OK, so even The Hunt for Gollum is 'corny'. You were determined to maintain this opinion right from the start, so nothing I or anyone else says will convince you otherwise. Let's just agree to disagree. :wave:
Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't necessarily mean that his mind is closed. You liked The Hunt for Gollum, and Dezired didn't. Both of you are entitled to your opinion.godkingofdivineroad said:
Exactly - pretty unfair to say I've determined not to like them from the start just because I don't like the indie films he mentions.The only fantasy film I've found to be not cheesy/corny is LotR. The Hunt for Gollum is, IMO, pretty good. But definitely not something I'd watch seriously or something I'd be immersed in.Corylea said:
I'm neither as stupid nor as unknowledgable about The Witcher as you seem to believe. I think you didn't understand the point I was making, so let me rephrase it.Real people can't do the things that witchers can do, so any live-action movie will have to use wires. I thought this looked unrealistic and ridiculous in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, even though I liked the movie in general. Live people doing wire-fu don't look realistic, partly because we know that people can't do that.Because CGI is different from live action, it doesn't produce that "Oh, come on, they're on wires" feeling in me that wire-fu does. Witchers can do that stuff, in the fantasy world in which they live, and CGI is just different enough from live action to make me swallow that. Your mileage may well vary, and I accept that, but this is how it is for me.godkingofdivineroad said:Oh, and Corylea, wire-fu can work wonders in achieving superhuman acrobatics. Who do you think did the motion capture for that climbing and jumping? It wasn't real witchers.
While I do agree with you on the realistic point... the movies mentioned Are ancient.Although, The Matrix was done really nicely and the cast performed wire-fu to accomplish it. So I's rather support this if it does accomplish some feetCorylea said:Real people can't do the things that witchers can do, so any live-action movie will have to use wires. I thought this looked unrealistic and ridiculous in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, even though I liked the movie in general. Live people doing wire-fu don't look realistic, partly because we know that people can't do that.Corylea said:Oh, and Corylea, wire-fu can work wonders in achieving superhuman acrobatics. Who do you think did the motion capture for that climbing and jumping? It wasn't real witchers.
Anyways, the idea for a movie sounds far fetched for me at this stage... I am still hoping for more progress on gaming just to introduce more depth to the concept. eace:Sorry if I sounded insulting. I was a little off-put by your description of what's probably one of the most acclaimed fan films ever made by the words 'very corny'. It was like hearing someone say that The Witcher is a tedious, boring game made only for immature teens: the person is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make it true in my mind, and for that matter that of the majority who've experienced it.Corylea, Geralt's 'acrobatics' are pretty far removed from the flying through trees you see in Chinese martial arts films. The only thing he routinely does is jump, roll and pirouette, which can be done pretty convincingly by a real stuntman if well-choreographed. And that climbing and jumping in the intro is not impossible for humans; at least for those who train for it, like climbers and gymnasts. A stuntman would need safety equipment, but there's nothing that would look fake if edited well. And in case that smilie wasn't clear enough, I never implied that you were either stupid or unknowledgable on any subject, let alone the Witcher. :angel:Dezired said:
I actually prefer the CGI cinematics on The Witcher because the transition from the intro/outro to the game graphics is smoother for my, admittedly limited, imagination. Also, I suspect that in this specific instance it is more efficient for CDPR to reuse the talent (designers, programmers, composer etc.) amassed for the game itself than to hire a separate cast and crew for a live-action shoot. Might be wrong, of course. Wouldn't be the first time. At least CGI avoids the problem of actors aging or being otherwise unavailable during long game development cycles, especially in the case of a sequel to a sequel.
At least CGI avoids the problem of actors aging or being otherwise unavailable during long game development cycles, especially in the case of a sequel to a sequel.That's a good point, CoryleaCorylea said:
The idea of live action in-game cinematics is certainly tempting. On one level, it can help us here in the real world relate more to what we see on the screen. It can bring a heightened sense of realism to the game in that it looks like our world, the characters look like us, instead of looking plastic and computer generated, thereby helping us relate a bit more. That generally tends to hinge on the context though, in that games told in gamesverses similar to or the same as our earth (eg, the GTA franchise) will be easier for gamers to personally invest and believe in.On the other hand, as Corylea said, it can actually be a jolting experience for the gamer, which would be detrimental to the overall gaming experience. I love a good bash in C&C but a big part of the charm of those games is their cheesy and over-the-top aspects. I don't know how tall you lot all are, but at 165cm I'm of fairly average height, if a little shorter than most. My perspective on this earth, as I'm walking about, does not in any way resemble the top-down perspective of the C&C games So cutting between live action in-game cinematics and the CG game world doesn't harm or jolt me out of my gaming experience as much. With an OTS or otherwise more immediate and relatable gaming perspective, the difference between live action cutscenes and my playing experience would be more noticeable, I'd wager, and that may detract from an overall gaming experience (for me).
A discrepancy I can potentially see there is that I'm not sure the actor who voiced Geralt (or any of the other characters, come to think of it) was used as a or the reference for the texturing of Geralt. With regards to the artistic visions of the developers, it might be possible to end up in a situation where an actor didn't have the necessary vocal stylings to carry off the character they were able to physically portray, and/or vice versa. In the instances of established characters (eg, Geralt, Lara Croft, Batman, etc) this would introduce an additional level of complexity to the casting and production process. Obviously this complexity would be negated or reduced in the instances of entirely new characters who are not based on previously existing reference materialCorylea said:
It's an interesting idea, though, and I certainly think it could have merit in some circles