Starship Troopers - The effects...

[Neil]

...still look pretty amazing even nearly 10 years on!

[bassman]

The effects were pretty cool, but I thought that movie overall was kind of bland. Although, I may need to give it another viewing because it's been ten years....

[EvilNed]

The effects are better than the newest Star Wars flicks if you ask me. As is the film...

But then again, I view that film as a modern classic. It's a masterpiece in satire.

[coma]

The effects are better than the newest Star Wars flicks if you ask me. As is the film...

But then again, I view that film as a modern classic. It's a masterpiece in satire.
I agree. There weren't any moments that felt unreal. Like the CGI was obvious. I think on the Lucas films they fetishize the technology so much that they overdo it big time. Its way too busy.
I really love Starship Troopers. The net as TV was very foward thinking. The War Propganda war excellent and funny as hell.
I thought the battle scenes were extremely well done.

[_liam_]

i like the way they use old school machine guns instead of zippy zappy lasers too. makes the whole thing a bit more intense...

[MinionZombie]

Hey Neil, sounds like someone else was checking out Channel 5 last night...waitin' for that 'girl's guide to 21st century sex' show were ya? :p

Seriously though, aye, I was watching some of it too (Starship Troopers) and the effects still stand up. They've aged slightly, but they're still remarkably good.

Like was said perfectly before, Lucas' lot fetishise the effects and overdo them far too much to the point that they're completely unbelievable. CGI is best left understated or tightly controlled and/or situated in the right genre - Lord of the Rings, for instance, handled CGI perfectly.

Land of the Dead - now there's a film where CGI was employed almost exactly right. There were the odd bits that shouldn't have been CGI, but you can understand why there were. Also, viewing the CGI featurette on the DVD, it's shocking how many aspects were actually computer generated - for instance, when Riley and Charlie walk up the steps out of the underground (which was completely green screen originally).

[Eyebiter]

Starship Troopers is entertaining, but at times the 90210 part in the beginning gets tiresome. The Dutch film director didn't even read the original novel, apparently he got bored after two or three chapters? WTF?

I'll give PAUL VERHOEVEN credit for having a sense of humor though. Doogie Hauser dressed in a Nazi dress uniform? Getting the viewer to cheer on the fascists? Making genocide okay long as the enemy isn't human?

[Tricky]

Yeah i still love that film!i too was watching it on 5 last night :D the only bit i think looks really dodgy is when rico is on the back of the big bug,but thats mainly down to the fact he doesnt fall off rather than a bad effect.
Denise Richards & Dina Meyer are both hot as well *drools* :p

[EvilNed]

Like was said perfectly before, Lucas' lot fetishise the effects and overdo them far too much to the point that they're completely unbelievable. CGI is best left understated or tightly controlled and/or situated in the right genre - Lord of the Rings, for instance, handled CGI perfectly.


I actually think the usage of CGI in the last Lord of the Rings film was just as bad as in the Lucas films. Which is why I think it sucks. There's no soul in it.

[bassman]

So with the reasoning that CGI takes the "soul" out of a picture, what did you think of the countless pupets in the older films?:rockbrow:

It's just a newer form of special effects. I do agree with you guys, though. If it's over done, it becomes a pain....

[Danny]

nah the rings films were all right , but aye i caught troopers last night too, crackin' film but the acting was a little poor at times, especially when people die. the sequel sucked balls though.:barf:

[_liam_]

CGI just isnt advanced enough to stand up to scrutiny, gollum will be the equivalent of a fake rubber monster in old dr who in a few years.

cgi is ok as long as it's used to compliment a physical effect, example - the gunshots and blood splatters in shaun of the dead are largely cgi, and it's pretty seamless, also after watching the making of features on the lord of the rings dvds, i was pretty amazed to find out what parts of the scenery & landscape were cgi and which were modelwork - pretty hard to distinguish because it's usually a decent blend of the two.

i think its a shame that the cgi revolution came along really, cos prosthetics and physical effects were becoming pretty advanced.

ever notice how the dinosaurs in jurassic park look real but the ones in jurassic park 3 don't? weird that.

[EvilNed]

So with the reasoning that CGI takes the "soul" out of a picture, what did you think of the countless pupets in the older films?:rockbrow:

It's just a newer form of special effects. I do agree with you guys, though. If it's over done, it becomes a pain....

It's a newer form of special effect that you can instantly tell is fake, unless handled well. Thus, no soul. You have to admit, puppets and models look alot better than CGI. Only problem is that they're not as easy to make and not as easy to work with.

Starship Troopers and Independence Day are two films with better effects than the Lord of the Rings films and Star Wars films. One day, maybe CGI will be able to stand on it's own. But not today.

[bassman]

I don't know man....I remember many puppets that one could instantly notice. CGI is basically in it's infant stage right now. Within ten or so years, it could be flawless.

Look at Bill Nighy as Davy Jones in "Dead Man's Chest".:eek:


I actually found the giant bugs to look pretty bad in "Starship Troopers".....

[MinionZombie]

I support CGI - but like all things in life, moderation is the key.

The LOTR films had astonishing special effects, but it suited the type of film and the type of story. It's a fantasy world, intricately created with huge scope and depth. Those films incorporate so many original visions, the only way it could ever be done is with CGI, and the CGI used was ground-breaking and utilised correctly.

Yes, we know it isn't actually real ... but it tricks you for the running time, that's as much as it needs to do.

Star Wars - the effects aren't as good as LOTR, they aren't ground-breaking and the story of the new SW films is crap. Also, the rape of the originals via piss poor average CGI further damages it.

[capncnut]

Starship Troopers is a great Paul Verhoven movie, just like Robocop was. Saying that, I do prefer his earlier films like Spetters and Flesh & Blood.

[EvilNed]

The first two Lord of the Rings films had good cgi. But by the time the ****fest known as Return of the King came along, Peter Jackson was so up to his ankles in sperm from everytime he creamed himself using CGI in his two previous films that he decided to do it all CGI. I mean, seriously.

As someone said: Moderation is the key.

George Lucas, Peter Jackson and Stephen Sommers all need to learn this.

[HLS]

I think it was the worst movie ever made. Cool insects yeppers but the acting was horrid.

[MinionZombie]

But the LOTR films never had a moderate amount of CGI, none of them did. The only reason ROTK would appear to have more CGI is because, it's a much bigger film. It's the big final battle, for a series of films that have huge battles throughout.

[Geophyrd]

When I went to see it in the movies, a father and son were sitting behind me. The scene when everyone is showering together, talking about why they joined up, one of the women had very obviously breastfed a baby. I heard the son gasp and ask, "What's up with her boobies?"
The father laughed and said, "There's a word for breasts like that."
"Yeah?"
"Yup...they're called real."

Now, I was going out with a german girl at the time and when I started laughing, I had to explain this to her. That was fun.

[_liam_]

lmao...

"was ist das?"

"das ist ein gut boobyvater"

"ah zo, alles klar"

[Neil]

I actually think the usage of CGI in the last Lord of the Rings film was just as bad as in the Lucas films. Which is why I think it sucks. There's no soul in it.

Can't agree there I'm afraid... Gollum was at times astounding! Sure at times the effects looked like effects, but we're not at picture perfect yet for many techniques...


I think it was the worst movie ever made. Cool insects yeppers but the acting was horrid.

I would put such a comment down to one of two things... (a) a classic binary opinion mode? (b) someone only having ever seen three films?


Flesh & Blood

I really really didn't that one!

[Tricky]

I would put such a comment down to one of two things... (a) a classic binary opinion mode? (b) someone only having ever seen three films?




Plus the fact the acting was meant to be like that!It was meant to be gung ho,comic book style!