|
Post by summers8 on Feb 16, 2018 21:34:12 GMT
In highlight of the recent mcu movies and the growing complains of the over reliance of cgi, how would you fix the problem. this is how I will go forward with it.
1, focus more on a deeper story which should result to little but more realistic use of cgi 2, Make the movies a lot more grounded. 3, realise that you do not need ooc colours and a cartoonish look to sell a movie to children 4, Better Cinematography.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 16, 2018 21:50:15 GMT
Big CGI fights and setpieces should be saved for the big Avenger movies to keep the spectacle intact. Using them every film diluted theyre awe factor.
An alternative is to have more films that end like Civil War with its human grounded conflict. The reason why this doesnt happen often is because MCUs villains are terrible and the director chooses the lazy option of the CGI bonanza 3rd act instead of an intelligent showdown like Dark Knight or DOFP.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 16, 2018 23:58:20 GMT
Dude that end fight cg was fucking terrible. It's just as equally bad as both the Wonder Woman end fight and Doomsday fight in BVS.
I understand it was cooglar first time working with cgi, but he needs to get better with it.
Hopefully it'll improve with Black Panther 2 (if he decides to return).
I hope the same happens with Patty Jenkins and Wonder Woman 2.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 17, 2018 0:03:04 GMT
With solo films, depending on the villain at least and how much CGI there is to him or her (each Avengers got a mix of human villains) I would keep it practical. I know the flower gave them super strength and gives them abilities to do stuff a normal human can do, but in terms of showing, I'd keep it minimal, especially with solo fights. In this case, it should have been all practical with real stunts and fight choreography, whether it's with Boseman and Jordan or stunt doubles.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 17, 2018 0:07:36 GMT
With solo films, depending on the villain at least and how much CGI there is to him or her (each Avengers got a mix of human villains) I would keep it practical. I know the flower gave them super strength and gives them abilities to do stuff a normal human can do, but in terms of showing, I'd keep it minimal, especially with solo fights. In this case, it should have been all practical with real stunts and fight choreography, whether it's with Boseman and Jordan or stunt doubles. Agreed. They shouldn't have went with the CGI fight.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 17, 2018 0:48:07 GMT
So as far as bad CGI goes, we talking like Blade 1 with the vampire skeletons or like that weird rubbery Peter Parker in the first Spider-Man?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 17, 2018 0:50:31 GMT
In highlight of the recent mcu movies and the growing complains of the over reliance of cgi, how would you fix the problem. this is how I will go forward with it. 1, focus more on a deeper story which should result to little but more realistic use of cgi 2, Make the movies a lot more grounded. 3, realise that you do not need ooc colours and a cartoonish look to sell a movie to children 4, Better Cinematography. The DCEU did all of these points except for #1, their CGI ended up getting ridiculed more than the MCU's. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the MCU does need to improve its CGI game. I just don't think the points you listed will do any good, not on their own anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 17, 2018 0:54:00 GMT
With solo films, depending on the villain at least and how much CGI there is to him or her (each Avengers got a mix of human villains) I would keep it practical. I know the flower gave them super strength and gives them abilities to do stuff a normal human can do, but in terms of showing, I'd keep it minimal, especially with solo fights. In this case, it should have been all practical with real stunts and fight choreography, whether it's with Boseman and Jordan or stunt doubles. I haven't seen the film but I was expecting the main fights to be more martial arts-style fights along the lines of Undisputed II and Ong-Bak. Kinda like how they did TWS and CW. At worst, I was expecting wire-fu.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 17, 2018 1:26:23 GMT
So as far as bad CGI goes, we talking like Blade 1 with the vampire skeletons or like that weird rubbery Peter Parker in the first Spider-Man? I would say like a low budget video game. There's a clip out there on ign that features the scene with bad cgi.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 17, 2018 5:21:34 GMT
In highlight of the recent mcu movies and the growing complains of the over reliance of cgi, how would you fix the problem. this is how I will go forward with it. 1, focus more on a deeper story which should result to little but more realistic use of cgi 2, Make the movies a lot more grounded. 3, realise that you do not need ooc colours and a cartoonish look to sell a movie to children 4, Better Cinematography. 1) So basically don't try to be wondrous or open-minded. 2) So basically be creatively bankrupt 3) So use boring and dull colors 4) Nah, they're fine as is. Better than anything Fox or WB gives us.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 17, 2018 5:22:26 GMT
Big CGI fights and setpieces should be saved for the big Avenger movies to keep the spectacle intact. Using them every film diluted theyre awe factor. An alternative is to have more films that end like Civil War with its human grounded conflict. The reason why this doesnt happen often is because MCUs villains are terrible and the director chooses the lazy option of the CGI bonanza 3rd act instead of an intelligent showdown like Dark Knight or DOFP. No, they just won't sell out and make the villain the star of the show and have the heroes be pathetic people who need to be led around.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Feb 17, 2018 5:25:23 GMT
I would fire Disney management.
They are the ones ruining the movies.
I would hire Dennis Muren, Phil Tippett, or some other older generation FX artists as supervisor and give them control of the FX sequences. It would fix a lot of problems.
As Phil Tippett explained recently:
"In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they've gotten into this methodology where they'll hire a middleman, a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They're middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there's this weird sort of competition that happens. It's a game called 'Find What's Wrong With This Shot'. And there's always going to be something wrong, because everything's subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We're doing it digitally, so there's no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it's not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That's not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you'll get, you know, art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what's wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking "OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want if over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don't give a fuck. I'll put it wherever you want it." It's creative mismanagement, it's part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, RoboCop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better."
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 17, 2018 5:27:58 GMT
I would fire Disney management. They are the ones ruining the movies. No, they just aren't letting themselves be shackled by the past. But thank you for insulting all modern VFX artists. Sure they appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Feb 17, 2018 5:46:27 GMT
No, they just aren't letting themselves be shackled by the past. But thank you for insulting all modern VFX artists. Sure they appreciate it. The Disney management is who decides what goes where. And using good movies as a guide is never a bad idea. Bankers should not be deciding what goes in a movie.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 17, 2018 7:01:37 GMT
So as far as bad CGI goes, we talking like Blade 1 with the vampire skeletons or like that weird rubbery Peter Parker in the first Spider-Man? blade's cgi is dated. not bad. mcu moves have bad cgi today and i think it is done on purpose to make their films more appealing to children. please watch a movie like X2 that was 15 years ago that movie had better cgi than most, if not all the mcu movies. this is a good example this film was 15 years ago and the cgi holds up better than the current mcu movies probably because this movie is a lot more grounded and as realistic as possible for people with special powers. The cgi in Black Panther could and should have been better.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 17, 2018 7:23:15 GMT
Your point about cinematography is spot on. That is where the MCU really needs to step up their game. It would make a huge difference. thanks. yes, I have noticed it as well right from avengers 2012. mcu cinematography is appalling. their picutres/movies look like live action cartoons. its all weirdly bright. if you have a great cinematography then it could help the look of your cgi. this is a great example of an amazing cinematography that uplifted the cgi to new heights. Inception 2010 If you want a comic film example batman begins nails the appearance of this movie. DOFP 2014
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 17, 2018 7:27:12 GMT
So as far as bad CGI goes, we talking like Blade 1 with the vampire skeletons or like that weird rubbery Peter Parker in the first Spider-Man? blade's cgi is dated. not bad. mcu moves have bad cgi today and i think it is done on purpose to make their films more appealing to children. please watch a movie like X2 that was 15 years ago that movie had better cgi than most, if not all the mcu movies. this is a good example this film was 15 years ago and the cgi holds up better than the current mcu movies probably because this movie is a lot more grounded and as realistic as possible for people with special powers. The cgi in Black Panther could and should have been better. The Nightcrawler assassination attempt scene works so well because it was excellently choreographed. Particle effects, which is all that is really showcased here, are the bread and butter of CGI. If you can't get that right when you have to, well... The wire work is also commendable here but, what really sells it is Cummings' physical commitment to the performance. He became Nightcrawler (albeit a mute version of his comic book counterpart). This scene isn't the pinnacle of CGI. It's a balls-to-the-wall performance. So let's not keep trotting this old chestnut out as the height of CBM CGI - because, it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 17, 2018 7:29:23 GMT
In highlight of the recent mcu movies and the growing complains of the over reliance of cgi, how would you fix the problem. this is how I will go forward with it. 1, focus more on a deeper story which should result to little but more realistic use of cgi 2, Make the movies a lot more grounded. 3, realise that you do not need ooc colours and a cartoonish look to sell a movie to children 4, Better Cinematography. 3, but you do, by definition, you actually do
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 17, 2018 7:46:27 GMT
blade's cgi is dated. not bad. mcu moves have bad cgi today and i think it is done on purpose to make their films more appealing to children. please watch a movie like X2 that was 15 years ago that movie had better cgi than most, if not all the mcu movies. this is a good example this film was 15 years ago and the cgi holds up better than the current mcu movies probably because this movie is a lot more grounded and as realistic as possible for people with special powers. The cgi in Black Panther could and should have been better. The Nightcrawler assassination attempt scene works so well because it was excellently choreographed. Particle effects, which is all that is really showcased here, are the bread and butter of CGI. If you can't get that right when you have to, well... The wire work is also commendable here but, what really sells it is Cummings' physical commitment to the performance. He became Nightcrawler (albeit a mute version of his comic book counterpart). This scene isn't the pinnacle of CGI. It's a balls-to-the-wall performance. So let's not keep trotting this old chestnut out as the height of CBM CGI - because, it's not. all that is true but one thing i always liked about the xmen movies is that the cgi support the character moments and is used to move the story forward. which is why the good xmen movies had great story telling. I will proudly place X2 as one of pinnacles of cgi compared to the mcu movies. sorry mcu fans but this is not about fanboy/fangirl loyalty to franchise, its about film artistry. This is another example of what you said about Nightcrawler , where a character performance goes well with cgi . add the music score and character development too. this is magic. And it looks real. very real,unlike BP were everything looked fake. Have I mentioned the music score that just uplifted the use of cgi in this scene from first class. most mcu movies cgi is all about fun, cartoonish look and cool moments, there is not even depth to them.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 17, 2018 8:25:39 GMT
The Nightcrawler assassination attempt scene works so well because it was excellently choreographed. Particle effects, which is all that is really showcased here, are the bread and butter of CGI. If you can't get that right when you have to, well... The wire work is also commendable here but, what really sells it is Cummings' physical commitment to the performance. He became Nightcrawler (albeit a mute version of his comic book counterpart). This scene isn't the pinnacle of CGI. It's a balls-to-the-wall performance. So let's not keep trotting this old chestnut out as the height of CBM CGI - because, it's not. all that is true but one thing i always liked about the xmen movies is that the cgi support the character moments and is used to move the story forward. which is why the good xmen movies had great story telling. I will proudly place X2 as one of pinnacles of cgi compared to the mcu movies. sorry mcu fans but this is not about fanboy/fangirl loyalty to franchise, its about film artistry. This is another example of what you said about Nightcrawler , where a character performance goes well with cgi . add the music score and character development too. this is magic. And it looks real. very real,unlike BP were everything looked fake. Have I mentioned the music score that just uplifted the use of cgi in this scene from first class. most mcu movies cgi is all about fun, cartoonish look and cool moments, there is not even depth to them. I'm glad that you find the X-men films to be so triumphant. Unfortunately, I don't share your opinion. X-Men first class is likely tied with X2 for the best of the lot but, I find all of the X-men films to be overwrought and vacuous. The usage of mutant powers throughout the X-Men films has been overly didactic. Must Charles touch is temple using the same awkward, two-finger gesture to indicate he is actively using his powers? It's silly, and surely the gesture is not mandatory to initiate the act of using his power. I preferred Stewart's version in the first film where he slipped into a light, auto-hypnotic trance and suddenly awoke with information he could not have possessed otherwise. Telepathy, as are many other mutant power displays in the XMU, is mishandled - dabs of pixelated CGI people dotting a perspective-challenged, virtual landscape. If you want real ferocity and finesse in the use of telepathy, try Cronenberg's Scanners - now that's mental dominance. Must Magnus strain to bowel-exploding levels to show exertion? His gift is one of alignment. It is the manipulation of magnetic fields. It's not telekinesis, and yet his abilities aren't portrayed all that differently than Jean Gray's. And, by the way, you have nothing to be "sorry" for, your opinion is yours to do with as you wish, just avoid mistaking it for fact.
|
|