CGI should never be used by itself; instead...

>CGI should never be used by itself; instead, it should be used sparingly to "touch up" any mistakes in post-production after using practical effects

>Green screens were a mistake

>If a production studio can afford to film in 2.35:1 ratio, settling for anything less is always a sign of terminal mediocrity

>If an actress (or actor, I suppose) agrees to appear in a film featuring scenes and themes of an "adult nature" (looking at you, Elle Fanning, you precocious twat), she must be obliged to show at least her tits without a body-double

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-sZS8OVyVr4
youtube.com/watch?v=pocfRVAH9yU
youtube.com/watch?v=aFHKwaW4Um8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Lord of the rings is mediocre on average.

Emily blunt cant act.

Emma stone has shit tier feet (and cant act)

i don't think thats an unpopular opinion
most people i know who are actually into movies always prefer practical effects

>>CGI should never be used by itself; instead, it should be used sparingly to "touch up" any mistakes in post-production after using practical effects
What if using practical effects will be more work for an objectively worse result? It's like throwing out all your flat head screwdrivers because you think every screw should be a phillips head.

>
>If an actress (or actor, I suppose) agrees to appear in a film featuring scenes and themes of an "adult nature" (looking at you, Elle Fanning, you precocious twat), she must be obliged to show at least her tits without a body-double
why?

1. People who post celebrity "worship" threads, or pictures of feet, etc, are fucking losers.

2. Anchorman is one of the worst movies ever made

3. Anyone who has ever watched a comic book movie should never be allowed to post their opinion on what they think about any piece of film ever recorded

4. Anyone who enjoys Game Of Cunts or Breaking My Tv Because This Is Bad, is a fucking moron and should keep quiet

5. Star wars is shit

6. Tarantino has never made a good movie

7. Probably 240 movies of the IMDB top 250 list are shit

>What if using practical effects will be more work for an objectively worse result?
That's a pretty big "what if" since it's always the other way around. CGI looks like trash.

Sup Forums the post

All the stars are here

People who complain about cgi should be culled
No one complains about good, non-obtrusive, cgi because they don't notice it

youtube.com/watch?v=-sZS8OVyVr4
youtube.com/watch?v=pocfRVAH9yU
youtube.com/watch?v=aFHKwaW4Um8
And countless other examples

CGI, used well, allows filmmakers to make films that are larger than life when people think they've seen everything. It also allows unparalleled control in post production and saves on the cost of having to temporarily build/rent giant scene-scapes

6/7 opinions are pure shit

are you trolling?

Seen these before but man, it is still incredible.

I'm really not trolling. You're just awfully mad

not him, but
>240/250
I question whether you actually like movies or not, honestly.

>Green screens were a mistake

c'mon this is stupid. I'd use green screen instead of shooting on location with all the permits and paperwork

those arent unpopular at all

...

kys hipster cunt

>Most agree with this

>This is silly

>Different aspect ratios can be used as stylistic choices

>If an actor is willing to go nude, yes, it shows their commitment to the role and should be commended, but there's hardly any obligation to

these

1. Yes
2.No
3.No.
4.No
5.Not really
6.Harsh
6.Yes

the breakfast club is a terrible movie
i believe that people only like it because it teaches them basic stuff about highschool that most intelligent people figured out themselves (everybody is self-conscious, everybody has problems, cliques aside everybody has common interests).

>Green screens were a mistake
You do know that mattes have been used with special effects since the dawn of cinema, right?

>>If a production studio can afford to film in 2.35:1 ratio, settling for anything less is always a sign of terminal mediocrity
You do know that IMAX has a less wide ratio than the standard widescreen, right?

>If a production studio can afford to film in 2.35:1 ratio, settling for anything less is always a sign of terminal mediocrity

Disagree - there are many movies where 'Scope would be unsuitable. Would you do what George Stevens did, and shoot the Diary of Anne Frank in 2.35:1?

for a fantasy movie i think that's good enough

hue hue hue

1. The golden age of movies were the 1980's
2. Quentin Tarantino is anachronistic
3. Pedo-wood is a myth
4. Dan Schneider did nothing wrong
5. J.J. Abrams is a very good director
6. Drive is overrated
7. French Extreme Cinema is shit
8. Lost was terrible
9. The Academy Awards usually get it right

all these look like cheap garbage, my dude.

>2. Quentin Tarantino is anachronistic

For some reason I have an 80's-style rap song in my head with the repeating lyrics, "anachronistic, anachronistic, Quentin Tarantino is anachronistic."

Sometimes autism can be fun.

Disney should never make a fucking 3D animated film again

There is not one good marvel/dc movie that has come out within the past 5+ years

>Drive is overrated

That's not an unpopular opinion, per se, it's just idiots on here unwilling to accept it -- but they'll come around.

Star Wars is the worst thing to ever happen to pop culture.

>5. J.J. Abrams is a very good director
>9. The Academy Awards usually get it right

>8. Lost was terrible
You take that back!