Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Now this looks good! Why is Duncan Jones the only director willing to take a chance on good non-superhero SF? He's Kubrick's heir.

Ah Moon, I love that. That's an example of the joy of keeping something simple and ending up with something far more complex. And marvelous acting of course. Just sticking Sam Rockwell in Inception would have improved it 100 times over.

>> ^dag:

I'm with you Deano. Total Recall, for all it's sugar-candy pop-coating- was a much more enjoyable SF movie. Dark City or any Alex Proyas movie is also better. The accolades this movie received are undeserved - I wish Moon had gotten a quarter of the hype.
>> ^Deano:
Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.
To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm with you Deano. Total Recall, for all it's sugar-candy pop-coating- was a much more enjoyable SF movie. Dark City or any Alex Proyas movie is also better. The accolades this movie received are undeserved - I wish Moon had gotten a quarter of the hype.

>> ^Deano:

Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.
To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.

To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

Watched it. While it is amazing. It's what I expected from Nolan but little else it filled out my expectations but the hype built it too much into something Kubrick would make. It's very rigid. I didn't know most people dream in structured forms.

Love the classical *music counterpoint. Very Kubrick.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick saw this and thought Malcolm McDowell would be worth casting.

(Lindsey Anderson was a wonderful film director.)

Not a tough choice at all. Scorsese is an amazing director, but Kubrick is a god. No one can frame a shot like Kubrick, move the camera like Kubrick, or match visuals to music like Kubrick (no, not even Scorsese). Plus, Scorsese's filmography is filled with classics, but it also has quite a few merely good films, and even a couple of duds.

Kubrick.

Kubrick, any day of the week.....also, 'eyes wide shut' and 'gangs of new york' both sucked.....in fact, I agreed with everything shuac had to say....especially #7....

Same here, though I enjoy both.

Seven thoughts as I watched this vid:

1. Gangs of New York was such a nothing film. The Departed and Shutter Island were terrific.

2. Scorsese's early work (Who's That Knocking on My Door, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver) was very artistic. His movies since that time: not so much.

3. "We Are the People is not the same as We Are the People. Let's not fight. Look, I'm gonna make it real simple. We don't pay for the buttons, We throw the buttons away."

4. The only Kubrick film I was really disappointed with was Eyes Wide Shut. That was also a nothing film.

5. Kubrick's movies are timeless and infinitely re-watchable. But then, so are Scorsese's.

6. Kubrick started as a photographer and so his films are meticulous and beautiful, especially Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was an artist through and through.

7. "Hey Dad. There's a strange fella sittin' on the sofa munchy-wunchin' long tics of toast!"

>> ^westy:

the viscosity of the material seemed wrong. I think liquid texture seemed to have to much of a defuse reflection.
other than that pritty nice .


Agreed; this is one thing I've always noticed with nearly all liquid rendering... the surface is almost always reflects too much light. Perhaps the surface tension simulations just aren't up to par yet? In natural liquid movement I think it tends to be much more disrupted and light absorbing...

Edit: I should also say that I'm not trying to say this isn't still great.

nice comment buddy!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Heh clicked through now to look for some more stuff like this, and found a lengthy description.

"This is a half-scale, all CG simulation of the 'elevator of blood' from The Shining that I did just for amusement in spare hours. I never expected it to look exactly like the real thing. The RealFlow fluid sim uses only about 1.6 million particles and therefore appears thicker and 'blobbyer' than an actual water-like liquid at this scale. I think at least ten million particles would begin to look convincing, but since this took about a month to calculate and render on on I-7, 3.2gh quad core, it isnt practical to attempt more particles without a far more powerful and prohibitively expensive computer.

I rendered, and modeled the hallway and furniture in Lightwave 9.6. Post processing was applied in Fusion 6.

In my work as a CG artist, I am often expected to integrate CG into photographic plates without any practical information from set such as what lens was used, the camera height and inclination, or the location and type of lights used. I have become rather proficient at 'eyeballing' these things. To come up with the dimensions of the set, I studied each shot in The Shining of the various hallways and fixtures. I settled on a 50mm lens, and my guess is that it was a half scale miniature since Kubrick was a perfectionist and smaller scale liquids look progressively less realistic and blobby (it is also more RealFlow friendly). The angles of the wall panels and lines on the floor indicated that the camera is not centered but was placed a few feet to the right and panned left to appear centered. Most viewers do not notice there are actually 3 different angles of this scene shown in the movie. This leads me to suspect there may have been another camera centered on the miniature set but the footage was not used.

I arrived at the 140fps frame speed by using Fusion to speed up the slow motion shot from the film until it appeared to move at a realistic speed which was x6. Six times 24fps is 140. To save time, I began RealFlow simulations at 24fps. When I sped up the resulting render x6, the CG blood turned out to hit the walls and run out of frame on close to the same frames as in the real shot, so this affirmed the rate of 140fps and the dimensions of the set as being somewhat accurate. When they shot the miniature scene, the actual event would have taken place in about four seconds.

The overhead render was an afterthought where some flaws are more apparent.

I started thinking about rendering this after viewing a YT video titled 'THE SHINING - SOMETHING IN THE RIVER OF BLOOD' where the author presents a lengthy assertion that there are some obscure shapes viewable within the blood near the elevator that Kubrick intended as a sublminal representation of a corpse or something suggesting 'Tony' inside Danny's mouth. The seemingly mysterious shapes present a Rorschach image for commentors' to offer up a myriad of odd things they believe 'it' to be. It was apparent to me that the shapes are merely reflections of the set and I emailed a simple CG still to the author demonstrating that fact but he defends the presence of mysterious objects.

I thought it would be interesting to see what ReaFlow might do, and was surprised to find that no one else had attempted a Shining-blood-elevator sim that I could find. Oddly enough, very similar 'shapes' turn up in this CG render as in the movie since they are simply distorted reflections of the elevator door itself and surrounding frame and wall. But people prefer a mystery."

Heh clicked through now to look for some more stuff like this, and found a lengthy description.

"This is a half-scale, all CG simulation of the 'elevator of blood' from The Shining that I did just for amusement in spare hours. I never expected it to look exactly like the real thing. The RealFlow fluid sim uses only about 1.6 million particles and therefore appears thicker and 'blobbyer' than an actual water-like liquid at this scale. I think at least ten million particles would begin to look convincing, but since this took about a month to calculate and render on on I-7, 3.2gh quad core, it isnt practical to attempt more particles without a far more powerful and prohibitively expensive computer.

I rendered, and modeled the hallway and furniture in Lightwave 9.6. Post processing was applied in Fusion 6.

In my work as a CG artist, I am often expected to integrate CG into photographic plates without any practical information from set such as what lens was used, the camera height and inclination, or the location and type of lights used. I have become rather proficient at 'eyeballing' these things. To come up with the dimensions of the set, I studied each shot in The Shining of the various hallways and fixtures. I settled on a 50mm lens, and my guess is that it was a half scale miniature since Kubrick was a perfectionist and smaller scale liquids look progressively less realistic and blobby (it is also more RealFlow friendly). The angles of the wall panels and lines on the floor indicated that the camera is not centered but was placed a few feet to the right and panned left to appear centered. Most viewers do not notice there are actually 3 different angles of this scene shown in the movie. This leads me to suspect there may have been another camera centered on the miniature set but the footage was not used.

I arrived at the 140fps frame speed by using Fusion to speed up the slow motion shot from the film until it appeared to move at a realistic speed which was x6. Six times 24fps is 140. To save time, I began RealFlow simulations at 24fps. When I sped up the resulting render x6, the CG blood turned out to hit the walls and run out of frame on close to the same frames as in the real shot, so this affirmed the rate of 140fps and the dimensions of the set as being somewhat accurate. When they shot the miniature scene, the actual event would have taken place in about four seconds.

The overhead render was an afterthought where some flaws are more apparent.

I started thinking about rendering this after viewing a YT video titled 'THE SHINING - SOMETHING IN THE RIVER OF BLOOD' where the author presents a lengthy assertion that there are some obscure shapes viewable within the blood near the elevator that Kubrick intended as a sublminal representation of a corpse or something suggesting 'Tony' inside Danny's mouth. The seemingly mysterious shapes present a Rorschach image for commentors' to offer up a myriad of odd things they believe 'it' to be. It was apparent to me that the shapes are merely reflections of the set and I emailed a simple CG still to the author demonstrating that fact but he defends the presence of mysterious objects.

I thought it would be interesting to see what ReaFlow might do, and was surprised to find that no one else had attempted a Shining-blood-elevator sim that I could find. Oddly enough, very similar 'shapes' turn up in this CG render as in the movie since they are simply distorted reflections of the elevator door itself and surrounding frame and wall. But people prefer a mystery."

I'm a big fan of Kubrick and count him among the great masters (like Fellini, Bergman, and Polansky).

I remember watching this film late at night on cable as a kid... and how it transformed my mind.








Adrian Lyne's "Jacob's Ladder," too!