Three Litre
Producer
Oscar 24
Posts: 3,410
Online Status:
|
Post by Three Litre on Oct 14, 2019 20:49:19 GMT
This looks like an interesting film, about the building of the GT40 for the Le Mans in 66.
Matt Damon stars.
|
|
|
Post by Sam Tyler on Oct 14, 2019 21:00:29 GMT
Sorry to poo-poo it Essex but I've seen the trailer and it looks to be a bit of a yawn in my opinion, nothing but a CGI festival. Once again totally unrealistic crashes and very little real world footage.
Give me a proper film length documentary any day as was done with 'Senna' and 'McLaren' where they used actual footage and didn't try to build a story around the actual history.
For that reason I haven't bothered watching 'Rush' either.
Sam.
|
|
Three Litre
Producer
Oscar 24
Posts: 3,410
Online Status:
|
Post by Three Litre on Oct 14, 2019 21:28:59 GMT
I quite liked the trailer and thought Rush told a good story as well. Looks like we disagree on this one! Sometimes you need CGI, the Dunkirk film looked bloody silly I thought as they only used real people on the beach scenes so looked like no one had turned up. And they had 3 Spitfires. Oh well, nothing like some healthy disagreement!
|
|
|
Post by Sam Tyler on Oct 14, 2019 23:27:32 GMT
Dunkirk was another one that I avoided. Annie and our youngest went to see it and they showed me a couple of clips on YouTube. Yes CGI can be clever as we saw on Ashes To Ashes when the O2 Dome was removed. However, that was a static image that was played out as a backdrop whereas when your view is the focussed image of a moving vehicle, car or plane, the producers or programmers still cannot achieve the correct movement or characteristic behaviour of the vehicle. You can also be sure that with the septics producing it that the dialogue is going to be contrived to elaborate the truth somewhat. By all means go and watch it Essex, I'll just sit outside in the car scoffing popcorn. Sam,
|
|
Three Litre
Producer
Oscar 24
Posts: 3,410
Online Status:
|
Post by Three Litre on Oct 15, 2019 8:45:04 GMT
I judge CGI like any other prop or effect, sometimes they are good, sometimes not. A bad prop or effect doesn’t necessarily ruin a film for me, great acting or atmosphere etc can carry it over the line.
I’m not a fan of films that are mostly CGI however eg most modern sci-fi.
|
|
Cartman
Producer
Posts: 3,948
Online Status:
|
Post by Cartman on Oct 15, 2019 14:54:00 GMT
I liked Rush, which is quite something as I have no interest in motor sport at all, the one exception was the time when Hunt and Lauda were competing with each other in 76, that was interesting
|
|
|
Post by D.C. Burtonshaw on Oct 15, 2019 17:46:11 GMT
I did see Rush and quite enjoyed it to be fair - although some of the behind the scenes things that are alleged to have happened did make me wonder. Might give the Le Mans one a go, but not take it took seriously.
In the Bohemian Rhapsody film, it was well known that not all of it was "as happened" but still a fairly entertaining way to pass the time.
|
|
Three Litre
Producer
Oscar 24
Posts: 3,410
Online Status:
|
Post by Three Litre on Oct 15, 2019 18:51:03 GMT
I did see Rush and quite enjoyed it to be fair - although some of the behind the scenes things that are alleged to have happened did make me wonder. Might give the Le Mans one a go, but not take it took seriously.
In the Bohemian Rhapsody film, it was well known that not all of it was "as happened" but still a fairly entertaining way to pass the time.
When they inevitably have to make some stuff up to fill in unknowns, as long as it in the spirit of the particular project then I don't have a problem. Now, some of the potty american versions of history over the years is some way outside that! I've never seen Braveheart for example but it has been criticised for historical inaccuracy I believe. I'm sure they are plenty of other examples.
|
|