|
|
Post by gouniara on Mar 9, 2006 16:01:31 GMT -5
why is everyone been complaining about the soft look in the movie?
didnt they watch the trailer before it got released?
that effect was everywhere on the trailer.
personally i like it.
why is the lab guy talking to violet dubbed in the movie? isnt it his real voice in the trailer? why didnt they keep that one?
I have only seen a really crap version of the movie (downloaded the cam one). And i did that, cause i really wanted to know why people were talking so negative about it. I regreted it cause I wanted to see it in the movies when its released here and that copy didnt do it any justice. Couldnt see a thing, the audio was bad, no colours, nothing.
Although I did see it and can say that it has been butchered to death.
But that bad cam version made me realise another thing. I know the movie sounds and looks better than this and that already makes it a better movie from what i just saw. Sounds weird?
Well watch this cam version first and then go watch the movie in the theatre. I am sure you will appreciate it a lot more!!!!
Yes it could have been a lot better, maybe kurts version was better, maybe not. I am sure i wouldnt mind to have the 2hours version of it if u ask me.
I have been really sad and pissed off about what happened to this movie. But on the other hand, I now realise, that its just a fun action movie with some great elements and some cool fight scenes. And that's just what I was expecting from it a long time ago.
I can ignore the bad robotik acting, ofcourse it could be much better than this, but its not a movie about acting anyways.
I dont mind the fx, i liked the look of it from the trailer. Milla looks fantastic, and she fits the role perfectly as violet, and did a decent job acting out that bad dialogue. If i had to change only one person from the cast, it would be nerva and then daxus cause they had to speak more time than the others and they sounded a lot cheesier.
What i am trying to say is that the only thing that really bothered me here is the editing of the movie top of everything. The reason I wanted to see this movie was for the fight scenes and knowing that kurt was doing them, I expected to see everything happening on the screen. Hope we get that at least on the dvd.
I just accept it for what it is. A comic book fun action scifi movie. And in that sense it delivers. In all its badness, it has something original about it that I just cant explain. It didnt remind me of anything else while watching it, it took me somewhere else for sure.
I am not saying that the movie is good by ignoring all these things above, its not. But I believe that if it wasnt cut, Id love it and id be fine with it.
Kurts version would surely be better cause it would include the full fight scenes and fill some of the plot's holes, but i dont believe it would suddenly make it another film. The bad dialogue/acting will still be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjfbryant on Mar 9, 2006 17:40:26 GMT -5
Well, we've already talked about it ..but....it terms of the "soft look." I hated it. It was the worst part of the movie for me (besides the bad editing.)
There is not a single understandable reason to soft focus filter the ENTIRE movie. It adds nothing nor does it help tell the story or fix CGI mistakes.
If the soft focus filtering adds something to the movie ...and it helps it along...then I would have been ok with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackmode211 on Mar 9, 2006 22:25:50 GMT -5
soft focas didnt bother me at all.....
.....i didnt even notice it until people started complaining.....
|
|
|
|
Post by TheKaiser on Mar 9, 2006 22:34:20 GMT -5
They hadn't finished the effects no doubt and soft focus filtered everything to try to maintain some consistancy.
|
|
CGenro
Resistance Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by CGenro on Mar 10, 2006 1:53:23 GMT -5
I didn`t really have a problem with the soft focus look as I thought it was pretty unique. But as you guys said it was probably used to cover the fact they they used unfinished shots and half assed CGI.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjfbryant on Mar 10, 2006 6:28:39 GMT -5
thats right, it was to blend the incomplete CGI with the rest of the set pieces and visuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Mar 10, 2006 8:12:04 GMT -5
I'm in the minority I guess that didn't mind it. Of course, I did regret sitting as close to the screen as I did in the theater because of it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wraith on Mar 21, 2006 14:57:52 GMT -5
I'm with you on the soft look, Al. I think it helped the movie look distinctive. I loved UV's look except for the cheap CGI
|
|
|
|
Post by TheKaiser on Mar 22, 2006 23:44:25 GMT -5
Finally saw the film. The soft-focus got annoying if only because it would often blur the actors eyes into their skin. I wasn't feeling to well when I saw the film and it gave me a headache.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walldude on Mar 23, 2006 12:23:23 GMT -5
The soft look had nothing to do with the CGI and it was not used to "cover" anything. . It's part of Wimmers style, the soft lensing together with the garish colors, the art direction and the makeup all blend together to create the surreal hallucinatory effect that is signature to Wimmers style. It was used in EQ but less noticable because the comic book style in UV made it glaringly obvious. This style is part of what I love about Wimmer. He actually alluded to it in one of the EQ interviews, he says something to the effect of the movie being on drugs. Maybe Jen can remember the quote....
As far as the "bad" CGI what do you expect? They won't give the man the budget he needs, when you read a script and it says "Motorcycle drives on the side of a bus, side of a building and then jumps through a moving helicopter" You automatically allocate 10 million dollars to make something like that look real. Considering that would have been a third of the budget they probably decided it would work with cheaper comic style CGI. Personally I think it was a bad choice, too many people are too whiney about CGI these days and there was no way to please everyone. I think the scene works in the context of the film but they would have caught less flack if they had come up with something else...
|
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 23, 2006 21:03:31 GMT -5
It was used in EQ but less noticable because the comic book style in UV made it glaringly obvious. That is a very good point. It was used somewhat in EQ. Sure can do...
" To me, films are emotional drugs and we take these emotional drugs to manipulate our neurochemistry and to make ourselves feel what we want to feel and it bothers me that the MPAA is crushingly reducing the bandwidth of feelings that they think we can handle feeling. " CHUD Interview
It should also be noted that Wimmer stated early on that UV would be a "design exercise". Some of this can still be seen in spite of the studio edits.
"Equally important [to me] is that I want to make this film as an absolute design exercise," Wimmer explains. "I want to create a futuristic world that is totally design-oriented in a way that's never been seen before. To my eye, almost all science fiction films are the misbegotten stepchildren of BLADE RUNNER. I can think of very few if any other examples. BLADE RUNNER is great, but I'm sick of that and I've got what I think are great ideas for creating a bold and strikingly different new world." - Fangoria
... so I'd actually put this film in a more experimental vein like Amelie or The Red Spectacles (which I can't find anyone who has actually seen but me. :  Those of us who were raised on older flicks like the original Star Wars, Ray Harryhausen, the original Star Trek and such seem to be more forgiving of funky CGI. (I still though hate the stampede in King Kong!!!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by tjfbryant on Mar 24, 2006 12:27:13 GMT -5
well, I am sorry to disagree. But most movies (even experimental ones) that use a soft focus filter is used to hide some ill effect or cinematic consequence. It can be used in other movies for a cinematic "scope" effect also(such as sky captain and the world of tomorrow (more visible), and final fantasy spirits within (less noticable).
Just like using a high contrast barrier filter for movies like Minority report, Saving private Ryan, and War of the worlds. This indeed improves the "scope" of the film.
Why do I know this?
Because I have worked (as a graphics techician on War of the worlds.)
UV using the soft focus does not improve the visual effect nor "fit" with the idea that soft focusing a Comic style movie will benefit the overall viewing pleasure.
I have seen the movie on 3 different screens. 1 a digital projector in NYC, and 2 DLP projectors.
The 2 DLP projectors created such a intense "unfocused" haze **Extra** that it caused everyone in the audience to squint.
I am sorry. I loved UV...alot. AND I love Wimmer and his vision....but unless you can give me factual info on his intentions of placing a SFF over the final cut. I believe the studio did this without his consent (whether it was done ever so slighty in EQ) Which BTW ..I still have yet to notice the SFF in the movie, and seen EQ well over 100 times.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheKaiser on Mar 24, 2006 13:29:08 GMT -5
Seriously. The film would of been more comic book if the visuals were sharper and crisp, not muddy and washed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaitenproductions on Mar 24, 2006 18:12:29 GMT -5
if they wanted a comic book looking movie why dont they do what scanner darkly is doing? anyone here seen the previews to the movie. Looks awesome. Its the same as waking life from a few years back.
And didnt i read here that his cut from a year ago didnt have the soft focus and did he also say that the effects in this movie were not his.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 24, 2006 19:38:18 GMT -5
And didnt i read here that his cut from a year ago didnt have the (1)soft focus and (2)did he also say that the effects in this movie were not his. 1. yes, it did not 2. yes, the FXs are not his |
|
|
|
Post by Wraith on Mar 24, 2006 20:19:35 GMT -5
Well, I liked the soft focus look. And even if it is such a bad thing, it was LEAST of the movie's problems.
|
|
guiboche
Resistance Member
Movie Trailer Fanatic!
Posts: 28
|
Post by guiboche on Aug 12, 2006 16:49:32 GMT -5
I've read every post in here, and maybe I'm the only one who "Got" what the soft look was trying to do, or maybe, I'm just naive and made up what I thought it should be. But, the soft look (or nosie reduce) look I thought had a full and intended reason for being there. The world is so filled with fear of disease that they would try to make their surrounds as clean as possibly could be. The noise reduce soft look is a visual representation of that cleanliness. As for the VFX, I liked them. The worst was when V jumped up the side of the building, and there was lots of incredible camera shake added to try and hide all the mistakes, but so what. The look of the film and the look of the VFX compliment each other. I don't think the VFX would work in that world if they were incredibly realistic. I am sorry. I loved UV...alot. AND I love Wimmer and his vision....but unless you can give me factual info on his intentions of placing a SFF over the final cut. I believe the studio did this without his consent (whether it was done ever so slighty in EQ) Which BTW ..I still have yet to notice the SFF in the movie, and seen EQ well over 100 times. That look in EQ (which actually fits more into the "Soft Focus" lens effect that everyone keeps calling it) was used in the Flashbacks when his wife was captured. Though, again, looks more like it was done in post. A very slight/soft "Glow" effect added over the footage. |
|
|
|
Post by Aedh on Aug 15, 2006 11:14:06 GMT -5
Well, I'm not qualified to weigh in with a technical opinion, and this is totally off the wall. But I think a sharp, 'gritty' look wouldn't have suited what KW was trying to do. I have noticed one thing about Wimmer, he has an acute sense of what appeals to women--look at all the female "Equilibrium" fans, which is unusual for a dystopian/futuristic/sci-fi type movie. I think the 'soft' look here had something to do with that. He was definitely being experimental on a lot of levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mirabilis on Aug 15, 2006 13:47:42 GMT -5
You've got a good point there aedh. I went into watching EQ with absolutely no preconceptions of what this film was going to be like. Nobody had recommended it to me and I only watched it on Channel 4 recently purely because I read about it in the Radio Times and was intrigued...although I will admit I've always been a sci-fi movie fan...Blade Runner is one of my all-time favourite films. I'm not entirely sure what people mean by the "soft look" in this movie but the whole look of the film reminded me very much of what Ridley Scott typically does with lighting in his movies...it has an other-wordly quality which I love. EQ had a look and feel to it which I was instantly drawn to....I am now proud to be one of those female EQ fans.  |
|
|
|
Post by dsolidsnake on Aug 16, 2006 0:04:20 GMT -5
It is true if you heared in the commentary KW said that more women responded better to EQ.
And for the soft look for UV I liked it even though I don't like the movie to much I think the look was cool. It gave more of a comic book feel to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wraith on Aug 20, 2006 18:03:21 GMT -5
I think the soft look was very appropriate. It made everything thing look squeaky clean and sterilized, and it made the lights seem brighter like in a surgical room. Since the setting was a medical-based police state obsessed with cleanliness I think the hospital-like atmosphere matched the movie perfectly.
Besides, it looks cool, too.
|
|
fluffy
Resistance Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by fluffy on Jun 6, 2007 19:09:29 GMT -5
It was used in EQ but less noticable because the comic book style in UV made it glaringly obvious. That is a very good point. It [the soft look] was used somewhat in EQ. It was?  ? How did I miss it? Where was it? |
|
|
|
Post by Walldude on Jun 16, 2007 13:15:43 GMT -5
The scene where I remember it most was the scene where his wife was arrested, watch it again you'll see.
|
|
)
