# Horus Heresy Films



## ClassyRaptor (Apr 7, 2010)

Do you think, that if they decided to make films of the Horus Heresy Novels, would they keep very scrictly to the fluff and the novels? Or change a few things. In my oppinion, they will eventually make them.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

They would murder the storyline.

I can see it now....

HORUS HERESY - THE MOVIE
The Emperor - Adam Sandler
Horus - The Rock
Sanguinus - Ron Jeremy
Random stupid bitch the Emperor wants to fuck - Reese Witherspoon


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

A lot will depend on the success of the Ultramarines movie, if it does a well then I would expect to see the HH covered at some point in the future. As for the story, not sure, again it will depend a lot on the Ultra's film. If they give the fluff a complete mauling then don't get your hopes up but I've got my fingers crossed!
The biggest problem is that the HH books are written for people who already have at least some idea whats going on, translating that to film and keeping it simple for people who don't know is going to be tricky to put it mildly.
So, if things go well I would expect to see a HH film or two at some point in the future, how close it is to existing fluff is completely up in the air though.


----------



## imntdead (Apr 21, 2008)

I personally believe it would have to be all CG or it just won't turn out as well. I am certain some one can make some decent power armour for a HH movie; but they wouldn't be able to move very well once they were in a fight scene. Not to mention you know any sort of sets they make will have to be absolutely awe inspiring so might wanna just make it cheaper by doing it all in CG. 

There is another problem I would be concerned about and that is whenever a director takes on the task of developing a movie they always want to add their own twists and write off certain issues which are important and then basically they make it their own because they feel they have some kind of do whatever I want license.


----------



## forkmaster (Jan 2, 2010)

Maybe a long time series, like Star Wars but with not that crappy CGI characters that looks like childs play.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

I have to totally agree with _normtheunsavoury_. Any future film project set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe will depend almost entirely on the success of the upcoming Ultramarines Movie. And I don't exactly have high hopes for that.

Hypothetically though, if it did happen - I imagine it would be similar to other films which are based on novels; not as good as the books.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Let's face it.

A 40k film will live or die by how willing its core audience will be to drop $25-35 on a DVD/Blu-Ray disk, and how far word of mouth carries it.

It's not going to be a movie theatre release. The subject matter is simply too offensive for the adult population of the world's biggest movie-going audience. It's sad to say, but the folks behind such a movie might only invite unwanted attention/reaction from the very real groups that hate the idea of kids playing around with dangerous subject matter.

Here's a positive thing to take from Ultramarines the Movie: the cast. They got some very good actors to lend their voices. That's a major part of the battle. You want to get talented folks to make the art something you find enjoyable for a couple of hours. You want to get talented folks to make a story that rises to the occassion. Finally, you'll have to get actors that can suspend your disbelief and do justice to their characters.

One of the three has been accomplished. Until we see actual screenshots of finished art, we won't know how visually appealing it will be. That having been said, I would drop $25 on a DVD movie that had CGI quality equivalent to the intro to DoW II. Finally, we won't know how good the story is until we see the movie.

But, again: if they get good CGI art and a decent cast... I imagine that the same folks that bought the _books_ will buy the movies... That might cover a good portion of the cost to make the movie, and that's where you need word of mouth to pick up. If you add all the people who bought the DoW games... you might do well.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

I personally see a story based on HH being a big money maker as long as they stay true to story. Also if it does good then we could possibly the Lord of the Rings treatment.

Hell if flippin Twilight and there sparkling vampires(VAMPIRE DONT SPARKLE IN THE SUN THEY DIE A BURNING FIREY DEATH WHO EVER COOKED UP THIS IDEA SHOULD BE SHOT) the there is no doubt in my mind that the HH will do just as good.

WHen the hell is the UM movie comin out anyway i havent heard anything on it in quite sometime.


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

They would have to really butcher the story that we all know just to get it to fit into even a trilogy. There is just too much that needs to be explained and too much time lapse that they built into the Heresy between Istvaan and the Siege of Terra that you have to cover too much material to make it suitably epic.

That being said, I could see someone doing it if Ultramarines is a success and they get another movie or two out that also has success, then I could see a direct to dvd treatment with the Heresy playing out over the course of 5 or 6 movies or something, but that is the only scenario.

Sorry to be a pessimist.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

1: CGI movies are crap

2: This movie would only ever be good if I directed it, and it wouldn't be 1 movie, it would be 1 movie per book.


----------



## COMPNOR (Apr 21, 2010)

They would butcher it. I mean, for one the movies are never as good as the book. And while its not a video game, look at the treatment they get when turned into movies. Doom I don't see how you can mess that up, and Wing Commander.... that even involved Chris Roberts and was nothing like the game or books.


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

Man, ive always wanted to do this:biggrin:

The Emperor- Sean Connery:laugh: (Dare I say Chuck Norris?)
Sanguinus- Brad Pitt
Horus- Bruce Willis
Fulgrim- Joaquin Phoenix (spelling?)
Konrad Curze- Keanu Reeves
Mortarion- ....

... Okay, so perhaps pairing Chat regulars with Primarchs was a better idea, but meh, one can always fantasise. 

In addition, and to the point of the thread, I would -- as a strong fan of written media -- _loathe_ for the Horus Heresy to be made into a film. No doubt it would fail to scale my collossal expectations, and simply, I would prefer the _legend_ to stay within its shiny, gold-edged, pocked-sized tomes


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Yes, I played this game with all of my friends, too.

There were some _awesome_ idea for casting. Such as:

Sinderman - Patrick Stewart

Sanguinius - Jared Leto

Konrad Curz - Alan Rickman

Rogal Dorn - Liam Neeson

The list was massive and I won't recite it, but you can be assued that we had this shit covered. Shame filmakers these days are only interested in turning out wank made on computers that is boring++


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

bobss said:


> Man, ive always wanted to do this:biggrin:
> 
> The Emperor- Sean Connery:laugh: (Dare I say Chuck Norris?)
> Sanguinus- Brad Pitt
> ...


You're kidding me. You'd have Keanu 'I'm a block of wood' Reeves play the Night Haunter?

Better pray the Night Lords never hear of this or they will come for you.:laugh:

Baltar: Liam Neeson, Alan Rickman and Patrick Stewart, yes. If they ever made a HH movie, they are three of the few actors that rightly convey the epic events of the Horus Heresy. Sadly, such a movie would never happen. The HH is too huge for a movie. Just the Siege of Terra and the final battle would take an entire film.


----------



## Smokes (Nov 27, 2009)

Akatsuki13 said:


> You're kidding me. You'd have Keanu 'I'm a block of wood' Reeves play the Night Haunter?
> 
> Better pray the Night Lords never hear of this or they will come for you.:laugh:
> 
> Baltar: Liam Neeson, Alan Rickman and Patrick Stewart, yes. If they ever made a HH movie, they are three of the few actors that rightly convey the epic events of the Horus Heresy. Sadly, such a movie would never happen. The HH is too huge for a movie. Just the Siege of Terra and the final battle would take an entire film.


Even though they would have to cut it down imagine the epicness of a three to four hour Siege on Terra....they would need to hire Michael Bay for the explosions though.


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

Akatsuki13 said:


> You're kidding me. You'd have Keanu 'I'm a block of wood' Reeves play the Night Haunter?
> 
> Better pray the Night Lords never hear of this or they will come for you.:laugh:


*Begins to cry* You did not just insult Neo, you did _not_ just insult *Neo*:shok:

... Patrick Stewart would be a magnificent choice for any role, Sindermann? I believe his talent would be wasted upon a mere remembrancer:laugh:


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

Yeah, I'd probably cast Patrick Stewart as Malcador. I think he'd be better suited to that role. Though I could also see him doing Roboute Guilliman.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

A live action 40K film would look stupid, whether you like CGI or not it's the only way to make a film based on the 40k universe. 
IG would be ok but the moment you throw SM or Termies into the mix you've got a mechanical nightmare on your hands and thats just dealing with the human side of things. How would you go about showing Eldar, Tyranids, Orks or Daemons? 
As much as people critisize CGI in films it's sometimes the only way to do things. No one honestly wants to see a man in plastic "power" armour having a ruck with a latex Ork. 
Or maybe they do want that and it should all be done to look as stupid as possible so instead of the story being the catch people watch it to laugh at the god awful special effects?


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Rubbish.

They did loads of movies perfectly well (much better than CGI) without CGI. Jurassic park and Aliens both spring to mind.

Directors have lost 90% of their creativity now that they can just be lazy and fall back onto computers to make all of the effects (which always look appalling).

You want to try comparing the mechanical suit Lt Ripley had in Aliens to the ones in Avatar, and then tell me that the live action movie doesn't look better. If you did, you'd be wrong, for a start.

If 20 years ago they could make a 20ft mechanical heavy lifting suit look perfectly real, then today they could easily make SM and Temies etc without the full use of a computer.


----------



## Farseer Dave (May 4, 2010)

a Horus Heresy film would be bloody fantastic ! imadgine the siege of the emperors palace on the big screen :O

for casting i think ..

Horus : Christopher Walken

The Emperor : Liam Neeson

Rogal Dorn : Ray Stevenson

Sanguinius : Andy Whitfield (played the angel gabriel)

Constantin Valdor : Eric Bana 

Eldrad : Farseer Dave....

Just an idea..


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Lol no clue why you have Liam Neeson as the Emperor. Looks nothing like him.


----------



## Farseer Dave (May 4, 2010)

Baltar said:


> Lol no clue why you have Liam Neeson as the Emperor. Looks nothing like him.


none of the actors look the Exact same as the artwork..

I have him as the Emperor becouse the emperor should have a commanding aura while at the same time have a darker more brutal aspect hidden away.. the emperor was no nice guy he was happy to erradicate evry non-human race for the glory of the human race and his empire that was his goal..

i have him as my emperor becouse in my opinion liam neeson is just the man to give that impression.. you might dissagree if so fair enough ^^

Farseer Dave


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Baltar,

In regards to CGI, I have to respectfully disagree. The issues that arise with CGI is when filmmakers try to interweave CGI with live action. We still haven't reached that level of sophistication, although James Cameron certainly has made great advances... and McG's use of a CGI "Arnold" in Terminator: Salvation showed we may be there soon.

In that sense, yes, a CGI-heavy live action movie _would_ suffer. It's something I would rather not see.

When it comes to a fully animated movie, though, I think CGI can certainly get the job done. If you _know_ you're going to see an animated movie, I challenge you to tell me that an enhanced version of the art used for the trailer of "Space Marine", the video game by THQ, would have been disappointing. Personally, I thought they did an _excellent_ job of capturing the feel of environments, objects, the stature and presence of the Astartes, etc.

To the rest,

Story-wise, I don't see them messing up too badly. You have to remember... Doom the video game had no real story, and thus there was plenty of room to deliver a crap screenplay. "Wing Commander" had a low budget, lacked the technology to meet Chris Roberts' vision (for Kilrathi, among other things) and tried to fit a larger demographic... precisely because it was a wide-release flick.


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

Forget Liam Neeson, he's suggesting Christopher Walken as Horus! That's a terrible choice for Horus. I've been trying to picture it mentally, and all I see is a Horus Heresy SNL skit that always seems to end with Horus demanding more cowbell.


----------



## Farseer Dave (May 4, 2010)

Akatsuki13 said:


> Forget Liam Neeson, he's suggesting Christopher Walken as Horus! That's a terrible choice for Horus. I've been trying to picture it mentally, and all I see is a Horus Heresy SNL skit.


Ever seen The Prophecy? 

i think christopher walken would be pure awesome to put across the Evil that Horus has become.

Then again its just my opinion , you are ofc entitled to your own!

Farseer Dave.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Baltar said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> They did loads of movies perfectly well (much better than CGI) without CGI. Jurassic park and Aliens both spring to mind.
> 
> ...


Aliens is pretty much the exception that proves the rule and jurassic park was a mix of CGI and piss poor latex models, they did such a great job that in one scene you can see someone reach out and prop up a raptor!
Yeah, some films could probably do without CGI but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the technology just the people using it. 
As for "being wrong" then surely thats just a matter of opinion, in your opinion I'm wrong, fair enough.
I'm all for creativity but it doesn't mean you have to avoid using all the available tools or that one form of film making is any better than another. Is animation also inferior to live action? I'm sure most Anime fans would disagree. Its not the tools used that make a film crap or great it's the film itself, if a CGI SM can move and look better than a man in a plastic suit then it's CGI all the way for me, which apparenly makes me wrong. Oh well!


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

After seeing the John Blanche picture of Rogal Dorn, there was no doubt in my mind that the only actor I would ever think of casting for him was Liam Neeson.

The Emperor is one of the very few I havn't been able to find a suitable actor for. My initial thought was something like Benecio Del Torro, but I would probably just not cast the Emperor at all in the early movies.

As for Horus, I doubt I could cast him as anyone other than a younger man than Christiopher Walken, despite him _needing_ another part in the movie somewhere along the line.

I can't escape Alan Rickman as Night Haunter, the match is simply too good.

I think that Malcador would need to be younger than Patrick Stewart, personally, but I can see it nontheless. I think perhaps someone like Ralph Fiennes could be a fantastic malcador, if you give him a decent hood and let him grow a spindley beard.

I kind of like the suggestion someone had earlier for Bruce Willis as Horus, but there are problems there, I think.

Personally, I had thoughts of casting Robert Downey Jnr as a primarch, and the two that came to mind were either Horus or Robout Guilliman (however you spell the prick's name).

I think that Christopher Walken could make a brilliant demon, or perhaps a decent Fabricator General of Mars.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I've never ever seen a CGI movie that I thought was ANY good, and I am yet to think that ANY character I have EVER seen that was a pure CGI rendition was realistic looking AT ALL.

Making characters from CGI is a poor film straight off the bat. It's like pushing an instant lose button, IMO, because they are _always_ utterly crap looking.

The best movies use special effects as a means of creating _effects_ - explosions, laser beams, and all of that other ambience stuff.

Characters can easily be made in live action with no CGI - SM are no exception.

Just look at LOTR for example - all of the bad guys are just dudes in awesome make-up.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Except Gollum of course! 
There's a whole world of difference between making a man look like and Urok-hai or a Mordor orc and making a full suit of power armour look realistic. Whichever way you look at it, it's going to look like a man in a plastic waste paper basket. Applying some make up and making a SM look real are two very different things.
LOTR made awesome use of CGI when it needed to, Gollum and the cave troll being two examples. I agree that it is used too much but there are just some things that wouldn't work without it, LOTR being a fine example!


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I know what I would do:

I would do what was done with Jurasic Park 1. I would make the suit using a model, blank, and then I would overlay CGI onto it to touch it up so that it looked good. That way you get the face, voice, realistic movement and posture of actors, and you get the detail of CGI.

Simple.

A full CGI character would look ultra gash.


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

Personally, I was making the movie, I'd probably do it entirely CGI, but I'd do it like how Cameron did the Na'vi of Avatar. Filming the actors in mocap suits and camera harnesses for their faces as they act the scene out.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Again, I would recommend checking out the trailer for "Space Marine" by THQ... let me know what you think.

Cheers,
P.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

look _ok_ for a computer game.

Absolutely shockingly terrible for a movie. Total and utter crap. If I saw that in the cinema I would want my money back.

They had better effects 25 years ago.


----------



## Zenith_of_Mind (Mar 12, 2010)

Some good points have been raised in the discussion for and against CGI, and my opinion is that they should go with it. It will enable the director to fully captured the 40k feel, in my opinion. 
Of course, that is if the director, Martyn Pick, can do a respectable job in his department. I'm not really familiar with his work, but the unfamiliarity comes from the fact that he hasn't directed a single movie. He did work with animation before, but to directed such a demanding movie you need at least some experience. 

I still believe that the movie may turn out okay, the voice actors are good, and the screenplay is written by Dan Abnett, so no complaints there.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. On the side note, I really don't understand where the all "this movie is gonna suck" comments come from. I mean, if the site is so filled with hardcore Warhammer fans, why aren't there more people excited about the movie?


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Simple.

40k is a dark universe of x-rated death and destruction.

This movie is going to be a 12A fairy tale that will ruin space marines.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Everyone is forgetting a question that is equally as important as who would be the cast... (assuming we would use actors - and we would, because anything else would be gash).

What would the soundtrack be?

I have already decided that if I were to make a series of 30 something movies, then the "trailer" soundtrack would be Lux Aeterna - Chronos Quartet (full orchestral version), with little flashes of battles and epic events, and in the "quiet" phase of the soundtrack we would have an appearence of the silhouette of the Emperor, as he asks a question in his deep baritone voice (something along the lines of "My son, what have you done?", but I don't know.

I know that for the appearance of eldar there would be the introduction to Ayla (part 3) - Ayla. Just because it would fit awesomely with the rampant flying of jetbikes etc.

I also decided that the first appearance of space marines would be as an intervention to an imperial stormtrooper raid that was not going as smoothly as anticipated. The scene would be on a world much like modern Earth, in a nightclub, with the imperial guard storming the room but them not being quite as successful as they had hoped - and then all of that completely dissipating with the appearance of a couple of space marines. I think that the early graphic slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of people, easily, would need to be done to ensure that the view totally grasped the utter efficiency of the space marine (and putting them in a room full of people automatically gauges size). Not to mention the possibilities for epic soundtrack - I'm thinking something along the lines of being right in the middle of Love is Gone - Fred Rister & Joachim Garraud Remix for that scene. It would be epic.

Forget full CGI characters. It's for little kiddies movies. Waste of time.


----------



## polynike (Aug 23, 2008)

normtheunsavoury said:


> *A lot will depend on the success of the Ultramarines movie*, if it does a well then I would expect to see the HH covered at some point in the future. As for the story, not sure, again it will depend a lot on the Ultra's film. If they give the fluff a complete mauling then don't get your hopes up but I've got my fingers crossed!
> The biggest problem is that the HH books are written for people who already have at least some idea whats going on, translating that to film and keeping it simple for people who don't know is going to be tricky to put it mildly.
> So, if things go well I would expect to see a HH film or two at some point in the future, how close it is to existing fluff is completely up in the air though.


Pray tell more about this please? Has this been out there long?


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

polynike said:


> Pray tell more about this please? Has this been out there long?


http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52318&highlight=Ultramarines+movie
http://ultramarinesthemovie.com/

They may be useful.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

You should be able to find out whatever you need to know here:

http://ultramarinesthemovie.com/

DAMN! CotE beat me to it!!


----------



## polynike (Aug 23, 2008)

Thanks guys.

Ive read the thread and Patrick Stewart would definitely have to be in it!


----------



## NiceGuyEddy (Mar 6, 2010)

polynike said:


> Pray tell more about this please? Has this been out there long?


http://ultramarinesthemovie.com/

For some reason I think it's set on a space hulk (not certain) and it's about the smurfs, as usual.

Dan Abnett wrote the screenplay so it should be a decent enough story although he said in a blog or possibly vlog they don't plan to batter viewers who aren't familiar with 40k with too much fluff.

Terence Stamp (valorum - star wars), John Hurt (kane - alien), Sean Pertwee (Dog Soldiers), Steven Waddington (last of the mohicans), Donald Sumpter (eastern promises) and ohnny Harris (atonement) are motion captured and provide voiceovers. All are quality actors.

EDIT: Man I'm a slow typist. Oh well.


----------



## ClassyRaptor (Apr 7, 2010)

Wow, so many replies to read through :grin: , but seriously think about it. If a experienced Director was chosen and all the "better" HH authors, lol in my oppinion only Dan and Graham, to come in a write Screen Play which I am sure they would do without question. Then some how get the same tech as James Cameron used in Avatar. Remember the large robotic war suits the pissy 'marines' wore? That looked so realistic, if they did the same for power armour, and had allot of practice, then it could work. Most of the Frigin Avatar movies was on a computer, that would be what you would have to do with an 'real life' 40k movie, and I think they should do that with HH.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I agree.

Real actors with a CGI "overlay" would be the ideal situation.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

The costs behind "Avatar" will not be within reach of a Horus Heresy movie anytime soon, I'm afraid.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Good.

Avatar was a shit movie, and well below the standard I have come to expect from James Cameron. He should stick to his creativity, rather than being lazy and falling back on the computers to do the work for him. He has fallen from grace IMO. Back "in the day" he had real insight and imagination - all taken away from him now by the blandness of shitty CGI.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Baltar said:


> look _ok_ for a computer game.
> 
> Absolutely shockingly terrible for a movie. Total and utter crap. If I saw that in the cinema I would want my money back.
> 
> They had better effects 25 years ago.


Well, let me try again.

1. You're *not* going to see it in the movie, as no 40k movie will be in the big screen.
2. It would be an *enhanced* version of that *style* of art.

I'm not talking about the in-game art... I'm talking about the animated trailer. If you're calling that "total and utter crap", I question what quality level animation you've been watching lately... because I really want to see it, too! :grin:


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

There is an Ultramarine movie coming out.

Don't compare computer game CGI to movies, because game effects are "real time" and a movie is recorded. There really is no comparison, at all. Movies can be better because it's just a playback, whereas a game has to require real time processing.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Baltar said:


> Good.
> 
> Avatar was a shit movie, and well below the standard I have come to expect from James Cameron. He should stick to his creativity, rather than being lazy and falling back on the computers to do the work for him. He has fallen from grace IMO. Back "in the day" he had real insight and imagination - all taken away from him now by the blandness of shitty CGI.


Sigh.

The _point being,_ as "shit" a movie as "Avatar" may or may not have been, the technology you assume is would be the right fit is prohibitively expensive for the movie you're talking about.

Six months ago, this discussion would be pointless, since it would all be hypothetical. Now, with a movie _actuallyin the making,_ we may as well discuss what's feasible and how likely it is to succeed.

That's just my opinion, though.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Baltar said:


> There is an Ultramarine movie coming out.
> 
> Don't compare computer game CGI to movies, because game effects are "real time" and a movie is recorded. There really is no comparison, at all. Movies can be better because it's just a playback, whereas a game has to require real time processing.


I apologize, but this is getting frustrating.

I'm NOT referencing *game effects.* There is an actual movie trailer for this game, which is divided into game effects, real time (as you mentioned) and an animated intro movie which does *not* use the in-game engine.

If you have seen this trailer and feel the _movie_ portion of it doesn't inspire you to think that an _enhanced_ version of the art used for it could succeed, c'est la vie. But if you haven't, and you're assuming I'm talking about a game engine, please qualify this. Because right now, I'm very confused as to what you've seen.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Phoebus said:


> Sigh.
> 
> The _point being,_ as "shit" a movie as "Avatar" may or may not have been, the technology you assume is would be the right fit is prohibitively expensive for the movie you're talking about.
> 
> ...


It's not unfeasible for this movie to be made - the movie "avatar" only received the funding it did because it had such a high profile director - if that director had not been interested, then the money would not have been supplied.

It's all about who is interested in making the movie.

You hear a shit story with a world-class director making it, then seats in the cinema are full.

You hear a world class movie with a shit director making it, and there is no funding and it becomes an "art house" movie with a small clique of viewers.

Unfortunately this is the world we live in.

Cameron has lost his touch. Once upon a time he loves the clique movies - do you think Aliens and Terminator 2 were anything other than shitty B movies?

He made them the masterpieces that they are. Without him, they would be shitty,

All he needs is a nudge back to what he once was - he needs someone to remove him from his computer, and get him back behind the camera, and he could be back to making the best movies again.

Unfortunately, his imagination and creativity are spoiled by the machine. It's the easy way out.

I long for a director willing to shun the computer and get back to _real_ effects.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Baltar said:


> It's not unfeasible for this movie to be made - ...
> It's all about who is interested in making the movie.


And in absence of said high profile director, the point is moot. There's no package of investors out there interested in ponying up $200 million to make the movie, and there's no package of movie vendors interested in showing a movie featuring religious fanatics with chainsaws bent on exterminating non-human life as the heroes.

This is why we have a CGI movie slated for a direct-to-video release.

Whether Cameron is or is no longer a decent director is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with this topic.

What constituted "real effects" is largely a matter of opinion. The aim has always been to make something as real as possible, within the constraints of technology. Technology--and art--evolve. CGI is no different, and lambasting them for somehow not being true to tangible effects (or some such) strikes me as silly as lambasting animation via computer for somehow not being true to animation via traditional means. Ten years from now (maybe, maybe not), if CGI has reach photo-realistic levels and can be intermeshed with "real things" with no discernible variation, the artists will have won.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Phoebus said:


> And in absence of said high profile director, the point is moot. There's no package of investors out there interested in ponying up $200 million to make the movie, and there's no package of movie vendors interested in showing a movie featuring religious fanatics with chainsaws bent on exterminating non-human life as the heroes.
> 
> This is why we have a CGI movie slated for a direct-to-video release.
> 
> ...


I see your point (no, believe me, I do).

However, I am a _real_ lover of movies, and this is a topic (concerning effects) that I can talk alot about, because I feel strongly about it.

When I was younger, I went to the cinema to see Jurassic park 7 times. I didn't _see_ the movie 7 times - I went to the cinema to see it 7 times.

I would ask my father how they made the dinosaurs appear, and he would say he didn't know.

Now, if I would ask how they made the "kraken" in the clash of the titans, the answer would be "they used a computer" - every time, in every movie.

It's a failure.

The magesty in _real_ special effects is when the effects appear, and you can't tell which part of the movie is real, and which is just special effects.

This concept doesn't even exist anymore. There is a clear dividing line now between what is real, and what is just CGI, and it's a real shame.

The whole point in special effects used to be that they tried their hardest to make sure that you couldn't spot when they were using them - and now they try their hardest to market the fact that they are. They try their best to say "see this movie because it's all fake". They advertise their inability to fool you. They say "see this movie, it has awesome CGI".

I don't want to know which is CGI and which is real. I don't want to be able to tell.

In the past, there was a perfect blend of effects and filmaking. Now there is acting, with whole "gaps" of CGI in movies, and it's such a shame.

It used to be an art form - convincing the audience that what they were seeing was real, and not an illusion.

Now, they actually WANT you to know that what you are seeing is fake, and they want you to think that it looks awesome. It doesn't. It's terrible, and it's the death of Sci Fi (among other genres). They want you to say "Wow, awesome CGI". Whereas before, they would WANT you to ask how they did the effects.

Now, you don't even need to ask.

You just know it's CGI.

Such a terrible shame.

Directors used to have real thought into how they would make such abstract storylines come to life, and had to think of ingenious ways of creating illusions - now they just turn on the pc and go home.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Your opinion is noted, Baltar. That said, I think it`s a shame you feel that way.

I think it`s more about the story than the way they tell it. 

I would see the HH movies even if they were made into fucking cartoons, that`s how committed I am to the fluff.

And for integrating CGI with real life action? They do it because it gives them the effect they desire. This is their artwork remember, any artist knows that you have to do it for yourself before you try to please anyone else. It has to be true to your own vision.

Which is why I have a tenuous love/hate opinion of critics.


----------



## Zenith_of_Mind (Mar 12, 2010)

There is much truth in what Baltar is saying about CGI and special efects. It's true that most directors focus mostly on them (James Cameron in Avatar, Michael Bay in almost everything), instead of bringing the story to life and creating an atmosphere for the movie.

But still, the movie is going to be made in CGI (at least that's what they said) and we can only hope that it will turn out okay. If only Zack Snyder was directing it, then I would be assured that it is in good hands (look at the awesome job he did in Watchmen).


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Baltar, let me ask you this question.

Compare "real" effects from the 1950s sword-and-sandals movies as opposed to, say, the effects used in Star Wars. There is absolutely a qualitative difference between one and the other, and it comes down to technology, plain and simple. I argue that the current state of CGI that you bemoan is simply a stage until we get to the point where you CAN'T tell the difference.

No offense, I get your passion for movies, but not this comparison. Would you have felt it fair to hear "they just use miniature models" to describe all of the Star Wars effects? Isn't that a terrible generalization to all the effort put in to them?

Frankly, I can't remember a single movie whose special effects fooled me into thinking something was 100% real--CGI or standard, tanglible effects.

Agree to disagree, I guess.


----------



## COMPNOR (Apr 21, 2010)

Doom had a very simple storyline. Research creates a portal to hell, which demons spew forth. 

Now how they had choosen to use that, there were lots of possibilities. Instead, its all about medical research and the Ark.

Perhaps if they made it direct to DVD, it would be faithful. But if they made it a theater releasable film, then I think they would totally butcher it. 

Even the Harry Potter movies are straying further from the books, with the last movie leaving out a key scene. And that's not on an epic scale like the HH.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Disliking CGI is fine, the way it has been used in a lot of films lately has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I haven't seen Avatar, I can't comment but you keep raising films that made huge use of CGI, jurassic park and T2 were both crammed full of CGI and made no secret of it. Hating the technology is the wrong way to go though, hate the mis-use of it not the actual technique. 
Saying that films should only rely on "traditional" special effects is, IMO, narrow minded. Things have to progress, move forward and evolve. 
The same could be said of a lot of modern music, acts like Girls Aloud make horrible use of electronic trickery to sound good and sell records, they mis-use modern recording techniques to make crap music. On the other hand The Prodigy use these tools almost exclusively and make some amazing music along with Pendulum, Godflesh, Linkin Park and god knows how many others. Again much of this comes down to personal taste, some people are happy to listen to Girls Aloud and go and watch Avatar others would rather listen to Depeche Mode and watch Watchmen. 
IMO the ONLY way to make a decent 40K movie is CGI as anything else would look rediculous.


----------



## ClassyRaptor (Apr 7, 2010)

Lol this has turned from the original Question to an all in CGI Brawl. :grin:


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

Indeed it has Vali. Indeed it has.


----------

