MovieChat Forums > She (1965) Discussion > The book is 1,000 times better

The book is 1,000 times better

posted 17 years ago by ducdebrabant
18 replies | jump to latest

If only they'd had a bigger budget. Andress was perfect, I thought, and so were Richardson and Lee, etc. My only problem was that a really good adaptation would have cost some bucks (nowadays, they could do so much of it with CGI). When they just stand looking down into the extinct volcano and we see a rather bad matte shot of the supposed ruins of the city of Kor, I could cry. Maybe one day they'll do a remake. At least it's better than that awful first version with Helen Gahagan where Ayesha's at the North Pole.

--------------
***You didn't suffer as much as black people so stop acting special.***

[–] ContinentalOp 16 years ago

It would look even more fake with CGI! CGI characters don't look real due to the lack of an organic content...the same as CGI sets!

"Jai Guru Deva, Om"

[–] plwblj 15 years ago

Like the book enormously;

-after all it is the extraordinary inventor of the genre : lost civilizations,H.Rider Haggard !

[–] scotbpens 15 years ago

Good computer-generated imagery can look absolutely amazing. Bad CGI looks just as fake as bad stop-motion, bad miniature work, bad optical mattes, or any other traditional SFX done on the cheap.

But what's with this "organic content" B.S.? We're talking movie special effects, not something you buy in a health food store.

All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

[–] ContinentalOp 14 years ago

''Organic content'' isn't *beep* If you think cartoons look more real than something made from an organic material, then you'll have to look again. ''organic'' means something that is real in the physical world, rather than a cratoon, and doesn't only apply to food.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

[–] scotbpens 14 years ago

The best of today's CGI can look amazingly real, just as it's sometimes impossible to tell a photo-realistic painting from a photograph. The main problem CGI artists still have to overcome is that large objects and living creatures often lack a convincing impression of mass and weight.

As for your definition of "organic," did you make it up yourself?

or·gan·ic, adj.

1. Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.

2. Of, relating to, or affecting a bodily organ: an organic disease.

3. a. Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin: organic vegetables; an organic farm.

b. Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals: organic chicken; organic cattle farming.

c. Serving organic food: an organic restaurant.

d. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle.

4. a. Having properties associated with living organisms.

b. Resembling a living organism in organization or development; interconnected: society as an organic whole.

5. Constituting an integral part of a whole; fundamental.

6. Law. Denoting or relating to the fundamental or constitutional laws and precepts of a government or an organization.

7. Chemistry. Of or designating carbon compounds.

n. 1. A substance, especially a fertilizer or pesticide, of animal or vegetable origin.

2. Chemistry. An organic compound.

[–] ContinentalOp 14 years ago

You said it yourself:

"1. Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter."

CGI isn't.

And no, CGI is never hard to spot. Some CGI is good but it can never look more real than something with an organic content. It just can't. For CGI to work, you need the characters and backgrounds to be CGI; CGI with a non-CGI background and characters does not mesh well at all.

So, maybe a good all CGI film could be made?

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

[–] Lord_Caldlow 12 years ago

''organic'' means something that is real in the physical world ...

It does? I think not.

In and of itself, CGI is no better or worse than any other special effects technology. There's nothing "organic" about model shots or stop-motion either.

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

''It does? I think not.''

Good grief, yes it does, imbecile. I already highlighted the definition previously! Are you a ''troll'' or seriously that stupid?

''There's nothing "organic" about model shots or stop-motion either.''

Sorry, but they are organic and I have already told you why. And CGI is one of the worst and least realistic forms of CGI, though that I only an opinion of course.

If you love Jesus 100%... keep it to yourselves, perverts!

[–] Lord_Caldlow 12 years ago

"Organic" does not mean "physical," even according to the definition you quoted from the other poster who was correcting you with it.

And if you're saying that model shots and stop-motion are "organic" just because they're physical, then I'm afraid it's you who must be either trolling or stupid.

Either way, carry on and don't let me stop you. I know when I'm wasting my time, and I won't waste any more of it on you.

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

''"Organic" does not mean "physical," even according to the definition you quoted from the other poster who was correcting you with it.''

''or·gan·ic/ôrˈganik/
Adjective:
Of, relating to, or derived from living matter: "organic soils".'' In other words, something that has to exists, physically*, in our real world. How many times does that definition have to be posted to get it into thick skulls?

''And if you're saying that model shots and stop-motion are "organic" just because they're physical, then I'm afraid it's you who must be either trolling or stupid.''

No, sorry, I just do not have as poor a grasp of English language skills as you do. My use of ''organic content'' is correct as models are made from organic materials, you ignoramus. I am not talking about something from the human body, but something from nature or with a carbon content. Stop-motion effects usually include leather. Is leather not organic? Hmm, yes it is, stupid. As are wood, wool, silk etc. because though they are not alive, they are ''derived from living matter'' or are heavily carbon-based, which is why they are capable of decay (even hair, though it takes a very long time). Anything that is capable of decay is derived from organic matter rather than inorganic matter. A great deal of classical effects are made from organic materials, maybe not entirely which is why I used ''organic content''. But even plastic has organic compounds in it. Of the top of my head I cannot think of much inorganic materials used in traditional special effects.

I could have also used ''real'' with the meaning of ''being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary'' for non-CGI effects too as CGI is not ''real'' in this sense; having no composition in the real world!

''I know when I'm wasting my time, and I won't waste any more of it on you.''

I am sorry dear chap, but it is I who have been wasting my time trying to crack into that big rock that passes for your brain.

*
physical (ˈfɪzɪk ə l)

— adj

1. of or relating to the body, as distinguished from the mind or spirit
2. of, relating to, or resembling material things or nature: the physical universe
3. involving or requiring bodily contact: rugby is a physical sport
4. of or concerned with matter and energy
5. of or relating to physics
6. perceptible to the senses; apparent: a physical manifestation

If you love Jesus 100%... keep it to yourselves, perverts!

[–] Lord_Caldlow 12 years ago

I just do not have as poor a grasp of English language skills than you do.

Ah, the irony ...

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

''Ah, the irony ...''

Not really. Typing errors are different to not actually knowing the meaning of the words. Good day.

If you love Jesus 100%... keep it to yourselves, perverts!

[–] Lord_Caldlow 12 years ago

Typing errors are different to not actually knowing the meaning of the words.

The error I quoted wasn't a typing error. You can try to blame your fingers all you like; it's your understanding that fvcked up.

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

Sorry, dumbass, typing errors are not just mistyped words (they can also be errors made whilst typing fast and not checking and the loss of concentration) and the errors I have made are typing errors. Sorry to burst your smug, trollish bubble, sport.

You, however, do not even know what organic means and thus it is ironic that you would even try to be a grammar nazi. Pathetic.

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

[–] TCMer 13 years ago

I agree, the book is SO much better. The most disappointing thing about the movie for me was how they changed the psychological dynamic and basically took away a lot of Ayesha's power.

[–] asgard-5 13 years ago

Expensive shots of ruins constitute a better movie? From what I saw this was a fabulous film, fantastic performances, beautiful girls, lighting, costumes and set design, and all that on top of a really zany story. Not for a second was I bored. Haven't read the book, but it's also rather inexpensive to do in a book, all you need is a little imagination.

[–] AngelCake56FJS 9 years ago

Yeah they could make a remake with actual East Africans

[–] gss2 8 years ago

Adaptations always have to leave things out or change plot points to tell a story in two hours. I liked this film. 7.5/10