Let's talk about Skitarii: The Movie
>>46582574
There is a very fine line between a cyborg and a Skitarii.
>>46582574
Before Mechanicua was a playable army, the only Skitarii figures were from that Inquisitor game.
The lore had it that they were literal servitors with weapons tacked on. The minis were these flabby, dead-in-the-eyes servitors with industrial loading equipment and missile tubes.
Not saying they were better, just different and cool in their own way. Definitely not bad ass cyber ninjas
Is the whole thing first person? was is also filmed for VR?
I'm sure it'll suck
>>46583211
wait they are not anymore?
>>46583850
Skitarii are the standing army of the Coggers.
They are more or less humans augmented to shit, and have all sorts of fun chemical modifications done to them to make them more aggressive.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Skitarii
Combat Servitors still exist, but as a different thing in and of them selves.
>>46583898
gaaaaaaaaay.
seems highly inefficient.
>>46583211
>The minis
Wait, they had skitarii minis for inquisitor? Pics anyone? Google ain't giving me anything.
>>46583946
Humans can adapt and take command if their officer dies, or change their tactics independently.
Servitors just slump there or go berserk and you need to reprogram them every time.
>>46584157
that doesnt seem like the teachings of the machine god.
are you a heretic anon-kun ?
>>46584215
Did you smoke the machine oil?
The Magi Militant have complete authority on matters of battle doctrine.
>>46583211
>The lore had it that they were literal servitors with weapons tacked on.
>>46583850
False. Combat servitors were always different from Skitarii.
>>46583813
>Is the whole thing first person?
YES
>>46582938
Why not both?
>>46583821
It's awesome. Watch it.
>>46587354
So what is "it" anyway?
>>46587442
Skub.
>>46587442
Generic action flick shot entirely from 1st person.
Blair Witch of action movies.
>>46587472
24FPS with shaky cam?
>>46587197
>>46587354
>>46587472
I like how they parade this as new! REVOLUTIONIZING FILM! fuck no. This isn't new. People have been doing this on YouTube for years on lesser budgets. I hope this "movie" tanks and another is never made again. Keep your shitty FPS movies on YouTube where they belong.
>>46582574
Wait, this is a VR movie?
I thought it looked interesting, but now I don't care anymore. I still remember the novelty of 3D cinemas.
>>46587514
I have no idea how the fuck a VR movie is supposed to work.
The entire point of VR is that you can turn your head freely. The entire immersion is created from the fact that your point of view in the virtual environment reacts to your head movements as if you were in the real world.
How does that work with a linear narrative structure? What happens if I look backwards?
>>46587501
You know the guy who made this made two of those on youtube.
>>46582574
What the fuck is a skitarri, and why the fuck do we care about this shitty "CoD Movie".
>>46587694
>"CoD Movie"
>implying you are quoting someone in the thread and disliking their phrasing
Sometimes I wonder if this kind of post is made by bots.
>>46587728
He's just bad at grammar don't worry
>>46587617
Yes I am aware. And that's where it belongs.
The movie over all, while not great, was well worth the admission ticket, and is easily in my top five movies now.
After thought, Henry probably has more in common with a revived Necron warrior than a Skitarii.
>>46587514
just a fps movie pm
>>46588026
Is it at least stabilized? Or in HFR?
>tfw shaky, quickly panning cinema in 24FPS
Why even bother with beautiful environments if you pan over them so quickly that the low framerate makes everything too blurry to see any details?
>>46587796
Why? Is there any particular reason, or are you just being a Grumpy Gus about a new thing?
>>46583211
the difference between skitarii and servitors is that servitors are lobotomized during augmentation and are generally adapted to specific roles as menial mono-tasks with very, very, very few made for anything as sophisticated as a guard-level combatant
>>46588236
Not that guy, but as discussed, it's not a new thing.
Secondly, it's a horrible misuse of the medium. Shaky cam is a gimmick used to say THIS WAS REAL. Usually punctuated by grainy unfocused images to accentuate the amateur filming aspect of the regular joe. This film is complete opposite of that. It's steady first person movie in a fantastical setting.
First person works in games because you control and become the character. In a non interactive medium, it just feel like being trapped in a ride. Just like how Being Jon Malchavich was like, but at least that was intentional.
>>46589121
>it just feels like being in a ride
FTFY, anon. A movie is about experiencing a spectacle, not about creating it. If you want a video game, go PLAY a video game. If you want another godawful twilight-ripoff, cookie-cutter action flick, or sappy recycled-script romance, go watch the other 98% of the crap hollywood has shat out this year.
I won't say this film is good. I haven't seen it. But you don't advance the medium by doing the same thing over and over again. You do it by making wierd, off-the-wall shit and seeing if it works. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I'm not going to condemn a film like this on concept alone.
>>46589294
There is experimenting and just not understanding the medium.
As said, first person has been done before. You remember the terrible first person sequence in the DOOM movie?
Apparently Harry's a cyborg, but they can't even communicate that effectively. Robocop did a good first person thing where the display helped to focus the shot like him zooming into the rapist's crotch before shooting, or the surgery shot where there's a sense of wrongness as Murphy is on while doctors process him like meat while his vision looks like a tv camera. That's good first person usage with smart intent.
>>46583211
New lore is better. Skitarii are cold emotionless cyborgs but still capable of some humanity from some time to time.
The thing that annoys me about the trailers that I've seen is that everything has this strange fisheye lens look to it. I mean, fuck. Our eyes do not work that way.
Fucking idiots.
>>46595165
This movie was made for dudebros who scream "WEED LMAO" at each other and think jumping over a fence while saying Parkour and having their friend film it on GoPro is the coolest thing going.
So basically retards.
>it's a horrible misuse of the medium.
>First person works in games because you control and become the character.
>fisheye lens. Fucking idiots.
These coments really sum it up. What really triggers me, is how the trailers states"the movie of this generation". Fist of all, you can't tell if it ll be or it ll tank, and in all honesty, if it succed I feel loss for this generation.
>or are you just being a Grumpy Gus about a new thing?
Not everything new is automatically good and better, some things better stay the old way.
>>46595396
FWIW the movie is pretty good fun, the action is pretty good there are a lot of fun beats and attacks going on in there, Sharlto Copley is pretty awesome in it and the gimmick is used well with some fun tricks done with it.
If you're in the mood for an interesting low rent bone breaker that's a little bit different then it does all that pretty well.
I mean if the mere concept of a first person movie offends you on some level or you have really sensitive motion sickness then sure it's probably not for you but as b-movie action spectacles go I have watched much worse movies made on a much higher budget.
>>46598003
>pretty good x2
>fun x3
>name drops
>could be worse
>therefore i endorse
Wow. Just wow. Come on, mods.
Shills aren't even trying any more.
>>46599523
>Anyone who likes something I don't is shilling.
Okay buddy.
>>46599523
>>name drops
what kind of fucking faggot dislikes Sharlto Copley?
Yeah, the thing that really gets at me the most is the marketing/branding, the whole "MAH REVOLUTIONARY FILMMAKING" crap. I'd really like to know more about the relationship between marketers, and guys who make promo materials and trailer, and actual filmmakers. It's really just a nice, fun, over the top action movie, with a first person gimmick and like some unexpected very shallow cyberpunk-ish/sci-fi undertones (I was expecting none at all, not the shallowness). It's definitely not a thinking movie and it's target audience is definitely not the thinking audience. Sharlto Copley is best sidekick (and probably the best parts of the story, what story there is). I was wondering the whole way through if the antagonist was played by Tommy Wiseau, but it's just some slav.
>>46582574
Who was best Jimmy?
>>46604583
Addendum: It wasn't as dumb as I thought it was gonna be, and it's targeted at a dumb audience. Not not-dumb though.Not not-fun though.
>>46582574
It looks like an entertaining string of action scenes. Plus that dude from District 9 is in it.
Pretty much all that's out is this and Zootopia anyway.
>>46587501
>I like how they parade this as new! REVOLUTIONIZING FILM! fuck no. This isn't new.
For Russia, it is. You have no idea how many shitty movies being made in Russia right now. It's like how american cinematograph had Adam Sendler-style comedies phase, but with bigger budget.
So, for my country, it's a great achievement.
>>46589294
>A movie is about experiencing a spectacle
Not every movie needs to be a spectacle. Indeed, I usually prefer movies that aren't.
>>46606283
Not everyone shares your preferences though.
>inb4 HURR my taste is superior and you're dumb for liking explosions DURR!
>>46582574
More like Eversor: The Movie
>>46604715
So Kung Fu Panda 3 is shit?
>>46589294
I have seen it. It's fucking awesome.
It's not "shaky cam: the movie", Hell, Henry's footing is more stable than some actual Hollywood films these days. The editing is great, you always know exactly what is going on, even in the middle of the woods you have these clear landmarks and this great sense of location and space... It's not like Transformers, BvS, or Ultron where you can stare at a fight and go "where are they? What is happening? Who is fighting?" Henry isn't the kind of cool guy who doesn't look at explosions: you get to watch everything in great focus.
I sat in the middle of the theatre and didn't get motion sick. but if you can't watch someone play a FPS on YouTube take a fucking Dramamine an hour before you see it and you'll be fine. Yes, people have been doing " first person" on YouTube for years, but the creator of this is a Russian guy who did a music video in first person. YouTube: Bad Motherfucker. If you like it, Henry is like that, but with a slightly higher budget and better stunts.
>>46606874
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQs1b6netgo
Speaking of stunts.
>>46606207
I liked how Daywatch/Nightwatch had this mundane supernatural style going on, where supernatural things didn't have obvious effects, meaning that you couldn't always be sure if something supernatural was even going on.
And then someone drives up the side of a building, which was fuckawesome.
Overall I didn't like the movies, though.
>>46606883
Ahh yep, the bus went off flawlessly. So many explosions and bullets and falls, it was glorious.
>>46606283
I would prefer if something actually happened in my movies.
You could replace Blade Runner with an art gallery and have that last monologue of the replicant be the finishing piece and it would be far more fun than the actual movie.
Nice scenery doesn't help when everything that's happening is dull and straight-forward and drawn-out, as well as internally consistent (hurr durr we cannot distinguish replicants from humans, but when they die they sometimes behave like robots and artificial animals have brand names on their skin flakes).
>>46606874
>YouTube: Bad Motherfucker
Holy fuck. He actually did that masterpiece?
Yeah, now I want to watch it.
Which countries is it airing in, anyway? It doesn't seem to be there in mine and I never heard of it before this thread.
>>46606937
It's airing in England and Ireland. Where do you live, by the way?
>>46606940
I just looked it up.
It actually airs here in three days. Naturally, only at larger cinemas and not the local one.
That would be 20€ for going there and back by train, as well as 12€ for the ticket.
>>46589519
>terrible FOS sequence in Doom movie
But anon, that was the best part if that movie and it was awesome.That scene, not the movie. The movie overall was very meh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb1hOCX_UVo
These are the two prior FPVs, by the way.
Didn't actually know about the first one, but it gives Bad Motherfucker a lot of context, even if it was sub-par in comparison.
>>46606918
I agree, its why I like Michael Bay movies the best
>>46607025
And then there's this butthurt shithead.
>>46606901
Yeah, when russian aren't making retarded comedies(the modern ones, not the soviet ones) or trying to do depressive drama, they can pull off something truly awesome.
The sad part is - goverment's money go to people who either do comedy movies about asses, cocks, and shit, or awful, but expensive history movies(with the director himself as a main character) that make WW2 veterans spit in disgust.
>>46589519
So, one scene in a rather terrible movie means no other movie should ever try it again? Also what do you mean "cant communicate that effectively" The entire first few scenes of the movie involve Henry's arm and leg being screwed in, the first major plot point is trying to give Henry a power boost before his machinery shuts off. A few moments in the movie involve Henry's eye being dislodged, so the camera is showing two different perspectives from the separate eyes. Henry's knuckles are constantly exposed, showing his arm is mechanical in nature, throughout the movie and near the end of the movie, in the midst of an intense battle, he rips out another cyborg's battery and replaces his failing one, to give himself a second wind. You don't need fancy computer zoom ins and display read outs in a person's eyes to show they are a cyborg. Also, you say that is a smart usage, but this movie isn't? It's a movie from the perspective of the action hero, and not some actor, but a real stunt actor, are you seriously saying thats not a smart usage of first person?
EZ
>>46607093
How could you?
>>46606740
My taste is superior and you're dumb for liking explosions.
>>46607064
I personally think it's a fucking awesome idea. Never mind the shitter, it's amazing.
>>46587501
Kind of a cunt aintcha.
Saw it yesterday. Enjoyed it very much.
Better than Murderman vs. Illegal Alien with jew princess on the sidelines.
>>46595396
are you seriously complaining about trailers bigging up the film it's supposed to be advertising
>>46607093
Second best scene.Followed by the best scene.
>>46610109
I'm pretty sure those are both the same scene
>>46608492
This.
I paid 5$ for a morning screening of BvS, and I hated every boring second of it. I paid 10$ for this movie, and I loved it.
