|
|
Post by summers8 on Dec 9, 2018 20:32:01 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. so I saw the entire video. the video confirms what we have been saying. mcu got worse over time. ha, when the video said their cgi looks like PS games. is that not what I say when I say mcu films looks like a cartoon?
iron man was a good foundation, in fact I like how the video said the then small marvel studios. this also show just how much disney damaged marvel since as marvel got bigger their movies got worse both in story telling and cgi use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 9, 2018 20:49:12 GMT
so I saw the entire video. the video confirms what we have been saying. mcu got worse over time. ha, when the video said their cgi looks like PS games. is that not what I say when I say mcu films looks like a cartoon?
iron man was a good foundation, in fact I like how the video said the then small marvel studios. this also show just how much disney damaged marvel since as marvel got bigger their movies got worse both in story telling and cgi use.
Disney made it worse no doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by merh on Dec 10, 2018 6:49:59 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. I don't expect perfection in everything. Name a movie where everything is perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 10, 2018 7:53:20 GMT
To be fair, the DCEU has an even worse CGI problem. Let's hope Aquaman doesn't fall into the same trap.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 10, 2018 19:56:49 GMT
I have no problem with CGI. I really don't get the complaint In of itself, yeah same here. Just more online posturing from armchair film experts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 1:32:30 GMT
District 9 had a budget of $30 million and its cgi looked light years better than the cgi in Age of Ultron (which had a MASSIVE $250 million budget) . And D9 came out freaking in 2009 . no excuses for that shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 11, 2018 1:40:50 GMT
District 9 had a budget of $30 million and its cgi looked light years better than the cgi in Age of Ultron (which had a MASSIVE $250 million budget) . And D9 came out freaking in 2009 . no excuses for that shit. Age of Ultron had a lot more vfx shots than District 9 and in my opinion, everything in Age of Ultron looked better than District 9. Either way they could use claymation for all I care because the quality of CGI IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE IMPORTANT! |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Dec 11, 2018 3:47:10 GMT
District 9 had a budget of $30 million and its cgi looked light years better than the cgi in Age of Ultron (which had a MASSIVE $250 million budget) . And D9 came out freaking in 2009 . no excuses for that shit. the answer is easy. while district 9 had a smaller budget, the director approached the film in a art house style manner so ofcourse the cgi ended up looking better.
age of ultron was just a superficial cgi loud noise with no real creative thinking, please remember this was the last straw for joss whedon. he quit after due to .....cough cough.... creative differences.
This scene in age of ultron, I usually consider one of the lowest moments in cinema.
very bad in a disturbing way.
|
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 11, 2018 4:27:48 GMT
District 9 had a budget of $30 million and its cgi looked light years better than the cgi in Age of Ultron (which had a MASSIVE $250 million budget) . And D9 came out freaking in 2009 . no excuses for that shit. the answer is easy. while district 9 had a smaller budget, the director approached the film in a art house style manner so ofcourse the cgi ended up looking better.
age of ultron was just a superficial cgi loud noise with no real creative thinking, please remember this was the last straw for joss whedon. he quit after due to .....cough cough.... creative differences.
This scene in age of ultron, I usually consider one of the lowest moments in cinema.
very bad in a disturbing way.
You're a lying piece of shit. He left because he didn't want to do the next one. |
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 11, 2018 4:28:59 GMT
District 9 had a budget of $30 million and its cgi looked light years better than the cgi in Age of Ultron (which had a MASSIVE $250 million budget) . And D9 came out freaking in 2009 . no excuses for that shit. the answer is easy. while district 9 had a smaller budget, the director approached the film in a art house style manner so ofcourse the cgi ended up looking better.
age of ultron was just a superficial cgi loud noise with no real creative thinking, please remember this was the last straw for joss whedon. he quit after due to .....cough cough.... creative differences.
This scene in age of ultron, I usually consider one of the lowest moments in cinema.
very bad in a disturbing way.
What is art, summers8? |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 11, 2018 5:38:59 GMT
District 9 had a budget of $30 million and its cgi looked light years better than the cgi in Age of Ultron (which had a MASSIVE $250 million budget) . And D9 came out freaking in 2009 . no excuses for that shit. the answer is easy. while district 9 had a smaller budget, the director approached the film in a art house style manner so ofcourse the cgi ended up looking better.
age of ultron was just a superficial cgi loud noise with no real creative thinking, please remember this was the last straw for joss whedon. he quit after due to .....cough cough.... creative differences.
This scene in age of ultron, I usually consider one of the lowest moments in cinema.
very bad in a disturbing way.
Because this is so much better? |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Dec 11, 2018 7:43:57 GMT
the answer is easy. while district 9 had a smaller budget, the director approached the film in a art house style manner so ofcourse the cgi ended up looking better.
age of ultron was just a superficial cgi loud noise with no real creative thinking, please remember this was the last straw for joss whedon. he quit after due to .....cough cough.... creative differences.
This scene in age of ultron, I usually consider one of the lowest moments in cinema.
very bad in a disturbing way.
Because this is so much better? actually the wolverine is much better. I will explain why with pure film making analysis, something mcu fans cant do. neither movies have the best of cgi use, I think even Mangold had this issue, the reason he was so hand set in having his way with Logan. unlike fox that stepped aside and let the art in for logan. mcu fired whedon and as you see, avengers movies have gotten worse abusing cgi. what makes the samurai scene much better to watch is the movie takes place in a dark space, the movie's cinematography is also better than age of ultron so is the art direction. so the cgi looks more tolerable. age of ultron everything is too bright, for that reason the cgi looks much worse. also age of ultron has many characters just making things explode and that worsens the cgi. wolverine is just wolverine fighting the silver sumarai alone so the cgi is not as abused as in age of ultron. from a film making stand point, the wolverine is better. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 11, 2018 9:10:48 GMT
I have no problem with CGI. I really don't get the complaint In of itself, yeah same here. Just more online posturing from armchair film experts. Very dangerous precedent to set. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 11, 2018 9:17:08 GMT
the answer is easy. while district 9 had a smaller budget, the director approached the film in a art house style manner so ofcourse the cgi ended up looking better. age of ultron was just a superficial cgi loud noise with no real creative thinking, please remember this was the last straw for joss whedon. he quit after due to .....cough cough.... creative differences. This scene in age of ultron, I usually consider one of the lowest moments in cinema. very bad in a disturbing way.
Because this is so much better? If you read the title of the original video I Posted, it says Marvel overuses CGI. The Silver Samarui fight is a small part of The Wolverine and so not overused. The only other time is the bullet train sequence although that's more green screen. The Silver Samaurai fight is also in a darker background masking some obvious CGImagery but has crisper sound FX with the metal on metal contact creating more realism than the Ultron fight. Listen to both clips without watching the video and youl notice it. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 11, 2018 10:01:45 GMT
Because this is so much better? If you read the title of the original video I Posted, it says Marvel overuses CGI. The Silver Samarui fight is a small part of The Wolverine and so not overused. The only other time is the bullet train sequence although that's more green screen. The Silver Samaurai fight is also in a darker background masking some obvious CGImagery but has crisper sound FX with the metal on metal contact creating more realism than the Ultron fight. Listen to both clips without watching the video and youl notice it. The comment was not directed at you but at Summers8. It is not your points that I'm trying to disprove with my vid post. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 11, 2018 15:32:09 GMT
I grew up with stop motion animation, guys in rubber suits, iguanas that were supposed to be dinosaurs, and flying saucers swinging on fishing lines and I loved all of it. If the story is good, the FX don't matter. Complaining about CGI is the easiest thing in the world to do when you can't think of anything else. I think every movie that ever used CGI has had people on the internet complaining about the CGI. It's a complete throw away.
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
 
|
Post by havenless on Dec 11, 2018 15:41:12 GMT
Because this is so much better? actually the wolverine is much better. I will explain why with pure film making analysis, something mcu fans cant do. neither movies have the best of cgi use, I think even Mangold had this issue, the reason he was so hand set in having his way with Logan. unlike fox that stepped aside and let the art in for logan. mcu fired whedon and as you see, avengers movies have gotten worse abusing cgi. what makes the samurai scene much better to watch is the movie takes place in a dark space, the movie's cinematography is also better than age of ultron so is the art direction. so the cgi looks more tolerable. age of ultron everything is too bright, for that reason the cgi looks much worse. also age of ultron has many characters just making things explode and that worsens the cgi. wolverine is just wolverine fighting the silver sumarai alone so the cgi is not as abused as in age of ultron. from a film making stand point, the wolverine is better. “Age of Ultron has many characters just making things explode” “Pure film analysis” Do you genuinely believe this is pure film analysis? |
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 11, 2018 16:29:37 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. If you can be pulled out of a story, by bad cgi, then you suck at watching movies. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 11, 2018 16:44:04 GMT
I grew up with stop motion animation, guys in rubber suits, iguanas that were supposed to be dinosaurs, and flying saucers swinging on fishing lines and I loved all of it. If the story is good, the FX don't matter. Complaining about CGI is the easiest thing in the world to do when you can't think of anything else. I think every movie that ever used CGI has had people on the internet complaining about the CGI. It's a complete throw away. These movies have 200+ million dollar budgets. They are charging us through the nose for ticket prices. I expect the CGI to be excellent. I expect the 3D technology to be worth it. Cant let studios get away with cheap looking CGI for the amount audiences pay in tickets and brush it off easily. Thats how standards drop and studios become lazy if we accept mediocrity. Same thinking when purchasing games. Tge fallout 76 game has awful graphics and they charged full price. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 11, 2018 16:56:09 GMT
I don't care about 3D so I pay the same price for a ticket regardless of the movies budget. I've also been paying the same price for a ticket at my local theater for the last 10 years. I like these movies the way they are. If I didn't like them I wouldn't see them at all. When I don't like a movie I don't obsess over them on the internet.
|
|
