Special Effects

Discussion of the Twilight movie

Moderator: bac

Forum rules
Click for Forum Rules

Re: Special Effects

Postby debussygirl » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:43 pm

^^You have GOT to be kidding me!!
I can forgive them for the lame special effects with Twilight, since they're a small company and it didn't have a big budget but I think the Twihards have proved that New Moon is not a risk! Whatever they spend they will get back so much more! They need to stop being so cheap and pay up.
Image
Team Edward&Esme~SBS Assistant 2 the Cobosses~APPC
St Cullens Head of Neurology~Tetrarch
Need something to read? Try http://www.jennacooper.com
User avatar
debussygirl
Joining the Hunt for Enemies
 
Posts: 6978
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:10 pm
Location: preparing for next winter

Re: Special Effects

Postby Edward_Addict » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:36 pm

*starts crying at the horrifying thought of Catherine Hardwicke and a small budget YET AGAIN* :cry:
Image Image
User avatar
Edward_Addict
Completely Dazzled!
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Special Effects

Postby soozabooza54 » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:41 pm

I didn't get the idea that they were going to "cheap out" on the movie from that article. Of course they aren't just going to blow their money on it - they are a company just starting out and trying to make ends meet and trying to foster a working relationship with the community and make good movies. More money doesn't always equal a better movie. Yes, having additional funds is nice, but it also can turn your movie into some overly CGI produced monster (exhibit A - the most recent Indiana Jones - which also works as an argument for the director of your movie being all to blame, because Speilberg is just about the best director you can get, and that movie was HORRID).

I think that the production budget for the movie will be bigger, just because it's what the story demands - more CGI, more location shooting, etc. But that doesn't mean that this movie is going to be funded by a huge amount more than what Twilight was already at.
Image
E<3B
My pop culture blog - check it out! - http://asyetuntitled1.blogspot.com/
User avatar
soozabooza54
Frozen in Time
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:35 am
Location: Avoiding Spanish Influenza in Chicago

Re: Special Effects

Postby Edward_Addict » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:47 pm

soozabooza54 wrote:I didn't get the idea that they were going to "cheap out" on the movie from that article.

If you look at page 4 of the article http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,2015294 ... _4,00.html one of the Summit reps says, ''I don't think there was anything excessively lavish about Twilight, and yet the world was fully realized. We'll do exactly the same thing with New Moon.''
I don't know about you, but that doesn't exactly sound promising to me. Especially considering how much wolf stuff they'll need to do. Even SM kinda criticizes them for the sparkle CGI in that same paragraph.
Image Image
User avatar
Edward_Addict
Completely Dazzled!
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Special Effects

Postby soozabooza54 » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:57 pm

I think we are just reading it different. I think what they are saying is that they are going to give the movie what it needs to be made. Not that they are going to give it exactly the budget of Twilight.
Image
E<3B
My pop culture blog - check it out! - http://asyetuntitled1.blogspot.com/
User avatar
soozabooza54
Frozen in Time
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:35 am
Location: Avoiding Spanish Influenza in Chicago

Re: Special Effects

Postby Edward_Addict » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:06 pm

*shrug* I just hope they make it worthwhile. I would hate to see poorly constructed wolves.
Image Image
User avatar
Edward_Addict
Completely Dazzled!
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Special Effects

Postby soozabooza54 » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:11 pm

Well there is something we agree on! :)

Overall, I was fine with the effects in Twilight. I kinda wanted them to look messy, so it worked for me. The wolves will be a little tougher to impress me on though, so I'm hoping they get them right! :)
Image
E<3B
My pop culture blog - check it out! - http://asyetuntitled1.blogspot.com/
User avatar
soozabooza54
Frozen in Time
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:35 am
Location: Avoiding Spanish Influenza in Chicago

Re: Special Effects

Postby Edward_Addict » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:16 pm

The wolves will be a very big challenge and they're a much bigger part of NM than any of the other effects were in Twilight, which is why they HAVE to be done right. Yes, Edward's sparkles were a pivotal point in the book but the sparkling itself didn't play a huge role throughout like the wolves and their shifting will be in NM.
(And of course we agree on something! We're Twihards/Twilighters [whichever you prefer] so how much can we really disagree on? LOL)
Image Image
User avatar
Edward_Addict
Completely Dazzled!
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Special Effects

Postby amie » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:49 am

So it seems that across the board, everyone loved the baseball scene. In that, there was climbing of trees (Emmett) super fast running (most of them) shows of strength (again, most of them) and stunt action (the Emmett/Edward collision)

Did the quality of the effects change for the rest of the movie? Because I don't think they looked as good anywhere else as they did then. Actually, I thought the running looked great when the chase was on for Bella, and the ballet scene wasn't bad, but it seems before the baseball scene, the effects were much, much worse. They were extremely inconsistent, using different methods to show the same thing. I would have much preferred the dual-speed camera speed up like the blip of Edward walking around the car pre-Italiano dinner to the slo-mo-with-tracking jump from one rock to another in the woods, but why do BOTH? Why not pick one and keep it?

Thoughts on that?
amie
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:36 pm

Re: Special Effects

Postby navarre » Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:57 pm

Edward_Addict wrote:
soozabooza54 wrote:I didn't get the idea that they were going to "cheap out" on the movie from that article.

If you look at page 4 of the article http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,2015294 ... _4,00.html one of the Summit reps says, ''I don't think there was anything excessively lavish about Twilight, and yet the world was fully realized. We'll do exactly the same thing with New Moon.''
I don't know about you, but that doesn't exactly sound promising to me. Especially considering how much wolf stuff they'll need to do. Even SM kinda criticizes them for the sparkle CGI in that same paragraph.


Exactly, Edward_Addict, that's how I read it. Where do they get off saying the the world of Twilight was fully realized. No, it wasn't! Bigger budgets may not mean better movies, but in the case of Twilight it certainly played into it's silliness and cheesiness and poor editing and directing. Yes, the director and writer of the movie are very culpable, but I understand that money limits play into how long the movie is and what is allowed, costumes, locations, so forth. That's how I understand it.

amie, that's a good question regarding the special effects in camera speed. The tree climbing wasn't too bad, I've seen worse.
Paranormal/Romance/Adventure Addict
User avatar
navarre
Finding Stuff in Billy's Trunk
 
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: Swimming in a sea of books, books and more books

PreviousNext

Return to The Twilight Movie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron