VizagRocks Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 budget gurinchi kottukandi vayya. budget enthaina, movie same alaane edchintundhi. cinema lo matter lenappudu, entha ani graphics tho cover chesthaadu
Rebel890 Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 money is not the problem. its hard to get vfx right the first few times. the director should've cut down the vfx to how much the story needs. VFX is the promotional code to this movie.without it no one wuld have tried to own it,waited for it for 3 yrs.
ballibaja Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 budget gurinchi kottukandi vayya. budget enthaina, movie same alaane edchintundhi. cinema lo matter lenappudu, entha ani graphics tho cover chesthaadu Neeku story nachaleedhu ante ok bhayya adhi nee opinion but aa thokkalo budget tho vellaki Troy, lord of the rings, avatar range graphics leevu anta and antha minimal budget tho aa maathram output ichaadu ani menchukokunda padi eedusthunnaru adhi na point..
VizagRocks Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 I mean to say not even 10% of resources when compared to Hollywood who can use that technology you don't need that much resources to make a good movie. you need a director confident of his craft. Rajamouli is not that. if he was, he wouldn't have wasted graphics on so many pointless scenes.
athletics Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 Just google the budget of mummy dude.. Let me know where do you see 15 million..in imdb or rotten tomatoes or wiki or any other link and post it here Special effectsEdit The filmmakers reportedly spent $15 million of the $80 million budget on special effects, provided by Industrial Light & Magic;[17][18] the producers wanted a new look for the Mummy so that they would avoid comparisons to past movies.[17] John Andrew Berton, Jr., Industrial Light & Magic's Visual Effects Supervisor on The Mummy, started developing the look three months before filming started. He said that he wanted the Mummy "to be mean, tough, nasty, something that had never been seen by audiences before". Berton used motion capture in order to achieve "a menacing and very realistic Mummy".[14] Specific photography was conducted on actor Arnold Vosloo so that the special effects crew could see exactly how he moved and replicate it.[17] To create the Mummy, Berton used a combination of live action and computer graphics. Then, he matched the digital prosthetic make-up pieces on Vosloo's face during filming. Berton said, "When you see his film image, that's him. When he turns his head and half of his face is missing and you can see right through on to his teeth, that's really his face. And that's why it was so hard to do."[14] Vosloo described the filming as a "whole new thing" for him; "They had to put these little red tracking lights all over my face so they could map in the special effects. A lot of the time I was walking around the set looking like a Christmas tree."[4] Make-Up Effects Supervisor Nick Dudman produced the physical creature effects in the film, including three-dimensional make-up and prosthetics. He also designed all of the animatronic effects. While the film made extensive use of computer generated imagery, many scenes, including ones where Rachel Weisz's character is covered with rats and locusts, were real, using live animals.[15] Check the wiki
VizagRocks Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 Neeku story nachaleedhu ante ok bhayya adhi nee opinion but aa thokkalo budget tho vellaki Troy, lord of the rings, avatar range graphics leevu anta and antha minimal budget tho aa maathram output ichaadu ani menchukokunda padi eedusthunnaru adhi na point.. vaallaki buddhi ledhu. nuvvu enduku aa point meedha argue chesthunnavu. graphics are good, but its overused, and it cheapens the movie. the movie sucks.
athletics Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 What are those pointless scenes The whole first half is rip off avatar and poniless imo
ballibaja Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 you don't that much resources to make a good movie. you need a director confident of his craft. Rajamouli is not that. if he was, he wouldn't have wasted graphics on so many pointless scenes.So when it's a war based movie you have to show it in a best possible realistic way right? Even though the content is too good can you have a war episode without graphics... Do you think people will watch a scene like in old ntr ramudu bheemudu kinda technology now?
Rebel890 Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 The whole first half is rip off avatar and poniless imo Agreed.
VizagRocks Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 So when it's a war based movie you have to show it in a best possible realistic way right? Even though the content is too good can you have a war episode without graphics... Do you think people will watch a scene like in old ntr ramudu bheemudu kinda technology now? see, both of us are not producers. this type of conversation takes us nowhere. the producers made a call to invest in graphics, and I felt they are good, but pointless. I don't remember the movie enough now, to debate on nitty gritties. I even had to go out about 3 times during the movie to entertain my nephew, who was getting restless. The movie is a regular telugu potboiler. nothing more.
ballibaja Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 see, both of us are not producers. this type of conversation takes us nowhere. the producers made a call to invest in graphics, and I felt they are good, but pointless. I don't remember the movie enough now, to debate on nitty gritties. I even had to go out about 3 times during the movie to entertain my nephew, who was getting restless. The movie is a regular telugu potboiler. nothing more. Sure bro if you didn't like the movie plot or content that's fine I will respect your opinion but how can you say that the graphics were used unnecessarily when it's a period war film? That's my question.. Anyway as you said we aren't the producers... Leave this now
athletics Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 Rajamouli is a extremely good story teller but a OK filmmaker. He is very humble to agree this in a recent interview. I am sure he will only reach the heights of Hollywood going forward. https://youtube.com/watch?v=K7kA9nMq1AI
VizagRocks Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 Rajamouli is a extremely good story teller but a OK filmmaker. He is very humble to agree this in a recent interview. I am sure he will only reach the heights of Hollywood going forward. https://youtube.com/watch?v=K7kA9nMq1AI he tells good kid stories. nothing more. but spoils the kid stories with adult scenes. so only adults with kid brains can like his movies.
VizagRocks Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 I mean, adults who aren't exposed to better movies.
Recommended Posts