|
It's also funny to complain about that when Thanos himself as a completely CGI character is probably one of the best ever put in film.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Andy Serkis played a monkey and that was way better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Andy Serkis played a monkey and that was way better. Pointless nitpickery aside, Caesar was an ape, not a monkey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:It's probably just a matter of how rushed they are, and it makes sense if those were some of the last shots added and they didn't have time to make it look better. Modern blockbusters will have multiple FX houses working on different shots within the same film, and sometimes even within the same shot. Generally the movie will be broken up into sequences, and companies will bid on them based on what their capacity, specialities, and budgets are. You'll sometimes also get cases where one company will make the 3D stand-in or model for, eg; The Hulk, which will get shared with another company who has shots to do that involve them. Further complicating matters is that the FX houses themselves often have satellite offices in places where labour is cheap but there is less technical/artistic oversight. Usually they'll do the lower-skilled work like rotoscoping or matchmove, but sometimes this causes issues if a shot keeps coming back bad and the FX house is running out of time. And finally you've got directors/producers sticking their oar in and changing things at the last minute, often for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 09:47
|
|
|
I do find as well that in criticism of all these films, be they Marvel, DC or other blockbusters. A legitimate criticism gets abstracted and memefied until it just becomes annoying, and everyone pointing it out like they're the ones who discovered it becomes increasingly silly - especially on twitter. "Some of the imagery in Marvel is flat, uninspired and overly reliant on greenscreens and it seems to be a systemic issue that effects Marvel films worse than comparable films" is true, and people recognize the truth in it but rather than add anything to the conversation they just repeat it mindlessly, the whole Flash shot being an example. Another weird thing is the implication in comparing screenshots that the elements of a film are separate parts meant for individual consideration as opposed to things that work in synthesis together to create a whole, like you jot up points on a scorecard to find out how good a film is, 5/10 for cinematography, 7/10 for score etc. It is a weird way of looking at films. Finally, I find the posturing kind of annoying. As well as the weird idea that some on film twitter who make these posts think Scorcese, who is a genius and one of the greatest living filmakers, makes obscure art pieces and that they're mature connoisseurs of art because they watched Goodfellas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 11:02
|
|
|
I think it's fair to hold Marvel to a higher standard from a technical standpoint as they have the whole Disney monolith behind them. The CGI should be flawless, obviously cramming 3 films a year that need to hit deadlines makes that less possible but that's not the viewers problem. Artisiticly though it's clear the MCU has a set art style (with some tolerances here and there) so complaining about that is just shouting into the void at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
Part of their reason for actors not being available and having to be green screened in badly is constantly tweaking scripts and redoing stuff later to have everything "fit" primarily to market future movies, which is lovely imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
Kaveman posted:I think it's fair to hold Marvel to a higher standard from a technical standpoint as they have the whole Disney monolith behind them. The CGI should be flawless, obviously cramming 3 films a year that need to hit deadlines makes that less possible but that's not the viewers problem. Again this is not how the VFX industry works at all. Disney/Marvel are contracting this work to several different companies, probably in different countries. Those companies bid on the shots, estimating how much it will cost/how much they will charge for the work. The quality of their work is down to a huge number of factors including artist skill, company budget, production meddling, etc etc. Disney or their distributor will set the release date, which sets a hard deadline for the VFX. The more changes requested from the client, the less time the VFX company has to implement them, so the worse they'll likely turn out. Other factors: How much is shot on set, whether the director knows how to shoot for VFX (or has help from someone that does), any last minute changes mandated by the studio, etc etc etc. Things that Disney/Marvel/literally any company can do to try and ensure good VFX: - Pick companies with proven track records in the kind of effects required (digi-doubles, water effects, etc etc) - Hire directors who know how to shoot for VFX, or train them/give them assistants who do - Shoot as much as possible on set, because even if elements get replaced with CG doubles later, the original footage gives actors and artists reference to use for the effects shots. - Have a strong vision from the start that directors can finesse in VFX screenings, rather than forcing VFX companies to make a million revisions until the director sees something they like - Stick to a shooting script, don't do last minute greenscreen days before the movie is set to open because it doesn't matter who you hire, it'll still look poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Again this is not how the VFX industry works at all... I don't see how this negates what I said. Disney is the biggest media corporation in the world they have the resources to implement all the suggestions you've laid out yet they don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Kaveman posted:I don't see how this negates what I said. My point is that those things are literally the only thing they can control and it's still no guarantee that the outcome will be "flawless" because of the myriad of external factors. Given the nature of deadlines, they may have to accept a "good enough" effects shot because it's that or delay release, which is not something that's done lightly (and actively costs money) I don't think even Disney has the cash lying around to make a completely in-house VFX pipeline on the scale needed to do every shot on every Marvel film themselves, not to mention the amount of talent needed. EDIT: Technically they COULD change an already announced release date, but that's not going to happen just for a single VFX shot. We're looking at "needed major reshoots" or "Sonic's Weird Human Teeth" level fuckups for that . Gravitas Shortfall fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Mar 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
The main thing is, what is their incentive to do any of that? If they increased Spiderman's budget from 200 million to 300 million to tighten up their special effects and eliminate cruddy looking pickup shots, would the movie make two billion dollars instead of one billion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
No, but it would satisfy the perfectionist neuroses of extremely online nerds
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
I can’t imagine not enjoying something and making that my entire personality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
Most people also don't find minor poo poo like that a problem is the thing. Special Effects have flaws all the time even before CG was a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
I've been watching Dr Who since the 1970s, I don't think I've noticed a bad Marvel effect since Blade 3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Sometimes it's not about the special effects when spiderman is flying around the screen while fighting robot tentacle man and glider man and man made of living sand while giant explosions are happening, that stuff is going to have an inherent level of unreality no matter how you handle it, it's about how the look of the movie as a whole changes when nearly every single shot of 2 characters in normal clothes talking or calling each other on the phone is using greenscreen background replacement, instead of just being shot like regular cinema.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
The only time the CG in a Marvel movie took me out of things is the end fight between T'Challa and Erik in Black Panther.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:The only time the CG in a Marvel movie took me out of things is the end fight between T'Challa and Erik in Black Panther. 
Assepoester fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
The United States posted:Sometimes it's not about the special effects when spiderman is flying around the screen while fighting robot tentacle man and glider man and man made of living sand while giant explosions are happening, that stuff is going to have an inherent level of unreality no matter how you handle it, it's about how the look of the movie as a whole changes when nearly every single shot of 2 characters in normal clothes talking or calling each other on the phone is using greenscreen background replacement, instead of just being shot like regular cinema. So, I could see how two characters interacting who aren't actually filming the scene together could be a problem (though I'm not sure that's actually a common thing in Marvel.) But how would that bring down a scene where they are talking on the phone, and thus already not supposed to be in the same location?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Keeping in mind that I think nagging about CGI -- particularly the way that Twitter does it -- gets into CinemaSins territory real quick, a nitpick that I had with No Way Home specifically was the over-reliance on shot-reverse-shot sequences to try to get conversations down, almost definitely because actors weren't able to be in the same room most of the time. It might not be something that bugs you unless you're really looking for it, but to me they piled up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
The most annoying thing I've seen in a Marvel movie was the "IMAX Enhanced" version of Eternals on D+ where it would change aspect ratios back and forward between single shots repeatedly in a scene. It was loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
It's not even the shot itself. It's how any little thing can be a culture war and have think pieces done up about it and every single blogger, influencer, and content creator even tangentially related to a film needs to weigh in. And all the fanaticism and brand loyalty that reinforces it all. The amount of discussion and arguing I've seen about this little clip on the internet is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The most annoying thing I've seen in a Marvel movie was the "IMAX Enhanced" version of Eternals on D+ where it would change aspect ratios back and forward between single shots repeatedly in a scene. Yeah, aspect ratio switching has become a pet peeve of mine, because it's so often done mindlessly. Christopher Nolan is terrible about this. The only logic is the camera he used to shoot a scene. Like in Tenet. We're outside the dude's house - it's the full screen IMAX aspect ratio. We go into the house, now it's scope. But we're back outside for a shot - IMAX. It's confusing and annoying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:The only time the CG in a Marvel movie took me out of things is the end fight between T'Challa and Erik in Black Panther. I just rewatched GOTG2 and didn't realize how lazy they were with the opening scene. They didn't bother to match light sources for some of the shots: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
Tetrabor posted:I just rewatched GOTG2 and didn't realize how lazy they were with the opening scene. They didn't bother to match light sources for some of the shots: Is that a mistake? The light sources in that scene are insane. They are at the top of some tower in some kind of advanced alien city under a dark, overcast sky. The tower itself is covered in Sci-Fi brand floor lighting, and has four or five, spinning, miniature sun macguffins scattered about. Everyone else in the cast is shooting ray guns at a tentacle beast that shoots rainbow energy blasts. Maybe it is a mistake, but I don't think it's too big of a suspension of disbelief to assume Drax fell into a random shadow while Groot remained lit by one of the many, many random light sources. And that's ignoring technical concerns about making sure the focal point, Groot, isn't lost within the shadow of the similarly colored Drax in the background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1507025179892871168?t=sg_mQee1rfYNYltrDjJ2Uw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Who gets to be Dick Ryder
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Your mom! (Pleased rap battle guy.gif)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
I was excited about a possible Nova movie after the first Guardians movie but now that we'll have two Captain Marvels soon, I'm not sure what Nova brings to the table (other than needing to recentre stories around straight white dudes obviously).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
There's a deleted scene from The Batman making the rounds and apparently we almost got more of Barry Keoghan's Joker, which, thank god they didn't put that in the actual movie. I didn't even watch the scene because even if it's good I just do not want that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Arist posted:There's a deleted scene from The Batman making the rounds and apparently we almost got more of Barry Keoghan's Joker, which, thank god they didn't put that in the actual movie. I didn't even watch the scene because even if it's good I just do not want that. Watched it out of morbid curiosity. The portrayal isn't bad, and fits the setting of the movie. That said, the Silence of the Lamb routine gives a bit too much of the Riddler's motivations away, which would have taken the wind out of the third act reveal, so better for the movie that it was cut. Also, I'm also just exhausted by the character at this point, even when done well. Edit: I predict this will be a half-baked take on police reform, with an evil Nova as the antagonist. glitchwraith fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
I wonder if since it’s deleted they’ll change his appearance when he actually shows up. Not sure if I like the disfigurement
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Joe Fisto posted:I wonder if since it’s deleted they’ll change his appearance when he actually shows up. Not sure if I like the disfigurement We partially see him briefly in the theatrical release, where he does seem to have a bit of disfigurement. At least the overly large grin. I can understand how that could be problematic, but I think it's kind of brilliant for the setting. He looks like the kind of person people would avoid and ignore if they saw him on the street. Which could be a potential origin for this version or a persona he takes on to fly under the radar. And of course is another layer of social criticism regarding class and systemic issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:I predict this will be a half-baked take on police reform, with an evil Nova as the antagonist. I don't know. Marvel doing a "dark mirror" antagonist? Sure doesn't sound like them. I'm curious if they'd do Richard or Sam though. It feels like Richard's character doesn't have a good spot in the MCU and Sam would fit more with what they're building Opopanax fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Mar 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:I don't know. Marvel doing a "dark mirror" antagonist? Sure doesn't sound like them. I was about to say, I feel like they'll probably go with Sam for a Nova project.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I was excited about a possible Nova movie after the first Guardians movie but now that we'll have two Captain Marvels soon, I'm not sure what Nova brings to the table (other than needing to recentre stories around straight white dudes obviously). Despite all the stuff she says during Endgame, Carol still seems to be centered on Earth as far as stuff that she does on camera goes. Honestly between all the Xander shenanigans in the GOTG movie and Thanos, maybe they could make it an old fashioned Vietnam/Korea era style "oh poo poo I've been drafted" movie only through a Marvel lens
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
I'd bet on Richard passing the torch to Sam over the course of a six episode series. Richard gets some random apostrophes or some poo poo added to his name to make him Xandarian, he's the last corps survivor of Thanos' attack on Xandar for the power stone, and he's mortally wounded or something so he has to train a successor. By the end of the series we have a half-trained Sam Nova just in position to hang out with post-The Marvels Kamala.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
They can do two Novas. Richard as the last survivor from Thanos' attack who needs to rebuild the Corps, Sam ends up being one of his choices. So you have Richard who can be out in space and Sam who can be on Earth. Might as well just make them the GL Corps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Wasn't Sam's dad in the Nova Corps, that's why his helmet is black rather than gold? Also the Nova Corps are basically the Green Lantern corps. But yea, nothing stopping Sam and Richard being in the same movie. Easily be a "Hey kid I served with your dad in the Nova Corps, and when he died he gave me his helmet. I had to hide it up my rear end to keep Thanos's forces from finding it, but its yours now, so lets have space adventures." A Nova TV series would be a good companion to Guardians. Opportunity to have characters like Moon Dragon, Quasar and Phyla-Vel appear in live action. Though I'm pretty sure they're going to have Monica be Spectrum rather than Captain Marvel in The Marvels, there's no need to mess with that when she already has a established name. Unless you were talking about the Captain Marvel who can make his limbs come off. Speaking of Cosmic Marvel, i just finished playing the Guardians of the Galaxy game and holy poo poo is it good. It was kind of dumped on everyone and I think a lot of people dismissed it after the whole thing with Avengers (which i will still recomend playing just the single player). But its a fully SP game and the characters are about, 25% movie and 75% comics. Like Quill has the comics origin, being the son of J'son but he acts like the movie Quill, with his music and 80s nostalgia. Drax is clearly modeled after movie Drax but he's got way more pathos than the movies gave him. It also has supporting parts from Mantis, Cosmo and some other characters I won't mention due to spoilers. The story is the really shining part of it. Even if you have no interest in playing it, just watching the cut scenes on youtube will give you a good idea of the storyline. The team really knew their stuff when making it. It kinda sets a high bar for Guardians 3 as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:It also has supporting parts from Mantis, Cosmo and some other characters I won't mention due to spoilers. The story is the really shining part of it. Even if you have no interest in playing it, just watching the cut scenes on youtube will give you a good idea of the storyline. I'm only a little ways into it but I absolutely loved the sloppy drunk take they did with Mantis. Asymmetrical smeared lipstick and everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 04:24
|
|