'FINAL FANTASY' dvd, absolutely INCREDIBLE! (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

what would be the point in creating a full movies with digital actors when you can hire real ones?

the hollywood machine will always be in place and there will always be human beings striving to hit it big time. there will always be people who love acting. that alone will keep real actors in business for the rest of eternity.
i imagine that someday cgi will be so advanced that truly photo-realistic characters will be available from a "practical" standpoint - factoring in production costs, etc. heck...it may not even be that far away.
but...
i can't imagine people wanting to pay (on a regular) basis to see a bunch of cgi characters. that's not what movies are all about.
you won't get the same feel watching final fantasy as you will watching glen gary glen ross or forest gump or even goonies!
------------------
"The ship of death has a new captain." - nosferatu (1922)

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The DVD looked great but the story was total new age bull$hit.
Sort of like "The operation was a success, but the patient died."
They should have made the general the protagonist, gotten rid of aki, the marine guy(whatever his name was), and esp. Dr. Sid. It would have been nice to see an Aliens-like movie done digitally. The fact that people stayed away in droves at least ensures there won't be any more new age crap from that company.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The film was not supposed to be new age stuff. It wasn't supposed to be "don't pollute" and "don't harm the earth" but was supposed to be more about reflection of one's self and looking at yourself for your soul to find out what you think about life and death and then to just accept them as parts of life. I think people misinterpreted the film, but it was probably the director's or writers' fault.
The film was stunning CGI, but should that detract from the film? You can't say "it sure looked good, but the story sucked, thus, it sucked" and dismiss the visuals altogether. The visuals are part of the experience, and without them, movies would suck. So you need to take into account the whole experience (sound, visuals, story, acting, characters, production values).
If you thought it sucked, then go ahead and think that. It's your opinion. I'm just saying that you probably shouldn't dismiss the visuals altogether.
CGI characters do what you want to do, get a wow factor, can be as perfect or imperfect as possible, and never argue. They are like regular actors without the hassle and higher salaries. But I doubt they will replace them.

 

[Mike_Carroll]

Because of the humans looking so bad in TS1 and 2, it detracted from the film for me.

Morgan,
I have to agree with you on that point. Even though the emphasis on that movie were the toys, those human characters looked like they were thrown together in Poser, an off the shelf CGI software you can probably get at K Mart.
Big Al was probably the best human in TS2, especially the ultra close-up shot. On the other hand, the toys expressed good emotion, and cloth dynamics looked good. Like I said before, the more you try to make CGI characters look real, the more you're going to get beat up by your viewers. They probably made the right choice, considering the technology available to them then.
best regards,
Mike Carroll Jr.
Link Removed

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Even if people would have been more critical, they could have made them look better. Disney's animation (regular animation) doesn't look real, even though you know the characters are supposed to be real people, but nobody complains. Its a convention of film (I took a film studies class and there was a whole thing about conventions). People accept the humans as real while knowing that they are fake. There is no reason for why they looked so bad other than limitations of some sort or artistic style (which I think was bad style to begin with if that is the case).

 

[Richard Kim]

Big Al was probably the best human in TS2, especially the ultra close-up shot.

For some better examples of humans in Pixar films, take a look at the elderly man in the short Geri's Game (he also appears as "The Cleaner" in TS2) and the little girl Boo in Monsters Inc.

 

[Edwin-S]

---But it's good that humans aren't photorealistic in animation. Its abstract style is what sets it apart from live action. It's what gives animation its power.----
Thank God. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Gunnar Syren]

You can't say "it sure looked good, but the story sucked, thus, it sucked" and dismiss the visuals altogether.

Sure you can. Or at least I can. For me, the movie experience has storytelling in first place. A good story can be told without stunning visuals and it will still be a good movie experience for me.
A bad story will always be a bad movie experience for me. No visuals can make up for that. But that's me. Your experience may be different.
If you want to compare two recent CGI films, take Shrek and FF. Perhaps Shrek doesn't attempt to push the boundaries as far as FF did, but in every other respect it was so much better than FF. For me. And although the humans in Shrek wasn't as photo realistic as the ones in FF, I thought that their movements and facial expressions felt much more realistic. But than may have been influenced by the fact that I generally liked Shrek so much better.

 

[Mike_Carroll]

For some better examples of humans in Pixar films, take a look at the elderly man in the short Geri's Game (he also appears as "The Cleaner" in TS2) and the little girl Boo in Monsters Inc.

Richard,
You're right! I almost forgot about him. Geri's Game was the talk of the town when that was included in the Alias Wavefront demo. Computer Graphics World did an article spotlighting this Pixar Studios masterpiece. I think they did it for their demo reel and recycled him for Toy Story. His movements looked pretty good, but I thought they could have given him a littlle more color.
The industry has come along way since Geri made his debue.
Best regards,
Mike Carroll Jr.
Link Removed

 

[teapot2001]

When Aki and Gray come into a room during the Phatom attack on the city, there is a shot from the ground looking at Aki and Gray. Look to the lower left of the shot and there is a dead chocobo on the ground.

Can you tell me the exact time on the DVD?
~T

 

[Tom Boucher]

The CGI and graphics were quite spellbinding.
Spoiler:The story was very weird. I think maybe what would have helped was a little intro with like the initial meteor impact, showing us how the Earth turned into it's current state. That's my biggest complaint about disaster type movies. You have no clue as to what happened. Maybe would have felt a little pity for the general instead of hating his stupidity if they'd shown what it was like to have a few regular cities fall. Instead we start 30 years after the apocolypse with some weird stuff going on in the 'Old New York'.
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Hi guys, been away for a bit. . .
Morgan,
Evangelion is my FAVORITE anime! (And I have a lot of anime!). I've only watched the first 2 discs so far, and I can't wait for the rest. (Even though I think someone spoiled the ending for me last week. . .)

 

[Dome Vongvises]

It's time that I chimed in with my two cents about the movie, and I'm still up in the air about the DVD.
Ever since the Nintendo version of Final Fantasy, I've become hooked with the game and its mythology. But lately, the Final Fantasy game series has become quite aloof to me. Final Fantasy VII, VIII, and IX contained protagonists that I simply had a hard time comprehending. Much like James Dean's character in Rebel Without A Cause, I found it extremely difficult to identify and sympathize with the characters' frustrations. Well, it took me four years to do it, but I've finally nailed it on the head: it's hard for me to comprehend the heroes' frustrations and thus enjoy the game even more.
And this now leads me to the movie, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. For the record, I love the visuals in this movie as they are quite possibly some of the most stunning I had ever seen. That point besides, I couldn't help but be bored in parts. Yeah, great action and all in some spots, but the character development parts fell flat and were generally dull and uninteresting. But I know lots of movies that are like that in which I've enjoyed. The movie certainly didn't adhere to the established mythology of the video games. Maybe that was intended so as to seperate itself from the video game series. But then why call it Final Fantasy?
Eh, who knows? Maybe I'll finally figure out in four years why this movie didn't sit too well with me. But the DVD sure is tempting.....
------------------
"I don't know, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." - Homer J. Simpson
"Let's see, Matt Chmiel has Rini Bell, NickSO has Mena Suvari, John Williamson has Ivana Milisevic, and Steve Gon has Emmanuelle Beart...who the hell do I have???
"It's not Pikeville, Kentucky. It's Pikevool!!! And it's not Louisville, it's Loolvool!!! Get it right, damnit!!!"
My DVD Collection
[Edited last by Dome Vongvises on November 13, 2001 at 12:14 AM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I've been gone for a few days.

If you want to compare two recent CGI films, take Shrek and FF. Perhaps Shrek doesn't attempt to push the boundaries as far as FF did, but in every other respect it was so much better than FF. For me. And although the humans in Shrek wasn't as photo realistic as the ones in FF, I thought that their movements and facial expressions felt much more realistic. But than may have been influenced by the fact that I generally liked Shrek so much better.

You put that and said that the story was the most important thing for a film. Shrek barely had a story, letalone a plot, but it was better than FF because of its animation? The story in FF had more depth, more complexity, and was aimed at people with a higher comprehension than that of a 5 year old. The characters were realistic and properly fit their environment.
I guess FF is just too realistic in ways other than its CGI and people can't grasp that.
Thi-
I don't have the specific time for the chocobo thing. There is a shot that shows Aki and Gray looking at a bunch of dead people on the ground that pans from left to right, then the next shot has a dead chocobo in the lower right corner as Aki and Gray run away. Hope that helps.

 

[teapot2001]

Morgan, I still don't see it. Can you take a look at the disc and tell me the exact time? Thanks.
~T

 

[Edwin-S]

You put that and said that the story was the most important thing for a film. Shrek barely had a story, letalone a plot, but it was better than FF because of its animation? The story in FF had more depth, more complexity, and was aimed at people with a higher comprehension than that of a 5 year old. The characters were realistic and properly fit their environment.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Was the comment about comprehension level called for? I'm not even the original poster of the comments you are referring to and I still think it is a bit offensive. There are probably plenty of people out there that think if you had a comprehension level greater than 5 that you would be entirely bored with "Final Fantasy". If they were to state that, it would be as gross an overgeneralization as your statement was.
"SHREK" grossed over $200 million, so there were definitely more than five year olds who saw something that appealed to them. I went to see the film, I don't have kids and I certainly have a comprehension level greater than five. I thought "SHREK" was good but slightly overhyped. "FINAL FANTASY" also was a decent film which has been slagged more than it deserved to be. It was certainly better than "TOMB RAIDER" and a lot of the other action films released this year. "FF", however, is not the masterpiece of character development and depth that you seem to think it is.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

$200 million? Thats a bit much. I remember about a month and a half after its release hearing something around above $20 million.
Shrek was not that good of a film. The fact that it was not Disney made it better for me, but alas, it wasn't good. Americans have been watching Saturday Night Live for over 25 years, which is probably the same reason Shrek did so well in movie theaters (cuz SNL sucks).
FF didn't give you all the details. It didn't tell you everything. It let you try to figure it out for yourself somewhat. If I tell you to close you eyes and then I put a book in front of you, will you think that the book magically appeared there or that someone had put it there? The same goes for FF, only one a deeper level. Some things are representative of others, like the 8 spirits, and you need to think about these things in order to understand them. People don't mind doing that, just so long as they don't need to do it out of the theater. They think of it as a waste of time. Thats why nobody likes FF. It did bad in theaters because nobody cared about it.
Thi-
I haven't watched the DVD in a while so I can't give you the time. If I have some free time (aka, I'm not playing Metal Gear Solid 2) then I will check it out.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Damn, some of you people have no imagination!!
FF was a good, sci-fi, action, weirdo movie!
The CGI was great!
The DVD looks absolutely awesome on my 16x9 and the sound is great as well.
This isnt "Gone With The Wind" people! Quit making it what it isnt and accept it for nothing more than what it is.
------------------

"Charlie don't surf."

 

[Bill Cowmeadow]

Qoute:
"This isnt "Gone With The Wind" people! Quit making it what it isnt and accept it for nothing more than what it is.
Well said, I would add:
This isn't Beowulf either.
FF was a great show, held my attention, the wife liked it, both kids thought it was great, but I'm not sure any of us got the message exactly. I guess it is a little like Beowulf after all.
Lighten up people.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Before anyone says anything, I would like to place the dunce cap on my head for a second and refute my comment about the money Shrek got from the theaters. I was obviously thinking of something else, seeing as how Tomb Raider got more than $20 million in its opening. Duh on me.
FF had a LOT of themes that weren't really pushed at you (and strangely, save the environment wasn't one of them). You're supposed to think of the themes yourself and see what you come up with. That was the whole point.