Comments on: Trailer For Patrick Stewart’s Sinbad Movie Fails To Impress

By: meowy

meowy — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:23:18 +0000

I think it looks pretty cool too. I’d watch it.

By: GeekGirl69

GeekGirl69 — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:43:05 +0000

Perhaps it’s meant to look crappy at first to tease the viewers..obviously we’re all wondering how far it’s come and what the status of it is…it’s supposed to be released THIS year but should have been last year. Patrick Stewart is one of the best actors out there, whatever the reason he chose to participate in this movie is anyone’s guess. I’m hoping that another trailer, cleaned up, is released soon. I’ve always loved the Sinbad movie series for it’s special effects even back then. I’m willing to give this one a chance. Like someone else said…I think Patrick Stewart is allowed to make a couple of bad choices if this one doesn’t pan out.

By: aphily

aphily — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:49:23 +0000

might be good, need to see more

By: S. John Ross

S. John Ross — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:56:19 +0000

#95: “But it’s way too easy these days for people to cop out and use CGI in some sequences, for, say, a floating robot, when a physical model would look better on on wires which could then be painted out on computer!”

As far as I’m concerned, they don’t even need to paint out the wires :)

By: S. John Ross

S. John Ross — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:55:16 +0000

#93: “As long as the story is good, who cares?”

Exactly, yes. Were you under the impression that we disagree on that?

By: Dom

Dom — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:30:26 +0000

CGI is a wonderful compositing tool, but I’ve always been disappointed by ILM’s decision to go 100 per cent CGI. In a film like Sucker Punch, I can understand the use of CGI, but I still think the ship FX have more believability in the early Treks than the later ones!

That said, the new Battlestar Galactica’s FX look like models, so it’s about how you use it, I guess.

But it’s way too easy these days for people to cop out and use CGI in some sequences, for, say, a floating robot, when a physical model would look better on on wires which could then be painted out on computer!

By: etsjedi

etsjedi — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:57:47 +0000

I have grown up in all the current stages of movie effect usage. From the late 60’s to the present. Models are still better but it depends on the effective use of building and camera use. CCG is good as it let’s you do things you could not do before. The stop motion is a masterful effects that only a few have achieved with great success.
Still, I think this movie is a SYFY intended production and Stewart is an actor and will work as an actor like every other actor. And we don’t need anymore shots at Bay or Lucas when discussing something completly different. There is plenty of that on other sites!

By: Phaser Guy

Phaser Guy — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:09:56 +0000

92. I think BOTH CG and models can be used together, but I don’t care if something uses just CG. As long as the story is good, who cares?

By: S. John Ross

S. John Ross — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 03:30:46 +0000

#89: “I think CG works in the fact that you don’t have to see the same shot of the model flying by the camera millions of times like in the old Battlestar Galactia, or even in the Star Trek TNG series.”

I have no preference for this SFX or that SFX, but the distinction you’re making isn’t inherent to the forms. There’s nothing inherent to models that causes footage to be re-used, and there’s nothing inherent to CGI that prevents it. That’s a budget-driven choice; both kinds of shots cost money.

By: Phaser Guy

Phaser Guy — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:38:53 +0000

90. Looks like animation to me.