Nicest Horror Star You've Met

Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by Grim, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. Mortis

    Mortis GARBAGE DAY!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I've been planning on it. :)

     
  2. SaviniFan

    SaviniFan I Have A Fetish

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,792
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    On the cutting room floor.
    Three stars I found very accessable at conventions were Ken Foree, Reggie Bannister, and Clint Howard. All great guys that took the time to actually hang with the fans and treat you with respect. The worst star I've met was Heather Lagenkamp. She showed up late to sign autographs, then seemed to have some kind of attitude like it was a waste of her precious time. You could just tell by her demeanor that she thought herself above the people waiting in line to see her.
     
  3. r_burgos2003

    r_burgos2003 Guest

    BTW-I'll prob. meet Tom Savini since I'm going to the movie makeup effects school in a few years. Maybe I'll meet up with you people if you join up.
     
  4. Mortis

    Mortis GARBAGE DAY!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I live by that damn school.
     
  5. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    I definitely wanna try to go to that school... it would be awesome! :)
     
  6. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,072
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    SoCal
    Must have been a bad day. I met Heather Langenkamp last year, and she was an absolute angel. Now, this was when she first arrived, maybe she developed an attitude after signing for 4-5 hours.
    But she gladly let a few of us take pictures of her, and didn't mind us shuffling cameras around. She signed my Elm Street LD, and got a big blob of ink on it, and apologized and tried to dry it up so it wouldn't smudge anymore. Like I said, an angel.

    Some other polite celebs were the marines from Aliens. Jeanette Goldstein, and I forgot the other 3. They loved my Aliens LD, and didn't even want to sign the cover, because they thought the artwork was too beautiful to write on.
     
  7. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    She sounds really nice. She must have just had a bad day. :)

    Wow, I always liked Jeanette in Aliens. :D
     
  8. r_burgos2003

    r_burgos2003 Guest

    RyanPC-it seems that we are the same age. So we'll prob. see eachother at the school. Ah. Life. But seriously, if CGI doesn't end soon, a lot of us up-and-comers will be out of jobs b4 we even get one.
     
  9. Mattster

    Mattster Guest

    CGI rocks! I'm pro-CGI all the way!
     
  10. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    :eek2: You like to be different, don't you? :lol:
     
  11. Mattster

    Mattster Guest

    I LOVE to be different.
     
  12. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    Yep, I'm 15. I hope I can go, that would just plain ROCK! :banana:

    Personally, I hate CGI, unless it's done like in Hulk. Some of the worst CGI effects ever perpetrated were done in An American Werewolf in Paris. :mad:
     
  13. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    Weeee! LOL! :lol: ...



























    ( :eek2: )
     
  14. Mattster

    Mattster Guest

  15. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,072
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    SoCal
    Not to hijack the thread, but I'm anti-CGI, at least until they improve it.

    Here's what I mean: In The Exorcist, to create the scene where Regan's bedroom goes cold, and you can see everyone's breath, they used a refrigerated set. In Stir of Echoes, a similar effect was done with CGI. The Exorcist one looks WAY better. So tell me, how is it possible that special effects made 25 years later look LESS real? Something bothers me about that.
     
  16. Mattster

    Mattster Guest

    I didn't know the breath in Stir Of Echoes was CGI. Why make all the actors suffer when you can create the effect digitally?
     
  17. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,072
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    SoCal
    Um, to make it look real. I'm sorry, but it looks SO fake in Stir of Echoes, I honestly can't believe you didn't see that.

    I know digital effects are the way of the future, but right now they're so obviously fake, it's kind of annoying. When they get better, I'll be all for it.

    A better question is, why make audiences suffer with bad looking effects until they figure out how to make CGI look at least somewhat real?
     
  18. Mattster

    Mattster Guest

    CGI does look real. It's improved a lot and you're unlimited with what you can do. I love it. If people stopped using it then no one would have a reason to continue to improve it and we would be stuck with fake latex and monsters that you only see parts of. I'm not saying all of the SFX should be CGI because you can easily do some without it. Sure it's not the most realistic thing... but it adds a sense of surrealism to what you're watching.
     
  19. Agent Z

    Agent Z "Get to the river...

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Well, WHICH is it? :lol:

    I can see both sides of the argument for CGI. I have seen great applications of CGI, and bad applications of CGI. I really do believe that it is a tool that fits certain situations in filmmaking presently, but that is also being WAY overused in areas where it shouldn't even be considered.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2003
  20. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,072
    Likes Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    SoCal
    Well, I know it will get better eventually, but right now it really sucks. I think the Exorcist/Stir of Echoes comparison is good, because it shows how an advance in technology is not always a better thing. Sorry, but that scene in SoE looks SO bad!

    Now, this is not the first time this has happened in film. I wrote a paper on it once. My example was how sound really retarded film for a long time (and I use the word "retarded" literally, not as an insult). Many of the early silents were shot on location (think Keaton's The General), and all used real situations and events. Movies were about action, and it had to be real action. It had to be something you couldn't get on stage, since you had no dialogue. Then, they added sound. Suddenly, all films were done on soundstages, and it was like movies reverted back to stage productions, but done on screen instead. Look how many times they used rear projection when people were doing a scene inside a car. Damn, they were doing that until the friggin 60s, and it NEVER looked real! Yet, Keaton did it for real in the 20s, 'cause then there was just no other way to do it.

    I know one day CGI will be good, but we're not at that point yet.
     

Share This Page