and helps give 'The Matrix' a fighting chance.
>SW is the winner for the sheer scale of the visual effects, but 'The Matrix'
>was better at using them within the movie and using effects in new ways.
>
>What other movies will be nominated, I wonder?
>
>Dennis
>----


I think The Mummy might be nominated though I wonder what the end of the year
will offer us.


thomas

Alex Fung

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss (frank...@aol.com) writes:
>
> And to say that it's not worthy of an Oscar nomination? Wasn't Godzilla
> nominated last year? Phantom Menace topped Godzilla with three superior
> monsters in one of its most forgettable scenes, a tiny smidgen of its effects
> work.

GODZILLA was not nominated last year -- it got cut during the semi-finals.
The three candidates were ARMAGEDDON (why?!), MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, and the
winner, WHAT DREAMS MAY COME.

It's virtually a given that THE PHANTOM MENACE will cop a visual
effects nomination come February 2000.
--
Alex Fung (aw...@freenet.carleton.ca) | http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aw220/

The Jazz Singer

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
No1U2Fan <no1u...@aol.com> wrote

> "Bullet Time" was NOT ever used in a Gap Ad. It is a completely new and I
say
> revolutionary effect that we will probably see in damn near every movie
made
> now. The gap ads were done digitally with three cameras, interpolating
the
> different frames. "Bullet Time" uses something like 100 Canon EOS cameras
> timed together to move around the character.

Not to mention that the Gap technique involved moving the camera around a
still frame - Bullet time moved a camera around action. And don't forget
the completely virtual sets - I think that was the _major_ innovation in
Bullet Time.


> TPM's effects were childish, and frankly, bad. There were moments where
the


> effects worked, but there were so many more where it simply didn't. I
found

> the effects distracting and not that realistic. I found the costumes,


while
> orginal, certainly not anything that helped the film.

Yep - just like the SE's. Repeatedly you are drawn away from the story
deliberately to gasp in awe at the computer graphics. But to my mind,
10,000 CGI robots? Big fat hairy deal - that just needs a bit more render
time than 1 robot. Now, go back to the time of Cleopatra (the movie, not
the queen) - 10,000 real live extras all doing their piece! Now _that_ is
impressive and curiously less distracting also.


> The matrix was still effects heavy,

There was probably more real action and less effects than you imagine.

--
The Jazz Singer

Purveyor of fine movie and DVD reviews since 1999
http://www.jazzsinger.co.uk

Gary Jones

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <19991004054435...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Mr. Bryan
Frankenseuss Theiss <frank...@aol.com> writes

> Are you serious? Have you seen Jurassic Park recently? Its effects are still
>impressive, but nothing close to Phantom Menace.

I watched JP yesterday on TV. I was wondering how well the effects would
stand up. Most of them stand up very well. The T.Rex sequences beats
anything in TPM in my book.

--
Gary Jones
PGP public key available from servers (DH/DSS key ID: 0x11EAE903)
Home page: www.bohr.demon.co.uk

Daniel Montes

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
What about the Giant under water monsters?? Doesn't that beat out the T -
Rex alone?

Gary Jones <newsm...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2JeebJA7...@bohr.demon.co.uk...

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
Daniel Montes wrote in message ...

>Gary Jones <newsm...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2JeebJA7...@bohr.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <19991004054435...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Mr. Bryan
>> Frankenseuss Theiss <frank...@aol.com> writes
>> > Are you serious? Have you seen Jurassic Park recently? Its effects
are
>still
>> >impressive, but nothing close to Phantom Menace.
>>
>> I watched JP yesterday on TV. I was wondering how well
>> the effects would stand up. Most of them stand up very well.
>> The T.Rex sequences beats anything in TPM in my book.
>>
> What about the Giant under water monsters?? Doesn't that
> beat out the T -Rex alone?

Not really, no. The T-rex in "Jurassic Park" (and in "The Lost World", for
that matter) was an actual character in the film -- she expressed a range
of emotions and was genuinely believeable as a physical presence in the
frame, which is a tribute not only to the practical effects team's
animatronic work and the CGI team's breakthrough programming, but to
Spielberg's ability to seamlessly integrate the two into a single
character.

The Naboobian sea monsters, on the other hand, are little more than a sight
gag.

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine

Jim Mann

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

Daniel Montes wrote in message ...
>What about the Giant under water monsters?? Doesn't that beat out the T -
>Rex alone?


Nope. I think overall the visuals in The Phantom Menace were superb, but the
underwater monsters weren't as good (or as scarey) as the T-Rex.

---
Jim Mann

Helen & Bob

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss wrote:

> >I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too
> >much.
> >Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no
> >substance
> >to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with
> >ZERO
> >fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
> >Bob
>

> Please don't ignore me, because my rebuttal is not specific to THE MATRIX. I
> totally disagree with you. I think a good FX movie uses the FX organically with
> the story. But the idea that the movie should stand on its own with the FX
> removed is silly. Is KING KONG a bad movie then? And where do we draw the lines
> as to what is an effect? Do we have to take out all of Boris Karloff's scenes
> in FRANKENSTEIN because he's wearing such great makeup? Do we have to take out
> the many editing tricks, etc. that the medium uses to distort/create reality?
> Many movies, including the ones discussed in this thread, are visually
> creating for us a world that does not exist. And creating a world that doesn't
> exist on film by definition requires "special effects."
>
> --Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>

Mr. T. Yes, your answer is generic, and deserves comment. I REALLY do not want to
get into a flame war about MATRIX. Yes, Graphically it was very well done. But in
relation to fx and the film, there is far more to FRANKENSTEIN than Karloffs make
up. Remember, the sub-title to the original book was "A Modern Prometheus (My
misspelling). It was about the danger of tampering with science. King Kong used
an island where evolution had not happened (and somehow survived the effects of an
asteroid impact on this planet 65 million years ago). But it is also about love.
Truly, I found MATRIX a bore at the story level. Yes, the fx were great. But to me,
thats all it had. Now, as far as creating a world that doesn't exist, there once
was a film that created an exceptional one, and did it primarily with set design
and costume. Yes, there were some special fx, but nothing near MATRIX. Its THE
WIZARD OF OZ. Want to make a bet about which one will still be being watched in
100 years? (assumes great scientific advance to enable both of us to be here). One
of my bases of judgment is that I did fall asleep during part of MATRIX. This was
during the only time I have seen it. Perhaps the fault (if there is one) lies
within me. I am delighted you thought it was great. It proves we are not all just
a homogenous mass, but can still think for ourselves. The world has not yes turned
us all into mindless consumers, all wanting the same thing.
Bob


Fawlty

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
Helen & Bob wrote in message <37FA62E8...@ix.netcom.com>...

>thats all it had. Now, as far as creating a world that doesn't exist,
there once
>was a film that created an exceptional one, and did it primarily with
set design
>and costume. Yes, there were some special fx, but nothing near MATRIX.
>It's THE WIZARD OF OZ.

WIZARD OF OZ was full of special effects. Not computer generated though
(for obvious reasons), but that is not a criteria for special effects by
any standards.

>Want to make a bet about which one will still be being watched in
>100 years? (assumes great scientific advance to enable both of us to
be >here). One of my bases of judgment is that I did fall asleep during
part of >MATRIX.

I fell asleep during THE WIZARD OF OZ. I guess that means that neither
of those movies will be remembered a hundred years from now. However, I
managed to stay awake during "Batman & Robin" *shudder*.

/Mike


McNeeley

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 19:39:20 GMT, "Norman Wilner"
<xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
>Daniel Montes wrote in message ...
>>Gary Jones <newsm...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:2JeebJA7...@bohr.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <19991004054435...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Mr. Bryan
>>> Frankenseuss Theiss <frank...@aol.com> writes
>>> > Are you serious? Have you seen Jurassic Park recently? Its effects
>>> >are still impressive, but nothing close to Phantom Menace.
>>>
>>> I watched JP yesterday on TV. I was wondering how well
>>> the effects would stand up. Most of them stand up very well.
>>> The T.Rex sequences beats anything in TPM in my book.
>>>
>> What about the Giant under water monsters?? Doesn't that
>> beat out the T -Rex alone?
>
>Not really, no. The T-rex in "Jurassic Park" (and in "The Lost World", for
>that matter) was an actual character in the film -- she expressed a range
>of emotions and was genuinely believeable as a physical presence in the
>frame, which is a tribute not only to the practical effects team's
>animatronic work and the CGI team's breakthrough programming, but to
>Spielberg's ability to seamlessly integrate the two into a single
>character.
>
>The Naboobian sea monsters, on the other hand, are little more than a sight
>gag.
>
>Norm Wilner
>Starweek Magazine

This is why Norm rakes in the big bucks talking about movies, and the
rest of us pay an ISP for the priviledge.

Norm, you have hit the nail on the head. Well said...

Cheers,

Todd "who is seamlessly integrated with his keyboard" McNeeley

Sara

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote in message <7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...

>
>Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>
>I was more impressed with the effects in The Matrix myself and I actually
>thought the effects in Episode I looked fake at many points.
>
>
>
>thomas

In terms of visual EFFECTIVENESS, using FX for most emotional impact, I'd
have to say Three Kings.

SPOILET


Gotta love the cow.


McNeeley

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:00:15 -0700, "Sara" <srsf...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:

I knew that George Clooney was a CGI effect. :-)

Cheers,

Todd "Now in letterbox format" McNeeley

Norman Wilner

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
McNeeley wrote in message <37fa6e46....@news.21stcentury.net>...

>On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 19:39:20 GMT, "Norman Wilner"
><xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
>>
>> Not really, no. The T-rex in "Jurassic Park" (and in "The
>> Lost World", for that matter) was an actual character in
>> the film -- she expressed a range of emotions and was
>> genuinely believeable as a physical presence in the frame,
>> which is a tribute not only to the practical effects team's
>> animatronic work and the CGI team's breakthrough
>> programming, but to Spielberg's ability to seamlessly
>> integrate the two into a single character.
>>
>> The Naboobian sea monsters, on the other hand, are little
>> more than a sight gag.
>
> This is why Norm rakes in the big bucks talking about
> movies, and the rest of us pay an ISP for the priviledge.
>
> Norm, you have hit the nail on the head. Well said...

Aw, thanks. It was just an excuse to coin the term "Naboobian", really.

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine

damons and geeks

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to

McNeeley wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:54:24 -0700, Helen & Bob
> <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >KBusby2256 wrote:
> >
> >> If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
> >> it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
> >> the story.
> >

> >I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too much.
> >Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no substance
> >to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with ZERO
> >fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
> >Bob
>

> Not true. Don't get hung up on the Zen. That's just style. Strip away
> the veneer and your got a pretty straighforward, but altogether there,
> story about a man seeing the world for the first time.

you silly goose.
that IS zen.

"What is disturbing you and making you uneasy is that there are things outside
and mind inside. Therefore even when the ordinary and the holy are one reality,
there still remains a a barrier of view. So it is said that as long as views remain
you are ordinary; when feelings are forgotten you're a buddha. I advise you,
don't seek reality, just stop views." Fa-yen

--


damons and geeks

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to

Helen & Bob wrote:

> KBusby2256 wrote:
>
> > If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
> > it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
> > the story.
>
> I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too much.
> Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no substance
> to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with ZERO
> fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
> Bob
>

is pop zen not zen?
is any zen not pop zen?

is there depth in artifical reality, or is it all superficial?

>
> > Of course, I'd also nominate The Matrix for:
> > Best Score
> > Best Editing
> > Best Cinematography
> > Best Sound/SoundFX Editing
> > Best Art Direction
>
> But not for Story, Direction, Acting, m or f, or best film. In other words, for
> NO major Oscars.
> Bob


> Now, I'm done discussing this film, and will not answer any posts about it.
> Bob
>

is there a sound for that?


.

damons and geeks

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to

Bob Carrick wrote:

> The Matrix *lol*, half those effects where done in Gap ads before that
> movie.
>

yes, but they were Good gap ads.

>
> Bob
>
> --
> For those who believe, no explanation is necessary...
> For those who do not, none will suffice...
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/bcarrick/


>
> <mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU> wrote in message
> news:7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
> >

damons and geeks

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to

Helen & Bob wrote:

Mr. T. Yes, your answer is generic, and deserves comment. I REALLY do not want to

> get into a flame war about MATRIX.

woo hoo!

> Yes, Graphically it was very well done. But in
> relation to fx and the film, there is far more to FRANKENSTEIN than Karloffs make
> up. Remember, the sub-title to the original book was "A Modern Prometheus (My
> misspelling). It was about the danger of tampering with science. King Kong used
> an island where evolution had not happened (and somehow survived the effects of an
> asteroid impact on this planet 65 million years ago). But it is also about love.
> Truly, I found MATRIX a bore at the story level. Yes, the fx were great. But to me,

> thats all it had. Now, as far as creating a world that doesn't exist, there once
> was a film that created an exceptional one, and did it primarily with set design
> and costume.

i'd be amazed you 'found' all that depth in king kong and frankenstein, but didn't
in the matrix, if you hadn't fallen asleep.

> Yes, there were some special fx, but nothing near MATRIX. Its THE

> WIZARD OF OZ. Want to make a bet about which one will still be being watched in


> 100 years? (assumes great scientific advance to enable both of us to be here).

iwouldn't make any bet like that-
people still think mr. smith goes to washington is great.
there's no accounting posterity.


> One


> of my bases of judgment is that I did fall asleep during part of MATRIX. This was
> during the only time I have seen it. Perhaps the fault (if there is one) lies
> within me. I am delighted you thought it was great. It proves we are not all just
> a homogenous mass, but can still think for ourselves. The world has not yes turned
> us all into mindless consumers, all wanting the same thing.
> Bob

--
The F-22, a fighter plane being developed which will cost $90 million
a plane though it was promised to cost $35 million; and which was
designed solely for use against a Soviet jet that will not be made
now, is being threatened with budget cuts so the military can get
planes they need. Amazingly, the military, the White House, and the
Senate are fighting to spend another 2 billion dollars on it this
year. Contact your representative and fight the pork.

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 01:26:49 -0400, damons and geeks
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>Helen & Bob wrote:
>>Mr. T. Yes, your answer is generic, and deserves comment. I REALLY do not want to
>> get into a flame war about MATRIX.
>
>woo hoo!

If we're gonna have a flame war about the MATRIX, someone ought to go
to the mall and round up the MATRIX fans.

>> Yes, Graphically it was very well done. But in
>> relation to fx and the film, there is far more to FRANKENSTEIN than Karloffs make

Bob being mean to the MATRIX, snipped... (shame Bob)


>> was a film that created an exceptional one, and did it primarily with set design
>> and costume.
>
>i'd be amazed you 'found' all that depth in king kong and frankenstein, but didn't
>in the matrix, if you hadn't fallen asleep.

Don't fall into the trap. In pop culture, old is simple, new is
complex and deep. It is true? No... KING KONG may be a fifty foot
crowd pleaser (and I might add, dependant om FX), and FRANKENSTEIN may
be a monster movie (and monster book) from over 60 years ago, but
their themes are still relavent today. In fact, given the state of
science, more so.

>> Yes, there were some special fx, but nothing near MATRIX. Its THE
>> WIZARD OF OZ. Want to make a bet about which one will still be being watched in
>> 100 years? (assumes great scientific advance to enable both of us to be here).

Well never liked THE WIZARD OF OZ. (not that that is relavent)

>i wouldn't make any bet like that-


>people still think mr. smith goes to washington is great.
>there's no accounting posterity.

MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON is a great film. Further Frank Capra is a
great director. The Coen Bros. know this. Why don't you?

>> One
>> of my bases of judgment is that I did fall asleep during part of MATRIX.

I might ask you now to search your soul... Weren't you already tired?

>>This was
>> during the only time I have seen it. Perhaps the fault (if there is one) lies
>> within me. I am delighted you thought it was great. It proves we are not all just
>> a homogenous mass,

Actually, more testing will need to be done.

>>but can still think for ourselves. The world has not yes turned
>> us all into mindless consumers, all wanting the same thing.

I thought we did all want Old Navy Tek Vests...

Cheers,

Todd "and I hate that freaking dog too" McNeeley

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 01:16:44 -0400, damons and geeks
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>McNeeley wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:54:24 -0700, Helen & Bob
>> <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >KBusby2256 wrote:
>> >> If it was up to me (even though the FX in E1 were outstanding), I'd still give
>> >> it to The Matrix. Groundbreaking, innovative, and didn't rely on FX to move
>> >> the story.
>> >
>> >I have been staying out of the Matrix discussion, but this one is just too much.
>> >Sir. Without the fx, there is no story, there is no movie. There is no substance
>> >to MATRIX beyond a little pop Zen. A good film can stand on its own with ZERO
>> >fx. Withoug fx, MATRIX is a 5 minute trailer for something.
>> >Bob
>>
>> Not true. Don't get hung up on the Zen. That's just style. Strip away
>> the veneer and your got a pretty straighforward, but altogether there,
>> story about a man seeing the world for the first time.
>
>you silly goose.
>that IS zen.

The degree to which it is, is hardly deep.

You crazy kids and your Zen. It amazes me that every generation who
discovers the world, suffers from the delusion that they discovered it
first.

Again. You can make a story with Zennish characteristics without the
red herrings and Eastern room decor. It is not part of the essential
story.

I usually question myself. Am I right? Am I wrong? But since it's you,
I'll forgo the usual self doubt and state for the record, there is far
less "deep" in the MATRIX than you MATRIX zealots are claiming.

Don't get me wrong. So far this year, I have declared it one of the
top five films of 99. So I really grokked on the movie. I'm just being
realistic about what it was.

Finally, if I don't get Zen, how come I know how to use and conjegate
the verb "grok" in a sentence? :-)

Cheers,

Todd "So I said it, so it is so" McNeeley

Cheers,

Todd "

McNeeley

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 01:16:51 -0400, damons and geeks
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>is pop zen not zen?
>is any zen not pop zen?

There is no Zen.

Cheers,

Todd "www.whatisthezen.com" McNeeley

Patman

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
In article <37fb83d0....@news.21stcentury.net>,

McNeeley <nu...@slug.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:00:15 -0700, "Sara" <srsf...@u.washington.edu>
>wrote:
>>
>>mcm7...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote in message <7t8jn6$8jv$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
>>>
>>>Is Star Wars Episode I a given to win this award?
>>>
>>>I was more impressed with the effects in The Matrix myself and I actually
>>>thought the effects in Episode I looked fake at many points.

>>In terms of visual EFFECTIVENESS, using FX for most emotional impact, I'd


>>have to say Three Kings.
>
>I knew that George Clooney was a CGI effect. :-)

I thought it was Marky Mark's dong that was a CGI effect...Doh, wrong movie!

--
************** A random quote from Heathers: ************
"People love you, but *I* know you."
*** My WWW home page: http://www.io.com/~patman/ *****

Patman

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
In article <19991004054933...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss <frank...@aol.com> wrote:
>>STAR WARS was just more CGI. In a few years, kids will make Star Wars
>>quality movies with Fisher Price video gear.
>
> It's not all CGI. Obviously, Yoda and C3PO are puppets. The viceroy and a lot
>of the other characters are costumes. Many of the buildings and vehicles are
>models. The waterfalls are salt filmed in slow motion. The stands at the pod
>races are, in some shots, Q-tips painted different colors.
> Yes, it has an enormous amount of astounding computer effects, but like any
>big special effects movie it is an intricate combination of techniques.

So Bry, did you ever come to the conclusion that the decoy queen
was played by a totally different actress, or are you sticking with
Portman playing the decoy queen and Lucas digitally adding the decoy
queen footage in later, like they do to show twins played by the same
actor . :)

Helen & Bob

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to

Fawlty wrote:

> Helen & Bob wrote in message <37FA62E8...@ix.netcom.com>...


> >thats all it had. Now, as far as creating a world that doesn't exist,
> there once

> >was a film that created an exceptional one, and did it primarily with
> set design

> >and costume. Yes, there were some special fx, but nothing near MATRIX.
> >It's THE WIZARD OF OZ.
>
> WIZARD OF OZ was full of special effects. Not computer generated though
> (for obvious reasons), but that is not a criteria for special effects by
> any standards.
>

> >Want to make a bet about which one will still be being watched in
> >100 years? (assumes great scientific advance to enable both of us to

> be >here). One of my bases of judgment is that I did fall asleep during
> part of >MATRIX.
>


> I fell asleep during THE WIZARD OF OZ. I guess that means that neither
> of those movies will be remembered a hundred years from now. However, I
> managed to stay awake during "Batman & Robin" *shudder*.
>
> /Mike

Both my wife and I dozed during BATMAN AND ROBIN.
Bob


Brian Takeshita

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:

<snip>


>> What about the Giant under water monsters?? Doesn't that
>> beat out the T -Rex alone?

>Not really, no. The T-rex in "Jurassic Park" (and in "The Lost World", for


>that matter) was an actual character in the film -- she expressed a range
>of emotions and was genuinely believeable as a physical presence in the
>frame, which is a tribute not only to the practical effects team's
>animatronic work and the CGI team's breakthrough programming, but to
>Spielberg's ability to seamlessly integrate the two into a single
>character.

>The Naboobian sea monsters, on the other hand, are little more than a sight
>gag.

Don't forget about the fact that TPM used the cheat of the underwater
murkiness, perhaps even more forgiving than the "at night in the rain"
of Godzilla.

-Brian

To respond via e-mail, please remove "nospam" from the address.


Daniel Montes

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
worse! It was a genectic clone of natalie portman.

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss <frank...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991006210328...@ng-cl1.aol.com...


> >So Bry, did you ever come to the conclusion that the decoy queen
> >was played by a totally different actress, or are you sticking with
> >Portman playing the decoy queen and Lucas digitally adding the decoy
> >queen footage in later, like they do to show twins played by the same
> >actor . :)
>

> Actually, it turns out that they were all puppets.
>
> --Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>
> "I wanna give a shout out to the eskimos. I wanna give a shout out to the
> submarines. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines." --Ol' Dirty Bastard

Mr. Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99