|
Post by charzhino on Dec 9, 2018 0:21:32 GMT
A good analysis on the shortcomings of the CGI overuse and misuse in the MCU.
The guy compares how the CGI textures and colour gradings has deteriorated over timr since the beginning of the MCU. For example in ironman 1, they built an actual Iron suit and polished it with additional computer effects but in Age of Ultron, they went nearly 100% cgi and the result is PlayStation looking poor quality graphics. The guy also shares similar problems with Hulks appearance- who looks more real and defined than compared to his appearances in AoU and Ragnarok.
The battle of Wakanda in IW for example could have visually looked so much better. The whole scene whilst adequately choreographed still looks overly fake and not alive and 3 dimensional enough.
He summarises well what i and others have been critiquing about this particular problem with the visuals in Disney MCU. They are way too clean looking, not gritty enough, colours are too bright thus dont look authentic and their overall colour pallete is too homogenous.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 9, 2018 0:38:57 GMT
The good news is, the way VFX-heavy movies get archived today, Marvel may be able to up-res the VFX in later, remastered editions.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 9, 2018 0:54:32 GMT
Terrible video. I saw it the other day and knew some prick was going to upload it here.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 9, 2018 1:17:00 GMT
I agree with the criticisms on IM's suit. IM1 and IM2 were way better than his later suits.
But I disagree with the CGI for Hulk. I recently rewatched TIH and the CGI there is pretty bad compared to Hulk's more recent appearances. I think Hulk's CGI gets better with each outing, with his Raganarok version being the best one.
And yes, are some pretty bad CGI in there (like the BP fight) but overall MCU's CGI is better than other cbm studios. I mean, look at what they did with Thanos. You don't see the other studios being able to make a CGI character like that.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Dec 9, 2018 1:24:36 GMT
I have no problem with CGI.
I really don't get the complaint
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 9, 2018 8:28:58 GMT
CGI is just as valid art form as anything else.
Only assholes think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 9, 2018 10:29:07 GMT
Yeah they've been slipping up with their CGI. It probably doesn't help that they're releasing these films every year, even doing 3 a year. That doesn't leave a lot of time to put together good looking CGI.
Honestly it's frustrating how much of a pass these studios get for leaving in bad CGI, be it Marvel or DC, X-Men movies, Transformers, various Summer blockbusters, Jurassic World 1&2 and even Star Wars.
This shouldn't be accepted, but it is.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 9, 2018 11:10:10 GMT
Odd about the colours being too bright because there was another popular video in the past about the colours being too diluted like what they did with Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Dec 9, 2018 11:10:11 GMT
the mcu cgi problem is simple to explain. Their movies lack true film making or individual vision.when people talk about a cgi comic classic like spiderman 2 train scene, quicksilver scene in DOFP, it is because people like sam raimi and bryan singer did the hard work.
they had a vision, a personal vision. THEY WANTED SOMETHING THAT WILL STAND OUT. this is also true if you look at other legendary directors who have used tons of cgi. james cameron, Spielberg, goerge lucas. films like Jurassic park, terminator 2, star wars was a vision they had in their heads and had to bring to life as they wanted it.
mcu movies are not made like that, they are basic and formulaic as they come not just in the writing department but the CGI department so of course their cgi will be of a lower generic quality to other films like spiderman 2 or days of future past.
it is truly down to film making. and we know mcu movies have nothing to do with film making. they are mass co-operate productions.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Dec 9, 2018 11:34:25 GMT
oh dont also forget IW is an all cgi movie.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 9, 2018 13:33:24 GMT
CGI is just as valid art form as anything else. Only assholes think otherwise. No ones complaining about using CGI. Its how much of it is used and the quality of it as in the evolution of the iron man suit.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 9, 2018 13:45:01 GMT
I have no problem with CGI. I really don't get the complaint You must have vision blurring if you think the CGI in the MCU is impeccable from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 9, 2018 14:01:47 GMT
oh dont also forget IW is an all cgi movie. No that was Toy Story and it was better than all X-Men movies.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Dec 9, 2018 14:42:50 GMT
Good video. It's a general problem with these kind of action blockbusters. The human brain and eye (when working properly) are programmed to detect fakeness. So it's very hard to overcome.
Good CGI is a notorious time and cost factor. But too little time and budget for too much CGI. The results are what we see today.
Especially distracting when you have heavy objects/characters move weightlessly, to quickly and defying physics.
He was right on Blade Runner 2. Masterpiece cinematography.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 9, 2018 15:09:44 GMT
CGI is just as valid art form as anything else. Only assholes think otherwise. No ones complaining about using CGI. Its how much of it is used and the quality of it as in the evolution of the iron man suit. Bad CGI is just a valid as anything else. Only spoilt babies would complain about CGI anyways.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 9, 2018 15:18:13 GMT
I’ll take a little textural degregation over this, any day.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Dec 9, 2018 16:23:16 GMT
I’ll take a little textural degregation over this, any day. So basically you prefer JL to every MCU movie and have that picture of Cavill hanging on the ceiling above your bed. Innit? Or it innit?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 9, 2018 16:56:04 GMT
I’ll take a little textural degregation over this, any day. So basically you prefer JL to every MCU movie and have that picture of Cavill hanging on the ceiling above your bed. Innit? Or it innit? Thank you for reposting that image.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 9, 2018 17:07:07 GMT
Yeah they've been slipping up with their CGI. It probably doesn't help that they're releasing these films every year, even doing 3 a year. That doesn't leave a lot of time to put together good looking CGI. Honestly it's frustrating how much of a pass these studios get for leaving in bad CGI, be it Marvel or DC, X-Men movies, Transformers, various Summer blockbusters, Jurassic World 1&2 and even Star Wars. This shouldn't be accepted, but it is. I don't think it's as much them slipping up as it is them aspiring to do more and more ambitious movies with a limited budget.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 9, 2018 17:42:26 GMT
It started with Iron Man 1.
The scene that sticks out for me is where he captures the falling guy in mid-air. The sequence lasted perhaps 5 seconds. If this was done in the early 90s or before, they would have spent longer on it--so one gets a sense of being in the air (the Rocketeer has a scene with him flying around).
The "rush rush" nature of it prevents one from being drawn into the story.
It only got worse over time.
|
|