|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 11, 2018 19:00:14 GMT
Ang Lee was hired because the studio liked his work and were interested to see what he would do. The same approach Sony had with Raimi and WB with Nolan. Not a fan of Raimi or Nolan but they were a better fit than Ang Lee who knew nothing about the character. It was also ludicrous that they let his 5 year old son make creative decisions for the film (i.e. Hulk poodle).
These sorts of things aren't rocket science. If someone proposed that Gary Marshall make a drama about Philippine nationalism it would be considered odd--fish out of water--that is what hiring Ang Lee for the Hulk was.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 11, 2018 19:00:51 GMT
I never really understood the "too much cgi" complaint. I can understand people complaining about bad cgi, and we can definitely debate about that, but complaining about too much cgi in movies like these is, IMO, a stupid complaint. There's really no better way to properly do movies with this much fantastical elements than with CGI. I mean, what's the alternative? Stop-n-go clay figurines? Limited movement animatronix? Guys in unwieldy rubber suits? Inception and Interstellar shows practical effects can be mixed very well with green screen and CGI with big budgets. Inception and Interstellar didn't have green, 10 foot tall pure cgi monsters who leap around like chimpanzees nor do they have 75% of their cast utilizing ridiculous but unique suoerpowers in complex choreography. In other words, both those movies got away with less cgi because they needed it less, it's that simple. Besides, who says the MCU doesn't use practical effects?
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 11, 2018 19:31:16 GMT
Black Panther final cgi fight is unacceptable for a tentpole movie and shouldn't be glossed over and not criticised. Nah, it looks fine, and if you have a problem with that, God help you if you try to watch the original Star Wars trilogy. It looks like a ps2 game. And the original star wars is a 1980s film limited by its tech of the time. Not a very good example.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 11, 2018 19:32:50 GMT
Inception and Interstellar shows practical effects can be mixed very well with green screen and CGI with big budgets. Inception and Interstellar didn't have green, 10 foot tall pure cgi monsters who leap around like chimpanzees nor do they have 75% of their cast utilizing ridiculous but unique suoerpowers in complex choreography. In other words, both those movies got away with less cgi because they needed it less, it's that simple. Besides, who says the MCU doesn't use practical effects? Doctor Strange is close to Inception in its strange world building and hallucinating imagery. What practical effects were used there? None, all the illusory scenes where cgi and obviously fake looking
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Dec 11, 2018 19:41:36 GMT
Nah, it looks fine, and if you have a problem with that, God help you if you try to watch the original Star Wars trilogy. It looks like a ps2 game. And the original star wars is a 1980s film limited by its tech of the time. Not a very good example. Lol you over exaggerating moron. PS3 at worst, that's the exact reason I chose the original Star Wars films.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 11, 2018 19:46:45 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. Then stop trying to censor people who wont accept everything a movie studio throws at them in blind faith. I haven't tried to censor anybody. Find out what words mean before you use them.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 11, 2018 19:50:02 GMT
Yes, they should fire the management responsible for the most successful and profitable franchise in movie history. I'm sure they will get right on that. It's easy for them to make money in a system where all the distribution and advertising channels are in their favor. It's one big club.
If that's true, then why doesn't Disney make huge profits on every movie? Your tin hat is showing again.
The MCU films have been hugely popular with critics, comic book fans, and movie buffs in general. Face the fact that a lot of people disagree with your criticisms and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 11, 2018 19:56:34 GMT
If that's true, then why doesn't Disney make huge profits on every movie? Your tin hat is showing again.
The MCU films have been hugely popular with critics, comic book fans, and movie buffs in general. Face the fact that a lot of people disagree with your criticisms and move on.
It's called Hollywood Accounting. HA is where a studio makes profits appear or disappear.
The movie studios and media companies do not operate from mom and pop supply and demand capitalism. They have massive money reserves, and because they control all the gates and advertising, they have no competition. You either watch their junk or something old.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 11, 2018 20:21:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 11, 2018 21:35:40 GMT
Inception and Interstellar didn't have green, 10 foot tall pure cgi monsters who leap around like chimpanzees nor do they have 75% of their cast utilizing ridiculous but unique suoerpowers in complex choreography. In other words, both those movies got away with less cgi because they needed it less, it's that simple. Besides, who says the MCU doesn't use practical effects? Doctor Strange is close to Inception in its strange world building and hallucinating imagery. What practical effects were used there? None, all the illusory scenes where cgi and obviously fake looking Ok let's do this. Show me the most complex scene you can think of in Inception in terms of vfx.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 22:04:46 GMT
I have comments/criticisms of my own. Nothing too mean I don't think.
I had kind of a laugh in Infinity War when Peter Dinklage showed up as a giant elf. A man of his height playing a giant, now that's how you act against type!
I think CGI that functioned in place of where I think practical effects could have serviced the product better began as early as Age of Ultron. Probably even sooner, but it was the opening fight in Age of Ultron where I thought hydra soldiers were being flung around like putties from Power Rangers. I'm watching the fight in the theaters and thinking Jesus, I bet I could get in there too if kicking them in the chest means they go flying 20 feet into a tree.
Not that I mind terribly, but it's the first time I recall being really distracted by CGI. I usually notice it, but that fight felt weird.
Fast Forward to Civil War and Tony's display in front of the MIT crowd, regenerating himself in a demonstration was...not unnecessary or harmful, but kind of superfluous. It worked for the character, but leapt off the screen almost like a wink from Disney saying this is the level of money we're dropping into these movies. It's coming with Samuel Jackson via Captain Marvel, it's occurred with Kurt Russell in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and it's all over Star Wars right down to the Leia; Disney is really pouring it on with the anti-aging technology. That's distracting. I already know Peter Cushing is a great actor, but he took it to the next level in Rogue One despite being dead. And Disney already said Leia's going to be in Episode IX. That's weird, right? Can't even die to get out of work these days.
In any event, the CGI does get laid on a little thick sometimes. Until it pisses me off, I'm okay with it.
I'm surprised sometimes it's not more of a distraction for the actors. As an aside, I watched a behind the scenes footage of Emma Watson walking down the stairs with Beast from Beauty and the Beast before the CGI and it was just a man wearing a grey body suit. But she has to interact with him like he's the Beast from the finished product. Props to her for that. I couldn't not laugh my ass off watching.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 11, 2018 23:33:01 GMT
Doctor Strange is close to Inception in its strange world building and hallucinating imagery. What practical effects were used there? None, all the illusory scenes where cgi and obviously fake looking Ok let's do this. Show me the most complex scene you can think of in Inception in terms of vfx.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 11, 2018 23:42:04 GMT
Ok let's do this. Show me the most complex scene you can think of in Inception in terms of vfx. Sorry, I guess I didn't clarify what I said. I meant just show me an actual scene from the movie which you believe had the most visual effects intensive action scene. I'm not after the behind the scenes just yet, I wanted to compare the action scene to something from Dr. Strange.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 12, 2018 0:10:58 GMT
Marvel DOES overuse CGI. But so does Star Wars. So does DCEU. So does EVERY movie that has sci-fi, fantasy, action, and any fantastic elements in it. It's modern movie making. You think all those cars in the Fast and Furious franchise are real? Nope! CGI!
What some folks who hate CGI don't acknowledge is that most of the things that are done in these types of movies just CANT be done any other way. Did you know that they were actually still thinking of using stop motion before they did CGI in Jurassic Park?! Ugh!
You couldn't have had a ten foot tall purple alien Josh Brolin any other way. You cant have Spiderman swinging around the city any other way. You cant have the entire Avengers team battling entire alien armies and smashing into buildings any other way. And with all that they still DO use a lot of in-camera, on-set cinematography.
There's just no way around it, nowadays.
However, no one complains when CGI is done well.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 12, 2018 0:18:30 GMT
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. Slightly OT, but IMO some instances of perfect movies are: The Bridge on the River Kwai Lawrence of Arabia 2001 A Space Odyssey Godfathers 1 and 2 Jaws E.T. Raiders of the Lost Ark Raging Bull The Road Warrior (Mad Max 2) Blue Velvet The Remains of the Day Good Fellas Schindlers List Shawshank Redemption Pulp Fiction The Dark Knight Inception
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 12, 2018 1:22:41 GMT
I have no problem with CGI. I really don't get the complaint This
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 12, 2018 1:52:13 GMT
Sometimes it's clunky sometimes it's brilliant. I've never been taken out of the narrative because it was horrendous on the first few viewings of a MCU film. Hell most comicbook movies I haven't been taken out of he story because of bad vfx the first few times I've watched them. The exception is probably the mustache scenes in JL every time I saw it I was taken out of the story, but that's an edge case because of the short time they had to fix it. I've noticed some bad vfx in almost all comicbook films after having seen them multiple times and was looking for it. The BLack Panther falling/Fighting scene at the end, Wolverine's Claws in the bathroom in Origins, The Silver Samurai in Wolverine, to many scenes to name in Ghost Rider, JJJ Jr jump in Spiderman 2, the jump down onto the underground road for Black Panther in Civil War, Wolverine's claws being warped visually at the Torch in X-men, Enchantress in Suicide Squad. The list could go on forever.
I have to say Nolan's Trilogy I don't think has any bad VFX that I can think of or have really noticed. So props to them.
I think Hollywood has an addiction to CGI because it's gotten to the point where it's almost always passable. It can be cheaper and less stress on the creators to use it than with practical effects.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 12, 2018 2:05:51 GMT
Ouch, the BP change was harsh, I never even noticed.
Anyway, I don’t have much of a problem with MCU’s CGI since most of it is great to look at, but there are instances that do make it look pretty bad (ex. Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok, some shots of Spidey’s suit).
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Dec 12, 2018 16:07:24 GMT
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
|
Post by havenless on Dec 12, 2018 16:12:18 GMT
Inception and Interstellar didn't have green, 10 foot tall pure cgi monsters who leap around like chimpanzees nor do they have 75% of their cast utilizing ridiculous but unique suoerpowers in complex choreography. In other words, both those movies got away with less cgi because they needed it less, it's that simple. Besides, who says the MCU doesn't use practical effects? Doctor Strange is close to Inception in its strange world building and hallucinating imagery. What practical effects were used there? None, all the illusory scenes where cgi and obviously fake looking Imagery like Inception, fake looking. Is this like subtle Nolan spite? I didn’t think Inception was THAT bad.
|
|