PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: jp6666 on June 09, 2002, 02:09:20 PM
-
how can i find the video of thriller :) The Michel Jackson but with the girl lol !
thanks
-
Instructions are here:
http://www.dvdreview.com/html/hidden_features.shtml
-
That movie blew. Just saw it on HBO. The characters looked great, but they did a horrible job at moving the mouth. You compare that to Shrek and hands down Shrek did much much better in the talking department.
Story was blah. I dunno, guess I\'m just not into movies like that.
-
Too bad Shrek sucked in so many other ways. I guess you can\'t have everything yet.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Too bad Shrek sucked in so many other ways. I guess you can\'t have everything yet.
which were those?
I also thought FF:TSW was sub par.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
Too bad Shrek sucked in so many other ways. I guess you can\'t have everything yet.
I still don\'t get why you hate that movie. I watched it the other night (In HD, man it looked great. I digress) and I was trying to figure out how anyone could hate this movie. It\'s funny. It looks amazing. It has a nice story. What more could you want?
-
I agree that the Shrek script and dialog are good. The voice performances from Michael Meyers and Eddie Murphy were funny and I DO laugh at them. I thought we were discussing the technical merits, and that\'s where the problems are, in my opinion.
The mouth animations were good, but the overall character design and animations in Shrek were poor. It seems like there are about 4 different character design styles competing in that movie. You have the Don Bleuth-esque monsters and animals like the Dragon, The Funny-animal style designs like Shrek and donkey, the distorted human design like Lord Farquat, and the realistic human design like the princess and most other humans. It just looks like a mish mash to me. I think this funny script could have worked just as well if they had hired ONE artist to do all character designs, and then a couple dozen animators to do the actual work.
I also hate the MONKEES like a demon plague, so I have to turn the movie off at the end. Nuff said.
-
I thought all the stuff they did with the walking through the grass and how the grass flowed when they walked on it looked great to me. It\'s not like they were trying to go true to life like FF was. It\'s still an animated story.
-
Shrek was good but Monster\'s Inc. was GREAT. Im waiting for it to come out to DVD...actually think it might be this week. I mean this movie had plot, it was funny, and the animation was about 10 times better than Shrek.
-
I liked FF:TSW.......I am a Big CG junkie tho..........BTW to get the "thriller" movie on the disk:
Thanks to dvdeastereggs.com for the info:
Select the second page in the HIGLIGHTS MENU, the MORE BOARDS/BLASTS option will be highlighted. From here select UP and then RIGHT twice, a small box showing some moving imagery will be highlighted. Select this and you will shown an excellent piece of animation that goes with Micheal Jacksons THRILLER video/song. Absolutely brilliant, the crop of the hidden features.
they have about 5 or 6 eggs hey have found.
:hat:ScottyJ:hat:
-
I enjoyed FF purely because of the graphics. When stuff like that is so good, it doesn\'t matter if the movie blows.
The textures were amazing.
-
FF looked good when they didn\'t speak. Wideshots and action shots looked great. Their mouth\'s sucked.
-
well i still aint seen it yet. i really should get it on dvd
-
sometimes they pulled off the mouth movement, but generally speaking-vid\'s right.
that movie cost like $130 million to make I heard. The CGI is very impressive. Especially the old dude.