There is some truth to it and also people are getting so lazy with cgi. Watch the old 70's movie Waterloo, it was filmed in the Crimea and the freaking Red army was drafted in to provide extras. Christopher Plummer was literaly commanding entire battalions in period dress. Compare it to the cgi armies on things like lord of the rings and you see a real difference in quality and immersion.
Idk… while Waterloo is impressive in terms of their scale in extras I find the movie itself sorely lacking.
Gettysburg recruited civil war re-enactors, including their own gear, and is of similar scope but IMO a better movie overall.
An example to the contrary would be Dunkirk.
Afaik they shoot on location and only used extras. The issue with this movie is that it looks empty because it cannot match the scale of the real evacuation.
We see maybe a thousand extras… in Dunkirk there were 400 000 soldiers waiting to be extracted.
The small town would have had sever war damage but the movie only shows clean streets with some sandbags.
The beaches would have been packed with people and gear in total disarray. Instead the movie shows a few rows of people waiting in line on an otherwise empty beach...
Doesn’t matter that the Spitfire and BF109 are real they are too few of them.
The movie comes out as too clean and empty.
Some proper CGI could have done wonders for this movie.
There is some truth to it and also people are getting so lazy with cgi. Watch the old 70's movie Waterloo, it was filmed in the Crimea and the freaking Red army was drafted in to provide extras. Christopher Plummer was literaly commanding entire battalions in period dress. Compare it to the cgi armies on things like lord of the rings and you see a real difference in quality and immersion.
Idk… while Waterloo is impressive in terms of their scale in extras I find the movie itself sorely lacking.
Gettysburg recruited civil war re-enactors, including their own gear, and is of similar scope but IMO a better movie overall.
Gettysburg was flawed aswell the portrayal of Fremantle was a complete pisspoor piece of badly researched nonesense. For a start he was a tourist and in no way represented the British government, secondly he never wore uniform at Gettysburg, third they got his uniform wrong in almost every detail, only thing that was accurate was the colour of his coat.
Waterloo was very accurate from famous lines spoken at the time by the historical figures to the individual regiments and formations. Little details like the squares not being perfect, hastily formed which fits accounts from the time. Too many movie and tv depictions so perfect, parade ground squares.
I find these ARG minigames to be rather interesting, as they are pushing J'mpok into a more negative light than we've seen him in some time. Definitely smell a Klingon Civil War starting soon.
I find these ARG minigames to be rather interesting, as they are pushing J'mpok into a more negative light than we've seen him in some time. Definitely smell a Klingon Civil War starting soon.
Yea... its looking like it. J'Ula is a spark for it for sure, but J'mpok and his handling of the situation may make it worse.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I am still waiting to see changes to the Klingon content. My ships look the same, my toons look the same, and the environments look the same. Where do I have to go to see the new content everyone is so excited about?
I am still waiting to see changes to the Klingon content. My ships look the same, my toons look the same, and the environments look the same. Where do I have to go to see the new content everyone is so excited about?
From today's livestream, Kael "accidentally" showed a loading screen with a very "Gowron" looking character
Indeed. Did they play around with their face-pattern-tool, sneaking some Robert O'Riley in there?
IIRC Aakar was present in some previous missions as well (as a generic DSC klink) so I wonder if they'll update him in those. Hmmm does this then mean that Gowron was house Mo'kai since IIRC his House was never mentioned in canon.
And Cryptic always try to pattern their guest star characters after the actor and honestly in season 2 the DSC did show quite a lot of the actor's natural look (compare season 2 L'Rell to the actress playing her and you'll see the resemblence).
I think he means in terms of having a similar character played by a different actor. Macet is the same actor, but a very different character.
I don't think so... I mean we got the actor who played Gowron, but he can't play Gowron since that particular character is dead.
As far as we know, Gul Macet is still alive. So if we ever got the guy who played Dukat, we could actually have Macet make an appearance. And if I remember correctly, Macet was a bit more diplomatic when he dealt with Picard in TNG, and in the books he tried to distance himself from Dukat during and after the Dominion War.
And if I remember correctly, Macet was a bit more diplomatic when he dealt with Picard in TNG
Mhh, tbh Dukat is usually level-headed and more or less diplomatic (if a bit snarky) too. Actually, many cardassians seem to be like that UNTIL they have to fight. Even Macet's consorts, who seem like more rank-and-file could have an uncomfortable, yet reasonable conversation with former enemies.
Gettysburg was flawed aswell the portrayal of Fremantle was a complete pisspoor piece of badly researched nonesense. For a start he was a tourist and in no way represented the British government, secondly he never wore uniform at Gettysburg, third they got his uniform wrong in almost every detail, only thing that was accurate was the colour of his coat.
Waterloo was very accurate from famous lines spoken at the time by the historical figures to the individual regiments and formations. Little details like the squares not being perfect, hastily formed which fits accounts from the time. Too many movie and tv depictions so perfect, parade ground squares.
But I guess allot comes down to individual taste.
I disagree, it is indeed not very much up to personal taste.
But that is beside the point anyway as I do think you miss my point.
You see Fremantle is not badly researched at all. His true “story” was intentionally ignored and he was used as a story telling device to make the movie more accessible.
The character of Fremantle, an outsider who is not involved nor has any stakes in it, gives the Confederate characters a way to dispose their point of view on an unknown audience without it feeling too forced or contrived.
It is actually rather clever.
Casino Royal does the same because while it might sound strange to some but most people actually do not play poker and do not understand much of it. Having someone at the table in the same position gives the characters and “in-universe” excuse to explain some stuff and get the unknowing audience up to speed so they can enjoy it too.
Compare that to the internal monologues of Waterloo. That is actually rather poor movie making. They can’t show it, nor do they have a device to demonstrate it so they simply monologue it to the audience…
Gettysburg also makes a better effort to showcase the battlefield and the strategies. Even if you know nothing you still get to understand the stakes like why the Union has to hold “little round top” and why they fought so hard at the start the skirmish on day 1.
In Waterloo you know actually nothing about they layout of the battlefield beforehand besides mud and things like the “hollow” are brought up just when they become important making it rather random.
If you know little to nothing of the battle of Waterloo before you watch the movie you probably know about the same having seen it.
That what I mean when I say Gettysburg is the better movie.
I’m not saying Gettysburg is more historically accurate, I am disputing that a historically accurate movie is automatically “good” however.
Just to be clear I’m not saying Waterloo is bad either. I simply made the point that from a movie perspective Gettysburg is more adapted to the media. I mean no big surprise really there is what? 20 years between these movies.
Likewise my point was that having extras over CGI doesn’t equate good either. The best movies know when to use what.
The historical movie I enjoy the most is no historical movie at all. It is Master & Commander: The Far side of the World.
The details of the world are well displayed, the story and characters are however pure fiction.
It is great.
George Lucas and company had to make due with a limited budget, and pushed the limits of special effects. Disney Star Wars Sequels had huge budgets that tried too hard to impress, but came up flat.
^^^
And he loved the original SFX so much George Lucas NEVER went back (multiple times) to re-tweak and re-do those effects over and over again...
Oh...wait...
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
George Lucas and company had to make due with a limited budget, and pushed the limits of special effects. Disney Star Wars Sequels had huge budgets that tried too hard to impress, but came up flat.
^^^
And he loved the original SFX so much George Lucas NEVER went back (multiple times) to re-tweak and re-do those effects over and over again...
Oh...wait...
The newer eyecandy is nice, but the point was that the original limited budget forced Lucas to pay more attention to the script and to get creative with settings and whatnot to make the budget stretch as far as possible while still pushing the envelope on SFX. Nowadays effects gags are so easy and cheap to do with CGI that movies are often designed around them and linked with poorly thought out plot snippets (sort of like how in '40s musicals the songs were often written before the movie and the plot was just an afterthought to link them together into a more or less coherent story).
For example. a very iconic part of the look came from that scrimping, the blasters were all old WWII guns worn to the point of disfunction with stuff stuck on them to hide the fact instead of building all the weapon props from scratch. The tech would not have had quite the chaotic and well-used atmosphere it did with props all designed by the same person and cast out of plastic or whatever.
George Lucas and company had to make due with a limited budget, and pushed the limits of special effects. Disney Star Wars Sequels had huge budgets that tried too hard to impress, but came up flat.
^^^
And he loved the original SFX so much George Lucas NEVER went back (multiple times) to re-tweak and re-do those effects over and over again...
Oh...wait...
The newer eyecandy is nice, but the point was that the original limited budget forced Lucas to pay more attention to the script and to get creative with settings and whatnot to make the budget stretch as far as possible while still pushing the envelope on SFX. Nowadays effects gags are so easy and cheap to do with CGI that movies are often designed around them and linked with poorly thought out plot snippets (sort of like how in '40s musicals the songs were often written before the movie and the plot was just an afterthought to link them together into a more or less coherent story).
For example. a very iconic part of the look came from that scrimping, the blasters were all old WWII guns worn to the point of disfunction with stuff stuck on them to hide the fact instead of building all the weapon props from scratch. The tech would not have had quite the chaotic and well-used atmosphere it did with props all designed by the same person and cast out of plastic or whatever.
I always liked older sci fi, when being creative with limited resources.
Doctor Who lasted 25 years in the first run in such a way.
I think he means in terms of having a similar character played by a different actor. Macet is the same actor, but a very different character.
I don't think so... I mean we got the actor who played Gowron, but he can't play Gowron since that particular character is dead.
As far as we know, Gul Macet is still alive. So if we ever got the guy who played Dukat, we could actually have Macet make an appearance. And if I remember correctly, Macet was a bit more diplomatic when he dealt with Picard in TNG, and in the books he tried to distance himself from Dukat during and after the Dominion War.
Oh right, forgot who played Gowron.
But yeah Macet was an interesting character. I'd love to see him in STO.
Comments
Idk… while Waterloo is impressive in terms of their scale in extras I find the movie itself sorely lacking.
Gettysburg recruited civil war re-enactors, including their own gear, and is of similar scope but IMO a better movie overall.
An example to the contrary would be Dunkirk.
Afaik they shoot on location and only used extras. The issue with this movie is that it looks empty because it cannot match the scale of the real evacuation.
We see maybe a thousand extras… in Dunkirk there were 400 000 soldiers waiting to be extracted.
The small town would have had sever war damage but the movie only shows clean streets with some sandbags.
The beaches would have been packed with people and gear in total disarray. Instead the movie shows a few rows of people waiting in line on an otherwise empty beach...
Doesn’t matter that the Spitfire and BF109 are real they are too few of them.
The movie comes out as too clean and empty.
Some proper CGI could have done wonders for this movie.
Gettysburg was flawed aswell the portrayal of Fremantle was a complete pisspoor piece of badly researched nonesense. For a start he was a tourist and in no way represented the British government, secondly he never wore uniform at Gettysburg, third they got his uniform wrong in almost every detail, only thing that was accurate was the colour of his coat.
Waterloo was very accurate from famous lines spoken at the time by the historical figures to the individual regiments and formations. Little details like the squares not being perfect, hastily formed which fits accounts from the time. Too many movie and tv depictions so perfect, parade ground squares.
But I guess allot comes down to individual taste.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yea... its looking like it. J'Ula is a spark for it for sure, but J'mpok and his handling of the situation may make it worse.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Hasn't been released yet.
Credit to folks on reddit for those pics!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Indeed. Did they play around with their face-pattern-tool, sneaking some Robert O'Riley in there?
Gul Macet?
IIRC Aakar was present in some previous missions as well (as a generic DSC klink) so I wonder if they'll update him in those. Hmmm does this then mean that Gowron was house Mo'kai since IIRC his House was never mentioned in canon.
And Cryptic always try to pattern their guest star characters after the actor and honestly in season 2 the DSC did show quite a lot of the actor's natural look (compare season 2 L'Rell to the actress playing her and you'll see the resemblence).
My character Tsin'xing
I don't think so... I mean we got the actor who played Gowron, but he can't play Gowron since that particular character is dead.
As far as we know, Gul Macet is still alive. So if we ever got the guy who played Dukat, we could actually have Macet make an appearance. And if I remember correctly, Macet was a bit more diplomatic when he dealt with Picard in TNG, and in the books he tried to distance himself from Dukat during and after the Dominion War.
Mhh, tbh Dukat is usually level-headed and more or less diplomatic (if a bit snarky) too. Actually, many cardassians seem to be like that UNTIL they have to fight. Even Macet's consorts, who seem like more rank-and-file could have an uncomfortable, yet reasonable conversation with former enemies.
I disagree, it is indeed not very much up to personal taste.
But that is beside the point anyway as I do think you miss my point.
You see Fremantle is not badly researched at all. His true “story” was intentionally ignored and he was used as a story telling device to make the movie more accessible.
The character of Fremantle, an outsider who is not involved nor has any stakes in it, gives the Confederate characters a way to dispose their point of view on an unknown audience without it feeling too forced or contrived.
It is actually rather clever.
Casino Royal does the same because while it might sound strange to some but most people actually do not play poker and do not understand much of it. Having someone at the table in the same position gives the characters and “in-universe” excuse to explain some stuff and get the unknowing audience up to speed so they can enjoy it too.
Compare that to the internal monologues of Waterloo. That is actually rather poor movie making. They can’t show it, nor do they have a device to demonstrate it so they simply monologue it to the audience…
Gettysburg also makes a better effort to showcase the battlefield and the strategies. Even if you know nothing you still get to understand the stakes like why the Union has to hold “little round top” and why they fought so hard at the start the skirmish on day 1.
In Waterloo you know actually nothing about they layout of the battlefield beforehand besides mud and things like the “hollow” are brought up just when they become important making it rather random.
If you know little to nothing of the battle of Waterloo before you watch the movie you probably know about the same having seen it.
That what I mean when I say Gettysburg is the better movie.
I’m not saying Gettysburg is more historically accurate, I am disputing that a historically accurate movie is automatically “good” however.
Just to be clear I’m not saying Waterloo is bad either. I simply made the point that from a movie perspective Gettysburg is more adapted to the media. I mean no big surprise really there is what? 20 years between these movies.
Likewise my point was that having extras over CGI doesn’t equate good either. The best movies know when to use what.
The historical movie I enjoy the most is no historical movie at all. It is Master & Commander: The Far side of the World.
The details of the world are well displayed, the story and characters are however pure fiction.
It is great.
And he loved the original SFX so much George Lucas NEVER went back (multiple times) to re-tweak and re-do those effects over and over again...
Oh...wait...
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The newer eyecandy is nice, but the point was that the original limited budget forced Lucas to pay more attention to the script and to get creative with settings and whatnot to make the budget stretch as far as possible while still pushing the envelope on SFX. Nowadays effects gags are so easy and cheap to do with CGI that movies are often designed around them and linked with poorly thought out plot snippets (sort of like how in '40s musicals the songs were often written before the movie and the plot was just an afterthought to link them together into a more or less coherent story).
For example. a very iconic part of the look came from that scrimping, the blasters were all old WWII guns worn to the point of disfunction with stuff stuck on them to hide the fact instead of building all the weapon props from scratch. The tech would not have had quite the chaotic and well-used atmosphere it did with props all designed by the same person and cast out of plastic or whatever.
I always liked older sci fi, when being creative with limited resources.
Doctor Who lasted 25 years in the first run in such a way.
Gowron's not dead..., in the past
aut vincere aut mori pro imperio
either to conquer or to die for the Empire
But yeah Macet was an interesting character. I'd love to see him in STO.
My character Tsin'xing