davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) (11/06/85)
In article <2114@reed.UUCP> agb@reed.UUCP (Alexander G. Burchell) writes: >BTW, who does the (truly Amazing) computer graphics that start out each >episode? I was quite impressed with the realistic surface textures and was >especially amazed by the knight in shining armor. I don't know, although the credits say the titles were designed by Ron Cobb (who is an artist, not a computer person). Is the caveman Ray Walston, or just someone who looks a whole lot like him? The one thing that amazed me about the Amazing Stories episode "The Mission" is the computer graphics, which were so good that nobody on the net has even mentioned them! By "so good nobody has mentioned them", I mean that they didn't bite you on the nose and say "Hi! We're COMPUTER GRAPHICS! Aren't we NEAT?!?!" They were good enough that if you don't recognize the hallmarks of computer graphics, you would never have spotted them. I wonder who did them. Come to think of it, I'm not completely certain which scenes were computer- animated. I know the scene of the plane landing was. I'm fairly certain the shot of the debris heading toward the ball-turret gunner and the shot of the balloon tire extruding from the wing were. I'm almost ready to believe that every scene containing the baloon tires (even those with human actors) was computer-animated. However, this doesn't save the episode from its deus-ex-Disney ending. The episode fails dramatically (for me) because it spent 50 minutes building a gritty, nasty, realistic WWII reality, then violated it completely for the sake of a happy ending. I mean, Spielberg broke the rules he'd worked so hard to establish. Ever read a story called "The Cold Equations?" That was more dramatically consistent (although depressing, and therefore anathema to Spielberg). After seeing this episode, my S.O. told me to remind her never to watch Amazing Stories again. It was that galling. So, Tuesday I skip it, and after it's over S.O. says "Guess what? You missed a GOOD Amazing Stories!" TANJ (There Ain't No Justice)! David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA/CSNET]
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/09/85)
In article <1231@teklds.UUCP> davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) writes: >In article <2114@reed.UUCP> agb@reed.UUCP (Alexander G. Burchell) writes: >>BTW, who does the (truly Amazing) computer graphics that start out each >>episode? I was quite impressed with the realistic surface textures and was >>especially amazed by the knight in shining armor. > >I don't know, although the credits say the titles were designed by Ron Cobb >(who is an artist, not a computer person). I believe that the intro was done at Robert Abel & Associates in Hollywood. That's what they claimed when I was there in August, anyway. I think Abel is on the net, maybe they can confirm this. -- Rick Gillespie ARPANET: rick@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick FISHNET: ...!flounder%tetra!rick@ichthys
waynet@tolerant.UUCP (Wayne Thompson) (11/11/85)
> In article <2114@reed.UUCP> agb@reed.UUCP (Alexander G. Burchell) writes: > The one thing that amazed me about the Amazing Stories episode "The Mission" > is the computer graphics, which were so good that nobody on the net has even > mentioned them! > David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] I thought the computer graphics were laughably obvious, thus my reference to 'Amazing Big Cartoon Wheels. BTW, If the debris was CA i missed it. > (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA/CSNET] *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Wayne Thompson ..(mordor,ucbvax)!tolerant!waynet source .disclaimer
sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) (11/12/85)
In article <1231@teklds.UUCP>, davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) writes: > However, this doesn't save the episode from its deus-ex-Disney ending. The > episode fails dramatically (for me) because it spent 50 minutes building a > gritty, nasty, realistic WWII reality, then violated it completely for the sake > of a happy ending. I mean, Spielberg broke the rules he'd worked so hard to > establish. Ever read a story called "The Cold Equations?" That was more > dramatically consistent (although depressing, and therefore anathema to > Spielberg). > > David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] > (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA/CSNET] Personally, I liked this episode. After watching 50 minutes (or 55 as some have said) of this crew facing death, the last thing I really wanted to see was the bellygunner die. Why spend an hour on a show, showing the anquish of a person facing death, and then die a bloody death. This show is called "Amazing Stories" and I want something amazing to happen. If I want complete reality (as far a TV can present it) I can wait till Monday and watch one of NBC's Heart Wrencher of the Week movies. I was expecting Spielberg to come up with a more realistic way to save the bellygunner, but feel Spielberg stayed true to his personal style. Just about everything he directs espouses magic of this kind. Look at E.T. and Close Encounters for the best examples. Remember, the show is called "Amazing Stories", not "Amazing True To Life Stories", and is supposed to be fantasy. Without the ending, the episode would have had no fantasy. Scott A. Stewart LMSC - Sunnyvale P.S. I also liked the show on November 11. It was fun and enjoyable. I felt that the Hitchcock episode after it was pointless and irresponsible. Why was the story even made?
jim@sivax.UUCP (Jim Boman) (11/26/85)
> In article <1231@teklds.UUCP>, davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) writes: > > However, this doesn't save the episode from its deus-ex-Disney ending. The > > episode fails dramatically (for me) because it spent 50 minutes building a > > gritty, nasty, realistic WWII reality, then violated it completely for the sake > > of a happy ending. I mean, Spielberg broke the rules he'd worked so hard to > > establish. Ever read a story called "The Cold Equations?" That was more > > dramatically consistent (although depressing, and therefore anathema to > > Spielberg). > > > > > David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] > > (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA/CSNET] > > Personally, I liked this episode. After watching 50 minutes (or 55 as some > have said) of this crew facing death, the last thing I really wanted to see > was the bellygunner die. Why spend an hour on a show, showing the anquish of > a person facing death, and then die a bloody death. This show is called > "Amazing Stories" and I want something amazing to happen. If I want complete > reality (as far a TV can present it) I can wait till Monday and watch one > of NBC's Heart Wrencher of the Week movies. > > I was expecting Spielberg to come up with a more realistic way to save the > bellygunner, but feel Spielberg stayed true to his personal style. Just > about everything he directs espouses magic of this kind. Look at E.T. > and Close Encounters for the best examples. Remember, the show is called > "Amazing Stories", not "Amazing True To Life Stories", and is supposed to be > fantasy. Without the ending, the episode would have had no fantasy. > > Scott A. Stewart > LMSC - Sunnyvale > > P.S. I also liked the show on November 11. It was fun and enjoyable. I felt > that the Hitchcock episode after it was pointless and irresponsible. Why was > the story even made? I think the belly gunner should have turned himself into a cartoon character -- you know -- the ones who can take 50 hits without injury, fall off cliffs and live to tell about it. Then, he could have walked off into the dark, being chased by a coyote, screaming MEEP MEEP varooooooom! B: B A *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***