Computerized backdrops ???


What the ???

Seriously using computerized back drops in the cabin...
Trees dead, kitchen all computerized Pics...

CRAP MOVIE...

reply

yes movie was crap. but if u didnt notice.. its only computerized when a ghost is there. or w/e the hell it is..

but yeah...

sucked.

reply

I did stand-in work on this...the film was completely computerized..phantoms or not.




Lois:You know,Im not wearing panties

Peter:Thats okay, we can always throw that chair out

reply

There were SO many of the backgrounds that were digital! Most of the first half of the movie! Outside the hospital, the street, the cabin. Those are only naming a few.

You can tell because the real elements (the person and sometimes a table or a lamp) stand out prominently. Usually you can see lines where the real ends and the greenscreen begins. I don't know that I've seen a film ever do this part perfectly, but this one wasn't trying at ALL!

Also, sometimes the actors' movements don't seem quite fluent. Sometimes the actors' image seems to "lag" for a moment. I seem to remember this happening at the begining of the film somewhere, when the woman was walking down the street at night. She turned quickly and it was like her face stayed frozen for a moment. Though this becomes more of a notable problem with the aforementioned lines when the real element contrasts with the nonreal. Much more noticable in movement. Especially when done as carelessly as Pulse 2 put them together.

I kinda liked the story by the end, and am even looking forward to checking out Pulse 3. But I HOPE the effects are done at least 10X better the next time around. And that's talking minimal!

reply

Funny - I assumed it was the intention of the director for the fil to have this look. It gave the film a disctinctive look and feel. It would be interesting to hear the director's POV on this.

"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..."

reply

I think it was intentional.

reply

Yeah, distinctive look: cheap,low budget.

As for movies that pulled it off using green screens:
300
Sin City

reply

**SPOILER**

I watched it Saturday night and was about to turn it off as I thought it looked completely crap until I realised that the woman looking for her kid was dead!!! I think they used blue scenes so you could tell the 'dead' world from the 'living' world if that makes sence?

Chorley FM, Coming In Your Ears!

reply

Nono. You do that in post AFTER you key out the blue/green screen. Shoddy job. That's it.

-Nailed it.-

reply

Intentional or not, it looked awful and was very distracting. Wikipedia says the budget was $25 million, which is a sizable amount for any film.

reply

What a complete mess this film was in general but the backgrounds really put me off.

The actors were a different colour & the they often came out blurry in places & the shadows were all wrong.

The film in general was a complete bore & I really liked 1 but this one sucked.

reply

Intentional or not, it looked awful and was very distracting. Wikipedia says the budget was $25 million, which is a sizable amount for any film.


Somebody must have stolen most of that money.

reply

I know! Do you remember seeing the part where that main guy in the cabin was bending down to pick up the laptop off the floor, and it showed his 'girl friend' on the couch? It looked like she was floating on his head!

The colors of the actors where kind of washed out, and the background was rely bright....

YEA A CRAP MOVIE!..

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]