The submarine on 3-D

Discuss anything outside of the movie
User avatar
incognitus
EVERYBODEH'S GOT TAP WATAH
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:40 pm

The submarine on 3-D

Postby incognitus » Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:20 pm

It was announced that Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) has plans to release a remake from the animated movie Yellow Submarine on 3-D, using the motion capture; so I was thinking if the 3-D will keep the same essence from the original movie.

What do you think, guys? It's a good idea, or bad idea?
Millions of years of climbing up from the ooze, instantly reversed. Imagine the horror as it all slips away. It's worse than mere death. It's being undone

User avatar
Redstar
Finally seen the Dark Knight trilogy
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:20 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Redstar » Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:52 am

Old news. Movie sucked then, it'll suck now.

User avatar
Serum
Was she corpulent? Very corpulent?
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Downtown Dino Yawk

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Serum » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:32 am

incognitus wrote:It was announced that Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) has plans to release a remake from the animated movie Yellow Submarine on 3-D, using the motion capture; so I was thinking if the 3-D will keep the same essence from the original movie.

What do you think, guys? It's a good idea, or bad idea?


You're joking, right? Robert Zemeckis is drunk off his own power-- he made some great films, Death Becomes Her, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but every film he's done with motion capture has sucked. What's the point in remaking a Beatles movie, anyway? Are they really that starved for ideas? It's mind-baffling how stupid of an idea that is.
What would you do without your big brother?
I'd like to give it a shot and find out.

User avatar
Phlibbit
SMB Archaeologist
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:41 pm
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Phlibbit » Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:07 am

Yeah, I've been a bit confused by Zemeckis lately. I haven't seen his Christmas Carol, but I'm sure it's better than the other mo-cap films he's done. I also heard that he's doing another Roger Rabbit using the technology.

User avatar
1upmushroom
No Leak Too Small
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:11 pm
Location: The Magic 8 Ball says "Try Again Later"
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby 1upmushroom » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:03 am

Phlibbit wrote:I also heard that he's doing another Roger Rabbit using the technology.


Well, this is probably when we know, he's gone too far.I mean jeez! I know, motion capture, looks pretty cool but, if your wanna make a movie so real that, then just use live actors! What was wrong with the first Riger Rabbit? I mean if your putting Eddie Valiant in there, and want Bob t o voice him again, I can understand that, though you don't HAVE to him, in order for this to be a sequel! Or if your making anything Roger Rabbit related, just never mind.
Isn't this a little feminine?

Yes. I know. It was my ex wife's.

But you wear this stuff?!

Yeah on an occasion we have a date.

User avatar
Serum
Was she corpulent? Very corpulent?
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Downtown Dino Yawk

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Serum » Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:56 am

Phlibbit wrote:I also heard that he's doing another Roger Rabbit using the technology.


Unbelievable. Just, mind-boggling how incredibly stupid he is. No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique, because it looks like walking, talking corpses. I have never seen anything more clearly in my life-- Robert Zemeckis must be stopped. Someone needs to beat some sense into him, he used to make movies, now he just makes creepy cartoons. But they're not cartoons, they're zombies.
What would you do without your big brother?
I'd like to give it a shot and find out.

Prime Evil
You Just Gotta Believe
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Prime Evil » Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:50 pm

MerrittTheFerret wrote:No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique


I dunno, the actors who sign on to do these motion-capture things seem to endorse it. It makes "hitting their marks" easier, or so I've heard. I think the technology's getting better, though, and the characters may not look quite so undead in the years to come.

User avatar
Redstar
Finally seen the Dark Knight trilogy
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:20 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Redstar » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:46 pm

Prime Evil wrote:
MerrittTheFerret wrote:No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique


I dunno, the actors who sign on to do these motion-capture things seem to endorse it. It makes "hitting their marks" easier, or so I've heard. I think the technology's getting better, though, and the characters may not look quite so undead in the years to come.

I just view it as laziness, really. Beowulf, The Polar Express, and A Christmas Carol would have all been much better movies without the use of motion capture. I simply don't see why any movie other than Lord of the Rings and a character like Gollum would need motion capture.

User avatar
Serum
Was she corpulent? Very corpulent?
Posts: 1561
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Downtown Dino Yawk

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Serum » Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:23 pm

Prime Evil wrote:
MerrittTheFerret wrote:No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique


I dunno, the actors who sign on to do these motion-capture things seem to endorse it. It makes "hitting their marks" easier, or so I've heard. I think the technology's getting better, though, and the characters may not look quite so undead in the years to come.


It's that kind of mentality that lets the soulless Hollywood machine pump out crap like "The Polar Express."
What would you do without your big brother?
I'd like to give it a shot and find out.

User avatar
Phlibbit
SMB Archaeologist
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:41 pm
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Phlibbit » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:16 pm

There's just a level to it of how that kind of technology should be utilized. Pixar movies are one thing. Video games are another. But why make a movie where everyone is lifelike and NOT use real actors? I just don't see the advantage of trying so hard to replicate what can be so easily obtained by...filming a human person.

User avatar
incognitus
EVERYBODEH'S GOT TAP WATAH
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:40 pm

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby incognitus » Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:29 pm

conclusion: bad idea
Millions of years of climbing up from the ooze, instantly reversed. Imagine the horror as it all slips away. It's worse than mere death. It's being undone

User avatar
incognitus
EVERYBODEH'S GOT TAP WATAH
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:40 pm

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby incognitus » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:42 pm

MerrittTheFerret wrote:
incognitus wrote:It was announced that Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) has plans to release a remake from the animated movie Yellow Submarine on 3-D, using the motion capture; so I was thinking if the 3-D will keep the same essence from the original movie.

What do you think, guys? It's a good idea, or bad idea?


You're joking, right? Robert Zemeckis is drunk off his own power-- he made some great films, Death Becomes Her, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but every film he's done with motion capture has sucked. What's the point in remaking a Beatles movie, anyway? Are they really that starved for ideas? It's mind-baffling how stupid of an idea that is.


I'm sorry, MerrittTheFerret, I'm not jokin'. This is the proof.
Attachments
yellow-submarine-3d.jpg
yellow-submarine-3d.jpg (45 KiB) Viewed 2531 times
Millions of years of climbing up from the ooze, instantly reversed. Imagine the horror as it all slips away. It's worse than mere death. It's being undone

Prime Evil
You Just Gotta Believe
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Prime Evil » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:25 pm

Now that is one sexy Submarine.

User avatar
incognitus
EVERYBODEH'S GOT TAP WATAH
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:40 pm

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby incognitus » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:14 pm

On March 14, 2011, Disney dropped out of the project, citing the unsatisfactory performance of A Christmas Carol, the disastrous opening weekend results of Simon Wells' Mars Needs Moms; criticism towards motion capture technology was also a factor. Zemekis's digital film studio, ImageMovers Digital, had already been closed by Disney in May 2010.

Although Disney bowed out of the project, the film is not completely cancelled; Zemeckis has the freedom to take the project to another studio


Looks like Zemeckis i'ts having a few problems
Millions of years of climbing up from the ooze, instantly reversed. Imagine the horror as it all slips away. It's worse than mere death. It's being undone

Star Ma'am
They say it's "dog"
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:35 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Star Ma'am » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:24 am

*groans* Oh god no, a Yellow Submarine remake? I can only hope this IS a bad joke!

I'm not a big fan of the Beatles (yes because of the 'Bigger than Jesus' thing, no I'm not religious but I'm pretty shocked about it being said!) but I especially dislike them due to a few unpleasant experiences of my own. Most notably... one Beatles-related unpleasantness caused by my mum actually occurred just months before George Harrison died! Yes I hoped something -anything- could be done to make up for what my mum did, and no I didn't wish death on anybody but I won't deny I cannot help but wonder if Harrison's death was far more than a coincidence!

In fact I heard somewhere Mark Chapman murdered John Lennon because of 'Bigger than Jesus' - and I cannot help but wonder if the fact he carried out the murder in the month of December (i.e. the month in which Christmas is celebrated) is thus more than just a coincidence! Such is another point in favour of why I feel it is risky to play Beatles music (yes including their Christmas songs) in December - you never know, any religious folk who too may not forgive the Beatles for this famous slur might have a little extreme something to say about playing their music in His holy month!
"Somewhere my love, there will be songs to sing... although the snow covers the hope of Spring..."
Sergeant Simon: Sir, the Goombas are dancing again...
King Koopa: DEAL WITH IT!!

User avatar
KoopaBro64
They say it's "dog"
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:40 am
Location: I'm from that little part of all of us that can't stand to see someone else in need or pain...
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby KoopaBro64 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:07 pm

Zemekis? Didn't he make the Back to The Future movies? Wow..I wonder how he is gonna pull this one off..kinda a hard movie to remake. Never really seen the original movie though, just some clips.
"You don't have the rock!..you filthy mammal.." Image

Prime Evil
You Just Gotta Believe
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Prime Evil » Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:56 pm

Star Ma'am wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Beatles (yes because of the 'Bigger than Jesus' thing, no I'm not religious but I'm pretty shocked about it being said!)

"Bigger than Jesus?" No, no, you and countless others have it wrong. What he said was, "We're more popular than Jesus now." I do not believe he meant it as a good thing--what Jesus was to 4BC Israel (healing people with his touch, etc.) he felt the Beatles were to 1964 UK/US. None of them liked being chased around by hordes of screaming girls, from what I've read. Naturally, though, people took it the wrong way.

Star Ma'am
They say it's "dog"
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:35 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: The submarine on 3-D

Postby Star Ma'am » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:49 am

Prime Evil wrote:
Star Ma'am wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Beatles (yes because of the 'Bigger than Jesus' thing, no I'm not religious but I'm pretty shocked about it being said!)

"Bigger than Jesus?" No, no, you and countless others have it wrong. What he said was, "We're more popular than Jesus now." I do not believe he meant it as a good thing--what Jesus was to 4BC Israel (healing people with his touch, etc.) he felt the Beatles were to 1964 UK/US. None of them liked being chased around by hordes of screaming girls, from what I've read. Naturally, though, people took it the wrong way.

Oh yes I know the expression is 'more popular than Jesus', I'm using a variant I have often heard of the term.

Yes I know it was taken the wrong way - however, we must bear in mind even in the now-'free' days of the 'swinging sixties' religion was still pretty much 'in vogue' (for lack of a better term; i.e. I say 'in vogue' as in it still being pretty common back then, before it eventually died down with a lot of people breaking free) so saying something like "We're bigger/more popular than Jesus!" seems pretty risky to me, especially after what Mark Chapman did.

So naturally, my own dislike of the Beatles aside I shudder when I hear any of their music during the month of December. I'm always like "I'm not willing to take that risk!" LOL
"Somewhere my love, there will be songs to sing... although the snow covers the hope of Spring..."
Sergeant Simon: Sir, the Goombas are dancing again...
King Koopa: DEAL WITH IT!!


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests