Dragon Ball: Evolution- Speculation and Discussion

[omegacwa]

You mentioned the special effects being not up to par with "today's standards" well, I hate to break it to you, but no movie's CGI is as good as Jurassic Park 1 which came out in 1993. How terrible is that?

Yeah, you saying that makes it a fact. But let's say for the sake of this argument that you are right and 1993 Jurassic Park had, in fact, the best special effects to this date.

Ki looks waaay too much like smoke/fire and nothing like it should look.

First I never, ever, said that my opinion on Jurassic Park's special effects was "fact". But it is true that the CGI in that movie is better than a lot of movies that come out nowadays, which is terrible when you consider that that movie is 16 years old now.

But in all honesty, I don't really care about CGI anyway, I think it looks goofy no matter what. It is very rare where the CGI in a movie will look real to me. Some of it will look great on it's own but look awful when juxtaposed against real footage. What Jurassic Park had )only the first one mind you) was CGI that blend well with a real environment, not to mention they also used Practical special effects in conjunction with the CGI to make it look even more real. Movie nowadays (Matrix Reloaded Smiths fight for example) look awful because they just CGI the whole scene.

And on to your next point. What pray tell does Ki look like, since you have obviously seen someone use Ki in real life, I would like to know what it looks like, and please support your claim with Video proof. Thanks.

[MajinVejitaXV]

First I never, ever, said that my opinion on Jurassic Park's special effects was "fact". But it is true that the CGI in that movie is better than a lot of movies that come out nowadays, which is terrible when you consider that that movie is 16 years old now.

...is it just me, or does that whole section contradict itself?

-Corey

[omegacwa]

Eh probably. Hmm.. Let me support my claim a bit.

I don't mean that it is FACT that JP's special effects are better than EVERY movie that comes out now, but through my experience, and discussing with friends, I have determined that the special effects in JP are better than a majority of movies nowadays.

Hope that is better.

[Tenshinhan-san]

I can't show you video proof of what Ki should look like since there aren't too many movies that cover Ki blast battles. That doesn't mean I need video proof to explain what I feel Ki/Energy should look like in a live action movie. It simply should look as much as in the source material as possible, meaning solid orbs of light, rather than smokey concentrations of a fire-like substance. To me, that only adds to the terrible Airbending Avatar theory that ki manipulation consists of earth, wind and fire as claimed by Roshi in DBE.

[Bussani]

I can't show you video proof of what Ki should look like since there aren't too many movies that cover Ki blast battles. That doesn't mean I need video proof to explain what I feel Ki/Energy should look like in a live action movie. It simply should look as much as in the source material as possible, meaning solid orbs of light, rather than smokey concentrations of a fire-like substance. To me, that only adds to the terrible Airbending Avatar theory that ki manipulation consists of earth, wind and fire as claimed by Roshi in DBE.

Ki, or rather chi if I'm going to say this, literally translates to breath, air or gas. DBE's interpretation of that is different to Dragon Ball, but I kind of like it. And actually, the 10th Anniversary movie of Dragon Ball had similar looking ki. See below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-oSl_SKAM

[Pain]

I can't show you video proof of what Ki should look like since there aren't too many movies that cover Ki blast battles. That doesn't mean I need video proof to explain what I feel Ki/Energy should look like in a live action movie. It simply should look as much as in the source material as possible, meaning solid orbs of light, rather than smokey concentrations of a fire-like substance. To me, that only adds to the terrible Airbending Avatar theory that ki manipulation consists of earth, wind and fire as claimed by Roshi in DBE.

Ki, or rather chi if I'm going to say this, literally translates to breath, air or gas. DBE's interpretation of that is different to Dragon Ball, but I kind of like it. And actually, the 10th Anniversary movie of Dragon Ball had similar looking ki. See below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-oSl_SKAM

I like that way of viewing the concept. And I never knew that CGI was put in the 10th anniversary special!

[Tenshinhan-san]

Ki, or rather chi if I'm going to say this, literally translates to breath, air or gas. DBE's interpretation of that is different to Dragon Ball, but I kind of like it. And actually, the 10th Anniversary movie of Dragon Ball had similar looking ki. See below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-oSl_SKAM

I wasn't really having a problem with the aura's, but rather the energy blasts/orbs.

[Bussani]

Ki, or rather chi if I'm going to say this, literally translates to breath, air or gas. DBE's interpretation of that is different to Dragon Ball, but I kind of like it. And actually, the 10th Anniversary movie of Dragon Ball had similar looking ki. See below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-oSl_SKAM

I wasn't really having a problem with the aura's, but rather the energy blasts/orbs.

I'm not saying you're wrong for thinking that way, but it's all the same to me.

I mean, ki isn't even visible all the time in Dragon Ball. Kiai type blasts are invisible. I think ki itself is invisible, and only gives off visible light when it's concentrated in a certain way, like kamehameha and such. Visible auras don't really start showing up until maybe the 23rd Budokai Tenkaichi.

Anyway, I'm okay with it. I haven't seen the film itself yet, just clips, so I can't say how the effects themselves look. But from what I saw the ki effects looked pretty neat, and the final kamehameha actually looked like a kamehameha to me.

[Olivier Hague]

Oh, It's you again, to turn my words around.

Well, they're your words. I didn't change anything about them. And that's what they mean.

It's being advertised towards kids, on kids networks. We are the ones kidding ourselves.

Are we, now?
I mean, how many times have we had discussions about how Dragon Ball (the original series, that is) is for kids, lately? I think most of us are on the same page, here. I don't remember seeing any criticism about the movie not being serious / mature enough (and I've seen a lot of criticism).

Now you appear to be arguing that kids could like the movie. Well, yeah. Sure.
Still, there are good and bad movies for kids. And most kids may well like both, because, y'know, they're kids. They don't necessarily know better (yet).

I don't think aiming a movie at kids gives the creators a freepass to fuck it up and make it unfaithful.

And it's not just about being faithful. The fact it's for kids shouldn't give the creators a free pass to fuck it up. Period.
But hey. That's stereotypical Hollywood for you...

Mortal Kombat is the best "Video Game" movie ever.

That may be true, but then again, that's not saying much...
Silent Hill did a decent job... In its first half... Setting-wise...

"I love dragonball, but I knew the movie was going to be different so I went in with an open mind. But even then it was horrible, I mean, Roshi wasn't old enough, Bulma didn't have blue hair, GOD GOKU WAS NOT JAPANESE, this movie is a failure, 1/10"

This is 90% of the reviews out there.

And that's... surprising?
I mean... The Western (and especially US?) Dragon Ball fandom never struck me as being particularly mature or articulate...

I'll admit that Gollum's animation was impressive looking, but...while it was good enough for me to ignore that it was CGI and see him as a character, he didn't look real or solid to me. Everything in Jurassic Park, on the other hand, does. To me anyway.

I think some movies have come to the point where the criticism directed at their CGI has less to do with the actual quality of said CGI and more to do with the fact that we just know it has to be CGI.
It may not be absolutely seamless yet, but I don't think our grandchildren (if they still have electricity) will look at those movies and go "shit, the special effects were terrible back then!".

[Bussani]

I think some movies have come to the point where the criticism directed at their CGI has less to do with the actual quality of said CGI and more to do with the fact that we just know it has to be CGI.
It may not be absolutely seamless yet, but I don't think our grandchildren (if they still have electricity) will look at those movies and go "shit, the special effects were terrible back then!".

Pretty much. To me it just feels like there's no weight behind CGI stuff. It might as well be drawn in Who Framed Roger Rabbit style. And for some reason, the newer the movie, the less the CGI element looks like it fits in to me.

Edit: If I were a kid, I bet I'd love this movie. Just like I loved the Power Rangers movie. I dunno if kids these days are the same.

[B]

Except for the names, is this movie anything like DragonBall? HELL NO!

Does that make it even worse? To me it does!

The fact it is not faithful, is like, the seventeenth or eighteenth thing wrong with the film.

[Olivier Hague]

To me it just feels like there's no weight behind CGI stuff.

Yeah, that's generally the problem (and the challenge).

for some reason, the newer the movie, the less the CGI element looks like it fits in to me.

I dunno... I mean, I still see some bad CGI, but I do feel like a huge progress has been made in the area...
I think it's mostly that it's a lot more difficult to try and have a realistic humanoid character in entire scenes than to show quick cuts of dinosaurs. For example, you know very well how a human(-ish) being is supposed to move, which makes the inertia / weight thing mentioned above all the more problematic.

[MisterFlashdude]

I may have agreed with the presumption that this was just a movie for kids, but then I wonder about the reasoning behind taking out animal folk, dinosaurs, semi-humans including most of the main characters (Kuririn/Tenshinhan/Chaozu), more silly themes (Any semblance of the turtle theme in Kame-sennin), Jetsons-esque technology (Allusions via Bulma's transforming ATV and Yamcha's rocket jeep only serve as examples of a 'serious' spin on a silly concept), and Goku as a child protagonist and I'm left utterly at a loss for who, exactly, they had in mind for this movie.

Obviously not the fans. And maybe not kids who would have appreciated everything they considered too silly. Maybe someone was too nervous of pulling a Jar Jar...

[Bussani]

To me it just feels like there's no weight behind CGI stuff.

Yeah, that's generally the problem (and the challenge).

for some reason, the newer the movie, the less the CGI element looks like it fits in to me.

I dunno... I mean, I still see some bad CGI, but I do feel like a huge progress has been made in the area...
I think it's mostly that it's a lot more difficult to try and have a realistic humanoid character in entire scenes than to show quick cuts of dinosaurs. For example, you know very well how a human(-ish) being is supposed to move, which makes the inertia / weight thing mentioned above all the more problematic.

That may be the case. But heck, even things like spaceships in scifi movies don't look as real as they used to. Honestly I think the models were better than anything else, but even when they first switched to fully using CGI I think it looked better than it does now. Maybe it's because the detail and quality are improving?

[masenko]

Models will always look better than CGI when done correctly. I'm a film student and CGI is what is known as "rich man's laziness". Audiences can connect with something that was crafted in reality...not virtual reality. Some CGI is very well thought out and used to the best of its ability. There is no such example in DB:E. The special effects are corny.

I stopped coming on this forum because of the movie. It just pains me that there is going to be a shitload of people introduced to this franchise through this piece of trash. And you know what? They are going to turn and run. It doesn't deserve to be called DragonBall, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH TORIYAMA. This movie is defacing his work. It would be fine if it was a made for TV movie. This is a major hollywood production. AND IT IS TERRIBLY POOR. And it doesn't deserve the attention it is getting, nor to be placed in the same franchise as an manga/anime masterpiece. Sorry for the rant.

[Olivier Hague]

I'm left utterly at a loss for who, exactly, they had in mind for this movie.

Let's not assume they "exactly" had something in mind...
It's apparently typical "we don't care what the original series is, we don't care what kind of movie this will be, we don't care who exactly will go and see it, we'll just throw a bunch of "proven" stuff together and hope for the best!"

Models will always look better than CGI when done correctly. I'm a film student and CGI is what is known as "rich man's laziness". Audiences can connect with something that was crafted in reality...not virtual reality.

Meh. I guess it's really an oversimplification, but I don't like that...
CGI is just another method which offers new possibilities. It might be plain lazy (or even a Bad Idea) in some cases, sure, but apart from that... And if it's really well-done (seamless), I see no reason why audiences would not "connect".
Again, all I can see is the possibility that audiences will deduce that some really well-done CGI is computer-generated simply because what they're seeing on the screen simply couldn't have been achieved by make-up, animatronics or whatever. I would think audiences reacted in the same way to well-done animatronics at one point in the past.
Or is the problem that anybody can imagine how CGI are done ("some guy on a computer"... there, no mystery), whereas you don't necessarily associate animatronics with "tons of wires right there, off-screen"...? Meh.

it doesn't deserve the attention it is getting

Is it really getting a lot of attention though?

[JAPPO]

Models will always look better than CGI when done correctly. I'm a film student and CGI is what is known as "rich man's laziness". Audiences can connect with something that was crafted in reality...not virtual reality. Some CGI is very well thought out and used to the best of its ability. There is no such example in DB:E. The special effects are corny.

I stopped coming on this forum because of the movie. It just pains me that there is going to be a shitload of people introduced to this franchise through this piece of trash. And you know what? They are going to turn and run. It doesn't deserve to be called DragonBall, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH TORIYAMA. This movie is defacing his work. It would be fine if it was a made for TV movie. This is a major hollywood production. AND IT IS TERRIBLY POOR. And it doesn't deserve the attention it is getting, nor to be placed in the same franchise as an manga/anime masterpiece. Sorry for the rant.

You know it's not like the franchise was perfect before. Dragonball GT was horrible.

[Olivier Hague]

It was terrible, but also a lot more recognizable.
And again, there's the whole problem with the movie's visibility. Fans probably weren't worried that people would judge them ('cause that's what it's mostly about in the end, right?) based on the awfulness of the Super No. 17 arc.

[Kingdom Heartless]

That may be true, but then again, that's not saying much...
Silent Hill did a decent job... In its first half... Setting-wise...

Nobody ever seems to count Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie, which kicks butt.

[Chrono Trigger]

It certainly does but I think we were mostly talking about live action video game movies. At least I was.