Slashdot Mirror


Marvel Cinematic Universe Has a CGI Problem (screenrant.com)

Corey Hutchinson, writing for ScreenRant: The MCU may be the biggest thing in Hollywood these days, but there's no denying that its overuse of CGI is becoming more and more noticeable. Don't get us wrong; for the most part, the MCU's CGI has been great, even spectacular at times. Even at its worst, it's nowhere near the bottom of the pile in terms of poor special effects in superhero movies. And no single MCU entry has come anywhere close to the awfulness that is Justice League. But when a superhero franchise is pulling in this much money and getting consistently glowing reviews, the bar has to be set high, and several of the MCU's latest offerings just aren't clearing it. It's worth noting that the MCU's CGI shortcomings are a relatively recent thing. There's very little to complain about when it comes to the special effects behind their Phase One movies. They all hold up surprising well, in fact, and the same goes for the vast majority of Marvel's Phase Two films. There's a few dicey moments in Avengers: Age of Ultron, but it wasn't really until Captain America: Civil War kicked off Phase Three that any negative attention was paid to the MCU's effects work.

Take a moment to rewatch the second Black Panther clip that was released to the public a few weeks ago. Specifically, hone in on the 45 second mark, where you see Nakia shooting two guys, the second of which is very obviously computer-generated. Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?

398 comments

  1. WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some marvel acronym? seriously, your using it like it's as common as CPU

    1. Re:WTF is an MCU by Calydor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Marvel Cinematic Universe like the title says. I'm not even a fan of the movies (they're good movies to watch once with some popcorn, that's about it for me) and yet I figured it out before getting to the second instance of MCU in the summary.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:WTF is an MCU by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      MCU is a microcontroller unit. The larger and more expensive ones can often use CGI because it can be very lightweight when used with a small web server.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MCU = Microcontroller Unit. An integrated CPU + peripherals used in embedded systems.

      Or I guess Marvel Comic/Cinematic Universe if you don't loathe these comic book crap movies. I've stopped watching movies since almost everything produced is a comic book movie now. I'll maybe consider going back to the movie theaters when this crap gets off my lawn.

    4. Re:WTF is an MCU by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Or I guess Marvel Comic/Cinematic Universe if you don't loathe these comic book crap movies. I've stopped watching movies since almost everything produced is a comic book movie now. "

      I can relate. Also, the problem is the not CGI but the 4.50$ spend for the script.

    5. Re:WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I certainly did fap to that "story", you are seriously disturbed and should seek professional help.

    6. Re:WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've stopped watching movies since almost everything produced is a comic book movie now.

      I count five comic book movies out of the top fifty movies released last year. That is 10% of last year's movies, hardly "almost everything produced is a comic book movie now." Sure, there are some other shitty movies released such as the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and the Emoji Movie, maybe those are helping drag your opinion down. There are very few actual comic book movies released, but they tend to be very high-budget movies with aggressive advertising to attract enough revenue to pay for them and the MPAA CEOs' new mansions. Maybe the fact that comic book movie advertisements are plastered everywhere is a factor in your opinion?

    7. Re: WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody didn't see the last Thor or either Guardians of the Galaxy. Excellent writing.

      But man, the first two Thors and the second Avengers were absolutely shittily written.

    8. Re:WTF is an MCU by Horatio_Hellpop · · Score: 1

      I'd say saturation is the key, as you mention. Every stinking website has an Avengers ad or somesuch. Same with in-stores, mobile ads, etc. In reality, there really aren't all that many comic-book movies, but the ginormous studios spend millions to advertise them, so that's all we see.

      --
      Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
    9. Re: WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the normal aspy shitposting on here, this is an improvement.

      +1

    10. Re:WTF is an MCU by jafac · · Score: 1

      Heh. Go back to the original source material (Marvel comic books). Bring a pack of Rolaids.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re: WTF is an MCU by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The first Thor was a thoroughly enjoyable fish-out-of-water movie.
      The second Thor was pretty forgettable.

    12. Re: WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did 4.50$ become a thing?!? It should be $4.50.

    13. Re:WTF is an MCU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mom has a small web server

  2. use of CGI is becoming more and more noticeable by ls671 · · Score: 4, Funny

    overuse of CGI is becoming more and more noticeable.

    Yes, I can understand that, especially if your CGI script is written in bash and you haven't patched your system against Shellshock.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Oh wait...

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  3. Why the hell? by Viol8 · · Score: 0, Troll

    " Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask? "

    I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.

    Don't get me wrong, this isn't a get off my lawn rant, I love action films as much as the next guy, but the utter dross that are the "stories" from comics (no, they're NOT "graphic" novels, they're comics - for kids) don't deserve to be on daytime kids TV, never mind $100M+ spent on them per film.

    1. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen

    2. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh dear, is someone forcing you to watch these movies?

      It's escapism, a break from the mundane. It doesn't have to be realistic or have a complex plot. It just has to be fun.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    3. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun, drama, action, happy-ending.

      Despite the glowing reviews, Black Panther is not going to top Reservoir Dogs in IMBD's 250 greatest films but having tried to watch the latter in the last couple of weeks, it was long, boring and hard-work.

      See there are great films and there are watchable films and the MCU is in the latter category.

    4. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See there are great films and there are watchable films and the MCU is in the latter category.

      And that is your opinion. Mine is that MCU films are utter dross.

    5. Re:Why the hell? by Tuidjy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read what you wrote, and found myself agreeing. And then I remembered enjoying "Back to the Future", "Robocop", "Conan the Barbarian", "The Princess Bride". "Escape from New York", etc.

      So, speaking for myself, I've found that the things I really liked when I was younger do not hold up all that well to closer examination. The sword work is laughable, the premises farfetched, the plot holes abundant. Hell, I still enjoy watching those movies, especially the ones I first watched with my now wife. But while I -think- they are better than today's drek, I am not sure how much of that is just nostalgia.

      So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is, but because of how it shat all over World War I history, because of how ignorant it was of any historical martial arts, and because of how plot-hole-riddled it was. I got through "The Black Panther", but I many things annoyed me, would not dream of watching it again. Still, I wonder how much I would have enjoyed it if I had seen it when I was 15. Nowadays I mostly watch things that do not take itself seriously, or things that my wife can't even stand for being too grim and depressing. We just started watching "The Frankenstein Chronicles", and although it looks really good to me, it is too dark for her.

      Maybe I am just an old fart, unable to enjoy the lighter things in life?

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    6. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find even more amusing is the heap of praises from the MSM. When I was a kid, I wouldn't expect to read a newspaper article that mentions an imaginary place like Wakanda (what?) without chuckling a little.

      Grown-ups were supposed to discuss grown-up stuffs.

    7. Re: Why the hell? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.

      Comments such as "what about Blade then?" or "so what, is the movie any good?" and entirely unhelpful to the narrative and thus often ignored completely by the MSM.

    8. Re:Why the hell? by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Scooby Doo is fun. For 5 minutes. Then it quickly becomes tedious, then boring then just plain annoying. Ditto most comic book films.

    9. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone who just watched Indiana Jones told me that it was insensitive for Indie Jones to pull out a gun and shoot the "Kung Fu" swordsmen.

      I said, "what what what?". Regardless of what, the scene delivers a hard cruel truth to the young me, and strongly influenced how I view Kung Fu. It was high humor, and effective.

      We are both too old for this generation of reality-hating snowflakes.

    10. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /r/thathappened

    11. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't think you've just grown old. The quality of scripts and story-telling decreased a lot. The movies you mention first are generally better than modern Marvel adaptions - except perhaps Conan the Barbarian. Wonderwoman is a great example of an utterly useless, stupid, and forgettable movie. It's really just stupid, there is no other word for it. When you make a movie based on propaganda comics, you should at least add a little bit irony. Hollywood has replaced the art of story-telling with continuous action sequences. That's only for action movies, though. There are plenty of really good movies every year.

      Before somebody says this is a matter of taste - no, it's not. There are plenty of objective criteria for assessing the quality of a movie.

    12. Re:Why the hell? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Because they enjoy them? Personally, I watch movies for my enjoyment; not yours.

    13. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear, is someone forcing you to watch these movies?

      It's escapism, a break from the mundane. It doesn't have to be realistic or have a complex plot. It just has to be fun.

      No one is forcing the author of ScreenRant's post either. So instead of complaining about how bad the CGI is, we should just show them with our wallets and stop watching these movies. Just like GP, I find it all just more of the same and haven't bothered watching more than one of these every 5 years (the last one I watched was Deadpool, mostly because I wanted to support a R-rated movie. Before that, I don't even know anymore). Meanwhile, I watch a lot of independent cinema, because when it comes to escapism, something different is definitely better than more of the same, each day, every day.

    14. Re:Why the hell? by Megol · · Score: 0

      Isn't it great how you decide what is fun and what's not?
      You are one person in a world of billions. You don't speak for everyone else.

      I absolutely hate some kind of "fun" movies with crap story, crap actors, crap "jokes" that is more suitable for immature kids. But that's my opinion and while I can post my opinion (just did) I don't think that is some universal truth - there are obviously a lot of grown up people liking those kind of jokes.

    15. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sword work in the princess bride is amazing. Youâ(TM)re probably remembering wrong, or just donâ(TM)t know what swordplay actually looks like.

    16. Re: Why the hell? by GNious · · Score: 0

      The notion that it's the first actually-hero movie, where the lead is a PoC, matters.

      Blade, Spawn => anti-heroes
      Steel, Hancock, Blankman => comedy movies

      Optionally check out latest episode of Comic ShopTalk (part of Rated-R podcast), where one of the hosts covers this pretty OK (and also nerds out completely, yet again)

    17. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The complaint against overly-obvious CGI is perfectly valid, when they start relying way too much on it, rather than doing actual stunts or redoing shots that were less than optimal. It is a valid critique, and may lead the author to skip future Marvel movies if they continue in that direction.

      Viol8 is complaining that not every movie is made specifically to his taste, but no one is forcing him to watch them.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    18. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Viol8's critique boils down to "this is not to my taste, therefore it's bad for everyone". He can just skip the movies and not care about them, in silence. Not every movie is for everyone.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    19. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh oh you just bad mouthed the biggest movie in all of human history - a black super hero movie with an almost all black cast taking place in an African country.

    20. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haters gonna hate.

    21. Re:Why the hell? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      And then I remembered enjoying "Back to the Future", "Robocop", "Conan the Barbarian", "The Princess Bride". "Escape from New York", etc.

      The others didn't hold up too well, but I saw Princess Bride recently and it still is terrific. Come to think of it, BttF3 held up okay as well.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    22. Re:Why the hell? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 4, Funny

      And you are perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.

    23. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fair enough. I like them. You don't. I won't tell you what to like, and you don't tell me what I should like.

      There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. And nothing wrong with expressing that opinion, and justifying it if you feel you should. But the other poster was telling other people that they shouldn't like it because he thinks they're crap.

    24. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go kill yourself you lame sack of catshit. I hope you have to watch your family slowly burn alive.

    25. Re: Why the hell? by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      Proof of concept?

      --
      bickerdyke
    26. Re: Why the hell? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      PoC I think he means is "Person of black colouredness"

    27. Re: Why the hell? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      Blade wasn't an anti-hero at all, he was a good guy, battling his demons (as they all do) to be a saviour of humanity whilst kicking arse. Besides, all heroes are anti-hero to some extent, otherwise they'd be as boring as superman - and even he had to have some aspects of self-doubt applied to him.

      I'm not convinced Hancock was a comedy movie either, but I can see where that comes from given a large amount of slapstick, there was an equal amount of traditional pathos in that movie too. But I'll accept it "wasn't good enough" to satisfy certain people.

      Interesting reason though, cheers.

    28. Re:Why the hell? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Careful man, /. has become "news for people pretending to be nerds," as such we must welcome the dregs of comic conventions with open arms.

      Oh wait, we don't. Fuck the wannabe nerds, send everyone who upvotes this story back to Reddit where they belong, this shit article doesn't even meet the qualifier of "tech" which most of the slashvertizements do.

    29. Re: Why the hell? by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah... ok...

      but still... desperately finding reasons why all the previous ones don't count... really?

      --
      bickerdyke
    30. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The liberal agenda, race doesnâ(TM)t matter as long as white people are portrayed poorly and black people are good.

      Other than that, race doesnâ(TM)t matter!

    31. Re:Why the hell? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.

      Because they are fun, enjoyable, and entertaining.

      But maybe you're right. Maybe you're the only sane person around and the vast majority of the world are the crazy ones. Just because you're dead inside doesn't mean the rest of us don't genuinely enjoy these movies. Especially Thor because that was a frigging hoot.

    32. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did. Meme magic.

    33. Re:Why the hell? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, did someone insult something you like by giving their honest opinion of it?

      No. Actually if you read the original post someone directly insulted the GP, not just something the GP likes.

    34. Re: Why the hell? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.

      Blade, Hancock, ... and those are just the more recent ones

      How come you SJW's dont know shit about literally anything? You act like you are pioneering something thats already been fucking done, and done a lot better too, and at the time there didnt need to be a bunch of SJW's praising it.

      You people are awful.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    35. Re:Why the hell? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit skeptical of these superhero movies in general, but I have to admit I quite enjoyed Wonder Woman. I'm not sure why historical accuracy would detract in a movie that invents a new Greek/Roman god, who is then integral to the events in the 20th century. I mean, all bets are off, right? At the very least, you could have turned the sound off and enjoyed the eye candy that is Gal Gadot for 2 hours.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:Why the hell? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask? "

      I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.

      Don't get me wrong, this isn't a get off my lawn rant, I love action films as much as the next guy, but the utter dross that are the "stories" from comics (no, they're NOT "graphic" novels, they're comics - for kids) don't deserve to be on daytime kids TV, never mind $100M+ spent on them per film.

      Whereas, I don't like superhero movies either and think they're pretty dumb; really, it's for each their own. Most people on here won't like my taste in music, and I won't like theirs. We probably like different books. If people get a kick out of superhero movies- I don't have a problem with that. I'm more bothered by the commercial blasting I get everytime one is released than the movies themselves. That's more a product of our society than anything else though.. If it weren't superhero movies it would be some other movie being overly commercialized and advertised.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    37. Re: Why the hell? by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      If you want something not to count toward your narrative, you make it counts as something else. "yeah those movies happened, but this is the first one in this very specific subgenre so it is special somehow.

      I don't think it is as malicious as that sounds though. I think it is more that people like to be a part of firsts. So any excuse to make something" the first time [such and such] has happened " will be jumped upon.

    38. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my life were so mundane that these movies were an improvement, I'd slash my wrists

    39. Re:Why the hell? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Considering his opinion is they aren't even good enough for daytime tv, let alone their 100 mil budgets... the only answer really is: they get those budgets because they bring in a whole fucking lot more than that in revenue. Not his taste, fine; too stupid to understand something so basic about business.... well, he can be as stupid as he wants, but his stupid opinion doesn't mean Marvels not making a shitton of profit, and because of that, they'll keep making movies.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    40. Re:Why the hell? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is, but because of how it shat all over World War I history, because of how ignorant it was of any historical martial arts, and because of how plot-hole-riddled it was.

      You just have to let go. Every plot has holes, but some of them have good stuff also, you have to look for the good stuff. In Wonderwoman (there was nothing realistic about a movie featuring the God of War) the philosophy was deeper than in any movie we've seen for a long time. It presented a full awareness of the evilness of both sides in a conflict.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    41. Re: Why the hell? by meglon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ...and here i heard you like long and black down your throat.

      Social Justice Warriors think everyone should be treated equal and well.... the opposite of that is a worthless fucking self centered sociopath that cares for no one but themselves.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    42. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension apparently is also not one of your skills. He never implied "therefore it's bad for everyone" in the post you replied to. He stated why he doesn't like these movies.

      Get over yourself.

    43. Re: Why the hell? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Blades not really an anti-hero though, is he? Sure, he's half vampire, but he's never indulged that side of himself. If it's purely the "revenge" angle, that would lump Batman in as an anti-hero as well. I always give the movies a grain of salt... and Blade was never one that i read back when it came out, so i suppose his comic origin might place him as such... i just don't remember it well enough.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    44. Re:Why the hell? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2


      >I read what you wrote, and found myself agreeing. And then I remembered enjoying "Back to the Future", "Robocop", "Conan the Barbarian", "The Princess Bride". "Escape from New York", etc.

      >So, speaking for myself, I've found that the things I really liked when I was younger do not hold up all that well to closer examination.

      Yeah it's just you, all of those movies are still amazing. And the first time I saw Escape from New York was just a few years ago so it's not just nostalgia. Seriously, go watch Robocop right now, because there's way more to it than you remember liking as a kid.

      I haven't seen Wonder Woman or Black Panther, but even the supposedly good Marvel movies have been a disappointment. The little character moments when Iron Man or Thor just screwing around are pretty fun but my main issue with them really is the action. They usually set up these enormous stakes and huge battles but there's no emotional weight because you know they won't genocide the Asgardians and nothing will happen to Thor. So you end up with Jackie Chan fighting an unarmed guy with a ladder being 100% more entertaining because you know he's really doing it and can get hurt and the stakes are realistic.

    45. Re: Why the hell? by meglon · · Score: 0

      You people are awful.

      ...and yet, still better than the self-centered sociopaths that are their opposites. If you think treating everyone as equals, and treating them well is a bad thing... you're truly a fucked in the head sociopath.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    46. Re: Why the hell? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      lol. you didn't even read the 2nd sentence in my 2 sentence post! well done you.

      muppet.

    47. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That scene was supposed to be a big sword fight, but Harrison Ford was ill that day and shot the sword fighting guy instead. The sword fighting guy went along with it, but supposedly he was actually pretty upset that his big scene essentially got cut out.

    48. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > instead of complaining use your wallets
      And has that solved the Kardasians yet?

    49. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " He never implied "therefore it's bad for everyone"

      Ahem:

      ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes

    50. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is affirmative action or quotas "treating everyone as equals"? Methinks you haven't thought this through.

    51. Re:Why the hell? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So don't watch them? Who cares if other people like them. I don't like the electronic music my son listens to, he doesn't like the metal I listen to. Somehow, neither one of us wants the other's music to not exist.

      As to why they deserve to have $100+ million spent on them - people who have the $100+ million to spend think they'll make a better profit doing so than the alternative investments they could make.

    52. Re:Why the hell? by mikael · · Score: 2

      They had to move to CGI due to the various accidents that happened when doing things for real. Actors (Vic Morrow, Renee Chen and Myca Dinh Le), got killed when a helicopter got buffeted by explosions and sliced into them during the filming of an episode of the Twilight Zone

      So it is far safer to just use hand weapons for a scene and composite in the gun smoke and bullet holes in the suitcase right where the directors wants them than to redo the scene each time until they get it "good enough".

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    53. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if we don't enjoy these cookie-cutter pieces of trash, we are dead inside?

      Get over yourself, you self-entitled douche-nozzle.

    54. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not the complaint, though. The complaint was about completely unnatural movement. There wasn't even an actor there to composite bullet holes onto, and the CGI-generated bad guy moves in a very Uncanny Valley way, which does take you out of the suspension of disbelief.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    55. Re:Why the hell? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Action movies are the best sellers for the CGI. Kids used to the spend their Saturday mornings watching slapstick movies like "The Three Stooges", Westerns, The Disney Club and other comedies like "Laurel and Hardy". Spaghetti Westerns were made in Italy (like "My name is Trinity") and had more comedy in them.

      It was discussed here on slashdot years ago that scriptwriters had been told to make sure that their storylines were comprehensible to an average 12-year old.

      But there are many movies presented at the Independent Film-maker festivals and in other countries that don't have all those special effects. Her indoors would normally flip the channel the minute there are people dressed as aliens or explosions, but she is absolutely gripped by a TV series that has time portals that allow the main character to get between present day and the past (World Wars) and the relationships they build up.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    56. Re:Why the hell? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because many of us are kids at heart.

      As an adult myself (who can be considered middle age) real life is complex, People with the authority to do things, lack the ability. People with the ability often are not given the authority. Big complex problems need to be expressed at an 8th grade education level, so the masses will get on board, otherwise they reject any idea they don't understand.
      There are a lot of things, it is complex, often unfair, and anything we do has limited impact on this.

      So yes I like to go to the movies, watch people who more or less live a simple life style, in a world with an obvious bad guys (even if you can relate with them and are sympathetic.) and good guys with the Power and Ability to do something about it.

      We don't have Tony Stark worry about going out and saving the day, because he will miss a meeting of an important contract which would cause him and his family to loose everything they own. Or Captain America having to figure out how to make ends meat after leaving shield as it closes down, he just finds an other organization or country to reside in.

      I know it is fiction, however after watching it, I feel slightly more empowered, where I may just take that extra risk to bring me forward in life.

      This stuff is for kids, but kids live in a world of possibilities, where the future has many options, so such shows opens up options to them. As an adult it brings that childhood like optimism back for a little bit.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    57. Re: Why the hell? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Agreed on Spawn, but I don't see Blade as an antihero. In addition, the X-Men films have all featured Storm as one of the main characters (black and female), though perhaps they don't count because she was part of a team (and, I think, the one with the fewest lines and no character development).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    58. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that Gal Gadot is very easy on the eyes, but

      Run time: 2h21min

      No fucking way am I sitting through a superhero movie for over 2 hours, no matter how good looking the lead is.

    59. Re:Why the hell? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree that The Princess Bride is still an awesome movie - has held up exceedingly well over time. The special effects are questionable in some parts, but for something filmed over 30 years ago I can forgive it. It's still a far better movie than anything produced within the MCU.

      The Back to the Future series was tongue in cheek when it came out still plays out pretty well. The time travel treatment alone is well done even with the continuity errors. Sadly, the comically bad Conan the Barbarian with Arnold is still better than all the current Conan/Hercules/etc movies that have come out over the past decade. Robocop and Escape from New York are painful today.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    60. Re:Why the hell? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Box office receipts agree with you.

    61. Re: Why the hell? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.

      Comments such as "what about Blade then?" or "so what, is the movie any good?" and entirely unhelpful to the narrative and thus often ignored completely by the MSM.

      "What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it? Compared with the 20 or so Marvel films in the last decade?

      And the film appears to actually be good. Sorry if that shits on your "I'm cleverer than the MSM" parade.

    62. Re: Why the hell? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Hey

      I'm going to skip answering most of the replies, since they seem to be people insisting on missing the point, but around Storm/Ororo Munroe, think of it as the difference between Storm being a supporting character in the X-Men movies (really) and an Origins movie for Storm, depicting her past growing up in Africa, and finding an identity.

      One doesn't bring much new to the table though it lets some people see someone that looks like them in a hero-role, while the other lets a large group of the people around you celebrate a shared culture, past, identity, and do so through-out the movie - it becomes about themselves as a group, because of the way it's centered around the title character.

      That's part of what Black Panther is, that no other movie is, at least for 1 segment of society, and I'm personally happy that Black Panther does this for them.
      (and something that Blade in no way is able to reach)

      Note: There was a reason I suggested giving that podcast a listen - TJ, one of the hosts, explains it a lot better than I can ever hope to do :)

      Hope this helps

    63. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kids don't read these. They aren't for kids. You are just pushing a political agenda.

    64. Re: Why the hell? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And don't forget the "If you're not with me, you're against me" binary logic that has permeated almost everything in our society. If you're not a SJW, then obviously you're a Self Centered Sociopath.

      I realize that you may not be saying exactly that, but enough people reading what you said, agreed, quickly reinforcing their own binary view of the world.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    65. Re:Why the hell? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And specifically in this case, was not for "safety reasons" as the CGI character didn't do any real stunt.type move, he just fell down on the same floor he was standing on.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    66. Re: Why the hell? by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Someone who just watched Indiana Jones told me that it was insensitive for Indie Jones to pull out a gun and shoot the "Kung Fu" swordsmen.

      I said, "what what what?". Regardless of what, the scene delivers a hard cruel truth to the young me, and strongly influenced how I view Kung Fu. It was high humor, and effective.

      We are both too old for this generation of reality-hating snowflakes.

      I loved that scene in Indiana Jones. It worked on many different levels. It was funny (from a childish perspective), unfair (based on movie rules), and had a dose of reality at the same time. I think, though, that you have to be at a certain age for it to have it's full effect. As a child you would just find it funny, as an adult you wouldn't get the same sense of humor or feel just how unfair it is (based on movie rules). You have to be in your early teens to get the full effect.

      I'm thinking that this is true for superhero movies as well, especially Marvell. They are being developed to appeal to teens and young adults, not the older adults that first grew up on comics. In my opinion, the only superhero movies that are geared towards adults is the Batman Dark Knight trilogy.

      Maybe that's why a lot of original comic fans are being turned off by CGI, simple story lines, etc. Because they have matured and realize that all the CGI in the world can't make up for poor acting and bad scripts....

    67. Re: Why the hell? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "If you're not with us, you're against us" is famously from the President Bush of this century. I never regarded him as an SJW or leftist.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    68. Re:Why the hell? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This is the free market in action. If you like a movie, pay to see it. If you don't, avoid it. People can complain about other people's tastes, but enough people like the Marvel Cinematic Universe to keep it going.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    69. Re: Why the hell? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I saw a clip some time later of Indy going after the sword guy with his whip, so I don't know how much work Harrison Ford got out of there. There was also the scene in the second movie where he's confronted by a swordsman, reaches for his holster, and finds it empty.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    70. Re: Why the hell? by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      You're probably remembering wrong, or just don't know what swordplay actually looks like

      I've watched it in the last year, and I've fenced at state level, made baron in the SCA twice with two different weapons, and helped run a HEMA club. So I think I know more about swordwork than most. Maybe not so much about swordplay.

      The Princess bride is entertaining, but the fencing is typical Hollywood fare - at close distance, attacks on the weapons to make it visually entertaining, slashes with rapiers and no thrusts to speak of, and never, ever, ever, an attack that would need to be parried.

      I know why it is done - the leads are not fencers, flynning is entertaining, shot framing is important, and no one wants to even risk an injury so no attacks that could actually land, and sure as hell no thrusting.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    71. Re: Why the hell? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Similarly, in the MCU, Falcon's black, but he's a secondary hero that goes around with Captain America. Nick Fury is black, and plays a larger part in the stories.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    72. Re: Why the hell? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How is winding up with an almost all-white cast "treating everyone as equals"? I'd bet on inequality showing up somewhere in the progression of events leading up to it.

      Unequal results don't prove unequal opportunity, but we've found it to be a very good place to look to find unequal opportunity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    73. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scooby Doo is fun. For 5 minutes. Then it quickly becomes tedious, then boring then just plain annoying. Ditto most comic book films.

      There is a theme here, and it has to do with your ability to enjoy things...

    74. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viol8 is complaining that not every movie is made specifically to his taste, but no one is forcing him to watch them.

      Are you Viol8's wife? Why are you speaking on his behalf? Maybe that's why he is so annoyed...

      Viol8's comments so far are that nothing is to his taste, hence he is forced to watch things he doesn't like.

    75. Re: Why the hell? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to skip answering most of the replies, since they seem to be people insisting on missing the point, but around Storm/Ororo Munroe, think of it as the difference between Storm being a supporting character in the X-Men movies (really) and an Origins movie for Storm, depicting her past growing up in Africa, and finding an identity.

      I think this misses bigger problem: the writing for Storm was really bad. She was a completely two-dimensional character, with no development, no story arc. She was just there. I don't mind that being black wasn't portrayed as an important part of her identity, I mind that there were literally no memorable aspects to her identity. The role of the black female X-Man was to stand near the white X-Men and agree with them. She wasn't portrayed as a person with independent agency who was adding a lot to the team, she was portrayed as a cardboard cutout with superpowers.

      Contrast this with Blade. He had back story, which led to his complex motivations. He was on a team with an old white dude, but he was the one that set the agenda for what they'd be doing and who led most of the action. The other characters in the film were defined by their relationship to him. Most importantly, he wasn't a character whose identity was defined by his colour (except in the sense that it made him more able to go out in sunlight than the pasty white evil vampires). He was a character who had interesting development and kicked ass, who happened to be black. You could have taken the Blade story line and, with minor tweaks, made him pretty much any ethnicity and it would still have worked (though given that you'd also be ruling out Samuel L. Jackson as well, you'd find it difficult to cast an actor who would pull off the character as well).

      If you read science fiction from the '60s, a lot of writers have the same problem with female characters: they can't figure out how to give them personalities, so they make them gender stereotypes plus some special ability. Hollywood still has this problem: they can't write a character for whom gender or race is a contributor to their personality, they either write cardboard cutouts or generic stereotypes plus some superpower.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    76. Re:Why the hell? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It may not top Reservoir Dogs, but it's probably among the top five best films in the superhero genre. It's a helluva lot better than most of the Marvel films, and better than anything DC has produced in its latest iteration (though the original Superman still sits at the top of the genre, to my mind_/

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    77. Re:Why the hell? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I've made a few movies. We had an injury from an actor falling (from standing up) entirely on his own, because he didn't do anything to catch or control himself. It looked great, though!

      There are lots of "safety reasons" that aren't obvious in the final cut. Falling on concrete, debris, or from any height above standing is immediately a cause for concern. Given how cheap it is to throw an extra in a costume compared to the price of a CGI editor, I would expect that there is some reason we just can't see.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    78. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an idiot? The parent wasn't speaking for Viol8, he was pointing out what he said and then pointing out how silly it is, exactly what you just did. I know this is Slashdot, but seriously, learn how to read, dipshit.

    79. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much that, it's the sheer quantity of them coming out with little to distinguish between them. Unless you're talking about Black Panther..

    80. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.

      Well played.

    81. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're waiting...

    82. Re:Why the hell? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Your imagination is toast. It happens. Notice how kids (and cats) can be wildly entertained playing with an empty cardboard box for hours? Not a lot of adults can do that.

      Rehabilitation consists of building a blanket fort and sitting in it reading Calvin and Hobbes.

    83. Re: Why the hell? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. Everything prior to the current epoch, generally defined as beginning sometime in 2016, was pure racist evil. Nothing good happened, ever.

    84. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid and ugly n1gger bullcrap just blends in nicely with amateur CGI.

    85. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was also thinking the other day, since I just recently rewatched Blade, how Wesley Snipes was really the only significant role. Sure, (spoiler alert!) his mom returns as a vampire and is black, and there's a kung fu girl he fights, but pretty much all other roles in the movie were white dudes or a few white chicks. Even his partner is an old white dude. And the sequels? white white white white white, Wesley Snipes, random vampire commando, random van driver who dies partway through the movie. The Director was white, the writer was white, etc. So yeah, Black Panther is pretty significant. It also wasn't done as some sort of blacksploitation film, even as a parody of such - like Undercover Brother.

    86. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to treat people unequally through affirmative action and quotas "just in case" with zero evidence that anything was done with malice than to treat people equally and use facts and evidence to address specific instances.

      So what your saying is that PoC can't compete against the white man because disproportionate population distributions and the boogy man racism could be under your bed.

      Why are you treating PoC (what is the difference than saying coloured people?) as inferior to white people that need a white knight like you to force equal outcome?

    87. Re:Why the hell? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      "Back to the Future", "Robocop", "Conan the Barbarian", "The Princess Bride". "Escape from New York", etc.

      But while I -think- they are better than today's drek, I am not sure how much of that is just nostalgia.

      It's not just nostalgia. Those are objectively better movies.
      Note that not a single one of those was originally made to be a "franchise" or a "universe".
      They were self-contained stories, much better written and directed than the average movie now OR then - not an obligatory stepping stone in a predetermined 20+ movie "universe", which by the way also includes 14 different TV series.

      Those movies you list were all (apart from The Princess Bride) franchise starters due to their quality.
      MCU movies come with a predetermined franchise attached to them. Regardless of quality.

      They will be churned out even if they are really, really bad... Just look at all the attempts to start a Hulk franchise.
      Or take a gander at Thor and how nearly all characters or even events in those movies DON'T MATTER.
      They've now literally erased first two movies, cutting them down to just being the source for characters of Thor and Loki - cause those are the only parts that work.
      Hell... Iron Man was holding the entire "universe" together based solely on Robert Downey Jr.'s charm - movies are again nothing but filler.
      Even a supposed "big gun" movie like Avengers 2 is pure filler in the story they are supposedly trying to tell.
      And Captain America... Hell... if THAT movie was made in the '80s, with '80s technology and actors... it would have been the 1990 Captain America movie. One with J. D. Salinger's son.
      Amazingly, the second Captain America is actually a good stand-alone movie... but still filler in the "grand scheme" of the supposed "universe".

      Watch Captain America: The First Avenger together with The Shadow (1994) and The Phantom (1996) and you'd be hard pressed to call it the best of the three - DESPITE being the most expensive of the bunch and having the best tech at its disposal.
      Those '90s movies turned out to be franchise non-starters. That's where Captain America should have ended up as well.

      Except it can't.
      Cause it is a part of a predetermined series and movies WILL BE MADE no matter what.
      Someone will watch them. There are 3 billion more people in the world. All those new and huge markets which didn't exist in the '80s and '90s.
      Just advertise the movies long enough and loud enough.
      E.g. By including adverts for the "next" movie in your current movie. Or by constant bombardment with ads online.

      Or by holding fucking rallies for fans. Rallies! Remember that Robocop 2 rally? How about the Back To The Future 3 Celebration? No?
      Those things look more and more like political rallies where people renew their commitment to the party and the Dear Leader than what they really are - promotional events.
      Advertisement for a movie.
      Also, toys.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    88. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At heart. And grammar ability as well.

    89. Re:Why the hell? by JoeMerritt · · Score: 1

      I don't know that I'd say they don't belong to be aired - while the science may be make believe, comic books and especially x-men cover issues of racism and bullying very well. Entire major story arcs are devoted to exploring how society struggles to accept someone they view as alien/different. Setting it in a fantastical world allows them to get away with it while still captivating an audience - good luck getting people to sit through a lecture on race relations as entertainment.

    90. Re: Why the hell? by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      We were shooting in Tunisia, and the script had a scene in which I fight a swordsman, an expert swordsman, it was meant to be the ultimate duel between sword and whip. And I was suffering from dysentery, really, found it inconvenient to be out of my trailer for more than 10 minutes at a time. We'd done a brief rehearsal of the scene the night before we were meant to shoot it, and both Steve and I realized it would take 2 or 3 days to shoot this. And it was the last thing we were meant to shoot in Tunisia before we left to shoot in England. And the scene before this in the film included a whip fight against 5 bad guys that were trying to kidnap Marian, so I thought it was a bit redundant. I was puzzling how to get out of this 3 days of shooting, so when I got to set I proposed to Steven that we just shoot the son a bitch and Steve said "I was thinking that as well." So he drew his sword, the poor guy was a wonderful British stuntman who had practiced his sword skills for months in order to do this job, and was quite surprised by the idea that we would dispatch him in 5 minutes. But he flourished his sword, I pulled out my gun and shot him, and then we went back to England.

      Source

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    91. Re:Why the hell? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      it was long, boring and hard-work

      Umm. Fucking hell.

      See there are great films and there are watchable films

      The great films are great because so many people found them watchable - and more. Pretentious arthouse shite doesn't get into the IMDB top 250.

      You may have bounced off Reservoir Dogs but that doesn't mean it isn't watchable. It means you didn't like it.

      Learn the difference, and don't go telling me some CGI fest is 'fun' and 'drama', or that 'happy-ending' is in any way fucking desirable.

    92. Re: Why the hell? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      as an adult you wouldn't get the same sense of humor or feel just how unfair it is (based on movie rules)

      Nah, I still laugh at it.

    93. Re: Why the hell? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fencer but yes, the swordplay in The Princess Bride is a visual feast accompanied by quality acting and a truly great script.

      It's not fencing, and it doesn't look terribly realistic as sword fighting.

    94. Re:Why the hell? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The special effects are questionable in some parts

      To be fair that was the case when it was first released too.

    95. Re: Why the hell? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So I was also thinking the other day, since I just recently rewatched Blade, how Wesley Snipes was fucking cool.

      I didn't worry what fucking skin colour everybody was because I'm not an insufferable cunt.

    96. Re: Why the hell? by kackle · · Score: 1
    97. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have long stopped being comics for kids, just like the majority of video games are played by 18-25 year olds.

      For ex, my brother wouldn't let his 8 year old son watch the dark knight (due to some scenes of the joker) and not only do I agree with him I was glad to finally see someone give these movies an adult treatment.

      Having said that, 99% of the MCU movies are popcorn, over the top, flicks.

    98. Re: Why the hell? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.

      To be fair, DC's a lot worse about that than Marvel - with the exception of Batman:

      Barry Allen: What are your superpowers again?

      Bruce Wayne: I'm rich.

    99. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure I read that. Is this what fox news and Breitbart are teaching you about the MSM nowadays?

    100. Re:Why the hell? by sheramil · · Score: 2

      And specifically in this case, was not for "safety reasons" as the CGI character didn't do any real stunt.type move, he just fell down on the same floor he was standing on.

      tell that to Brandon Lee... oh, you can't.

    101. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you like a movie without seeing first?

    102. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're watching movies for escapism? How drab. I far prefer movies that don't require suspension of disbelief - no matter how fantastic or sci-f - because you KNOW that's how things are on that planet.

      JRR Tolkien and Terry Nation may not be your favourites, and if you want to watch cheap dross (or expensive dross) then you're entitled. You're not even required to like the stuff us hardcore fans like.

      What you are NOT entitled to do is tell us we don't matter. That crosses a line.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHSxQ2RRD9o

    103. Re:Why the hell? by jd · · Score: 2

      The Hex Girls are hot.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    104. Re: Why the hell? by jd · · Score: 1

      So if someone doesn't like 0.001% of all sci-fi and fantasy literature, they can't enjoy things.

      Right. Let's start with some basic arithmetic. I would like to suggest that those who only enjoy 0.001% of all the sci-fi and fantasy literature are completely incapable of knowing why enjoying the other 99.999% might, just might, constitute enjoying a damn sight more. Get out of the closet, Narnia is in the one down the hall. You do not believe it, and that - as Yoda would say - is why you fail.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    105. Re: Why the hell? by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      The big picture issue is and always has been that the movie industry avoids making movies with non-white male central characters out of some combination of lack of imagination, cowardice, and racism. We have saying all along that if you bother to try to have a few big pictures with not whitebread boring usual cast of characters, you could easily make big money doing that, too. And it will be FUN. Well, we were right. In spades.

      You can argue over how important Blade was or was not, if it floats your boat. I liked that movie, BTW.

    106. Re:Why the hell? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      What what what what? Who are these people who don't like fucking Robocop? That movie is funny as hell, smart as hell, has a strong plot, great villains, and is a visual feast full of cray-cray. In what sense does it not "hold up"?

      Next you'll be telling be Starship Troopers is a snore.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    107. Re:Why the hell? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Where are you subjected to commercials these days? Aside from the odd billboard or bus shelter.

    108. Re:Why the hell? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Whatever else you want to say about the virtues of most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (where we have a difference of taste), Black Panther is NOT a typical example. Absent some of the required fight scenes/tie-ins/stupid villian name its not a comic book movie. It has a real plot.

      I highly recommend you see it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    109. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Blade or Hancock were very good people. Yea, they ended up fighting for good, but they weren't aspirational role models by any means. Even if they were, so what? If a black person finds the Black Panther empowering, then good for him. We all have to find motivation wherever we can in this life - just be happy someone found a bit in theirs.

    110. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Bush was paraphrasing the Bible. It's a quote that goes much further back than early-21st century.

      Whether Jesus qualifies as SJW or leftist or not is left as an exercise for the reader :)

    111. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what are some examples of what you like so everybody can criticize your subjective tastes as brain-numbing, childish idiocy?

    112. Re:Why the hell? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The special effects are questionable in some parts

      To be fair that was the case when it was first released too.

      Very true, and to compare it to the other effects generally in that genre of movies - check things like the Sinbad movies, or Clash of the Titans, or, really, anything that wasn't cutting edge or huge budget prior to the age of CGI. Star Wars did awesome space scenes, the Terminator and Alien truly stepped up models and puppets, and I can't really recall any others that were pushing the boundaries as much prior to CGI and digital effects making their entrance.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    113. Re: Why the hell? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Two words: Gal Gadot.

    114. Re: Why the hell? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      "What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it?

      A film franchise that grossed half a billion dollars in cinemas alone (earning three times the budget) is niche now?

      Shit, I'll settle for that sort of fucking niche.

      I guess you prefer mainstream successes like Black Panther, earning a massive 15% more at the box office than its budget. Tell you what, let us all know when the fucking marketing is paid for too.

    115. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust

      Wonder Woman is probably the best superhero movie of the recent trend (starting with Iron Man). The reason is that it actually has a theme and isn't just a loosely connected set of action scenes.

    116. Re: Why the hell? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Remember the angel when asked if they were for or against Israel said neither. ;)

      Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

      And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    117. Re: Why the hell? by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      I do not believe you are correct about all self proclaimed Social Justice Warriors. I have encountered many of them who have simply decided that anything white and male is the enemy. White females are (sometimes) tolerated. That is not justice, nor is it sane. It is merely racist.

      One example that really perplexed me: I tried to express to someone the virtues of restorative justice, and how the ideals underpinning them, when faithfully executed, are a balm for the victims as well as a path to redemption and positive change for the perpetrator. The response from a self proclaimed SJW biracial female was "How dare you, a white male, speak about this! You don't get to talk."

      This person, who prides themselves on their connection to justice, couldn't see past my skin color and sex to hear the message I was delivering. The takeaway was that anyone who says they are after "social justice" is more likely using those words to hide their base motivations, and given enough rope, will hang themselves with their own hatred and bigotry. This conjecture has proven itself correct over and over, both online and in person. It is exceptionally rare that anyone who espouses "Social Justice" is not overtly biased, motivated by vengeance for imagined slights, and more concerned with punishing groups of people they don't like than treating everyone equally and fairly.

      YMMV, and hopefully it does. I would gladly join a group of people trying to create a colorblind and genderblind society based on the concept of universal acceptance of all humans exactly as they are. Unfortunately, the social justice movement is anything but that.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    118. Re:Why the hell? by mikael · · Score: 1

      People have died simply from getting into a fight, being pushed backwards and hitting their head on the ground or just hitting another object, giving them a thunderclap headache (internal bleeding of a major blood vessel in the brain) and dying from a crushed brain.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    119. Re: Why the hell? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      "What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it?

      A film franchise that grossed half a billion dollars in cinemas alone (earning three times the budget) is niche now?

      Shit, I'll settle for that sort of fucking niche.

      I guess you prefer mainstream successes like Black Panther, earning a massive 15% more at the box office than its budget. Tell you what, let us all know when the fucking marketing is paid for too.

      For the love of god... how good an investment a film was for the studio has precisely shit all to do with the cultural impact of a piece of art. Goddammit, this is the same argument we get about iPhone being the most umazing thang evar because Apple makes the most money. I don't care how much money a film makes. It has nothing to do with my enjoyment of viewing it, or the impact it has on the world.

      And if you must argue return rates (fuck this is dull) , are you really stupid enough to compare Black Panther's opening weekend with the Blade's entire run?

    120. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "strange" how you always end up commenting in the racist threads of this website yet will strongly disavow any hint of you being a racist twat. Why is that?

    121. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      The very fact that you name a single person by name should tell you something about just how rare that is.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    122. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      You don't matter.

      At least not to the people making the "cheap/expensive dross" movies. They're making tons of money, and the fans love the movies.

      And stop trying to act superior, it never works.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    123. Re: Why the hell? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      No, it has to do with me being an adult and no longer finding kids stuff interesting or amusing.

    124. Re:Why the hell? by mestar · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been in an actual movie theater? You have to pay no matter if you like it or don't like it.

    125. Re: Why the hell? by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      You really don't see how movies from 15 years ago are relevant to a discussion about this movie being the first?

    126. Re: Why the hell? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      You really don't see how movies from 15 years ago are relevant to a discussion about this movie being the first?

      I don't think it's relevant because I question the motivation behind the "well actually" brigade. There is an undercurrent of cynicism about representation of under-represented groups in films. And it *always* comes from smug white men in their 30s, who are very perfectly well represented. It's not very clever to find the exception that demonstrates the rule, and that's pretty much what it is. Yay Blade. How many films since then and now? If you have to go back that far, aren't you showing the exact point?

      It's clearly the first *blockbuster* superhero film with a black lead, but it's way more than that - nearly every character is black. And when do we get to see an African culture in mainstream films? When do we get to see an optimistic future-Africa?

      "Oh but Blade" misses the point entirely.

    127. Re: Why the hell? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      So I was also thinking the other day, since I just recently rewatched Blade, how Wesley Snipes was fucking cool.

      I didn't worry what fucking skin colour everybody was because I'm not an insufferable cunt.

      No. Because you're white, and you get to see positive representations of people who look like you all the time.

    128. Re: Why the hell? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. It makes pictures with famous names, and given the vast majority of people in the west are white, it stands to reason the majority of famous actors are white too.

      I think you are subjecting yourself to confirmation bias. We have Sam Jackson, Wesley Snipes (who was very big in the 80s/90s), Morgan Freeman, .. and just thinking about the number of big-name black actors in Hollywood is so long a list I'm going to stop there.

      So now we have yet another super hero movie with a black cast. Whoop de doo. Is it fun? Possibly, I've not seen it but I'm told its good. Is it any better than, say, the last Marvel movie? Is it better than Deadpool? There's nothing special about this one except that certain groups have gone bananas over it simply because its got black people in it.

      The big picture perhaps is that Bollywood is full of Asian actors. Wakaliwood is full of black actors. and Nollywood is full of black actors. OMG racism!!!! Not. So why would Hollywood having fewer black actors be any different to anywhere else in the world.

    129. Re:Why the hell? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Yep. It looks like crap. CGI only looks good when it's used to clean up or enhance actual real people and real objects. Less CGI is better, pretty much always. But when used correctly, it is fine. These guys aren't using their head, they are trying to use CGI for everything.

    130. Re:Why the hell? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Or if it's a full-CGI movie, Pixar-style.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    131. Re: Why the hell? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      SPOILERS for Black Panther ahead.

      I do not believe you are correct about all self proclaimed Social Justice Warriors. I have encountered many of them who have simply decided that anything white and male is the enemy. White females are (sometimes) tolerated. That is not justice, nor is it sane. It is merely racist.

      Which also was the mindset of the primary antagonist in The Black Panther, and the reason why reconciliation with T'Challa was not going to happen. He had too much hatred for the "colonists" and oppressors to turn away from the race war he was inciting.

    132. Re:Why the hell? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It at least used to be that, if you left not too long after it started, you could ask for and likely get a refund.

      However, we're not seeing discussions of the relative merits of Thor: Ragnarok versus Captain America: Civil War vs. Wonder Woman here. We're seeing people who don't like an entire genre of movies. There are also reviews. I usually know whether I'm going to like a movie before I go. It isn't a perfect system, but it works well enough.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    133. Re:Why the hell? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Wonder Woman was good, but not that great. Its nonsensical plot holes worked against its own message it was trying to push.
      Yeah, it's certainly the best of the DC movies since Nolan's Batman, but that's not a high bar to overcome.

    134. Re: Why the hell? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I think this misses bigger problem: the writing for Storm was really bad. She was a completely two-dimensional character, with no development, no story arc. She was just there. I don't mind that being black wasn't portrayed as an important part of her identity, I mind that there were literally no memorable aspects to her identity. The role of the black female X-Man was to stand near the white X-Men and agree with them. She wasn't portrayed as a person with independent agency who was adding a lot to the team, she was portrayed as a cardboard cutout with superpowers.

      Well, X-Men was an ensemble series. It was about Magneto, Professor X, Wolverine, and then a bunch of other guys. I'd say Cyclops got the character development shafting even harder than Storm, and the only reason Jean Grey got anything at all was they were setting up her love triangle for Wolverine. One of the primary definitions for Badly Written Female Character is that she's just there as a love interest for a male character. Rogue got a little more, as she was the McGuffin of the movie. Storm got bad lines, and an actress who didn't really try to make it sound believable.

      Blade, on the other hand, was the focus, the primary protagonist. It's hard to compare a movie like Blade with a movie like X-Men, because they have two different (intentional) cast types. One ensemble, one not.

      Black Panther isn't the first superhero (ensemble or not) with a black cast, but it may be the first mainstream breakout hit with one.

    135. Re: Why the hell? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's relevant because I question the motivation behind the "well actually" brigade. There is an undercurrent of cynicism about representation of under-represented groups in films. And it *always* comes from smug white men in their 30s, who are very perfectly well represented.

      Under-represented is a given. But there's a little bit of blowback when hyperbolic claims are presented, like people in this comments section claiming it's the first superhero movie with a black cast. Now, the biggest and best? Sure, I can get behind that. Of course, it's subjective, but because it's subjective it's a claim you can more credibly make, as opposed to something fact-based that will have people saying "well, actually..."

    136. Re: Why the hell? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So now we have yet another super hero movie with a black cast. Whoop de doo. Is it fun? Possibly, I've not seen it but I'm told its good. Is it any better than, say, the last Marvel movie? Is it better than Deadpool?

      Hard to say? They're like.. two different types of movies. Like, different genres except they both have folks with powers in costume.

      There's nothing special about this one except that certain groups have gone bananas over it simply because its got black people in it.

      I think Black Panther is a fantastic movie. Is it a 'masterpiece?' No, it has some problems, almost all of which has to do with so-so action scenes. Action is pretty important for an action movie, so that downgrades it from 'masterpiece' to 'oh yeah, it's really good.'

    137. Re: Why the hell? by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      I'm with Rakarra. Say what you mean.

      If you state something that's objectively false, people are going to point out that it's objectively false.

    138. Re:Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. It looks like crap. CGI only looks good when it's used to clean up or enhance actual real people and real objects.

      Others have pointed this out, but people only think this because they fail to notice the CGI that actually looks good - because they think it's real objects and people.

      It works best when things are in motion (i.e. blurry) but when it's done well it just blends into the background seamlessly.

    139. Re: Why the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell did this myth come from that for some reason I need a hero or role model to look like me in order to have a positive impact?

  4. Why has the bar set to be high? by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Serious question: Why does the bar has to be set high? They are there to make money, not to tell a story. That is just the side effect.
    As long as they are making enough by low standards, why do more expensive high standards if that means less profit?

    These movies are the fast food of the movies. Low quality for the masses. Nothing wrong with that, but do not expect anything it is not.

    The quality is good enough to make the most money, just as McD and others make 'food' that is just good enough. The principle was explained to me in this way:
    Fast food chains deliver 80% of the quality that they could deliver. The reason is that they always can reach that standard. It is high enough for most and low enough that they ALWAYS reach it. Imagine that they would deliver 95% most of the time and then suddenly they get a few days of 85%. People would be pissed and that will cost customers in the long run.

    With 80% they will create the expectation. You know what to expect and will not be disappointed. The same goes for these movies. You expect a certain standard and that is what you will get. All along with all other movies where you know that the most expensive actor will most likely survive till the end of the movie. Boy and girl get together or whatever standards are available.

    It is fast food and do not try to pretend it is fine dining. That does not mean fast food it bad. It is different.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of these movies are bad, and they are bad because they boil down to being fights between CGI good guys and CGI bad guys, none of whom you care about and which is nothing you haven't seen before.

      DC is actually far worse for that. Compare Nolan's Batman to Snyder's movies. Nolan was actually very conservative with the CGI and focused on the characters instead. You didn't notice most of the CGI because it was just there to enhance the acting and sets, not to create silly action figure fight scenes on obviously fake sets.

      It's not just that Batman is a more down-to-earth character either. Wonder Woman managed to do the same thing, it was a film about the character's coming of age and taking her place in the world as a champion of justice. When Snyder got hold of her he replaced her with a CGI model or pointed the camera at Gal Gadot's arse and it sucked.

      Directors who are obsessed with CGI treat the actors the same way - meat to create a certain image on screen, usually just some dude 'roiding out or some generic "hot babe" to wank over. And their movies all suck. And DC can't seem to figure this out.

      Marvel is doing much better. Sony keeps botching Spiderman and the Fantastic 4, but the other movies are actually pretty good. Avengers, Thor, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dr. Strange, Ant Man and now Black Panther is probably the best of the lot, or at least in the top 3.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      DC should rewatch the 1960s show and play the Arkham games and realise that what people really want is Batman beating the crap out of people.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No houghi, fast food is bad. It's unhealthy pure and simple.

      You know you're a privilidged 21st century 1st world twat when you can look at a plate of insanely inexpensive, safe, tasty, and sustaining food ... and declare that it's horribly "unhealthy" garbage.

    4. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by bickerdyke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It is neither inexpensive nor safe.

      And you're mixing up "tasty" with "engineered to be addictive"

      And for "sustaining", watch "supersize me"

      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know what people want, but I would like to see something where batman at least halfway lives up to his title of world's greatest detective...

    6. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean that movie where Spurlock had to fudge the numbers because the results of the experiment didn't fit the narrative they were trying to portray?

    7. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pointed the camera at Gal Gadot's arse"

      fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap

    8. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A lot of these movies are bad, and they are bad because they boil down to being fights between CGI good guys and CGI bad guys, none of whom you care about and which is nothing you haven't seen before."

      Nailed it. And with CGI, there's nothing to be impressed about aside from realism. An athletic move or giant explosion is meaningless in CGI.

    9. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is neither inexpensive

      in terms of calories per hour of labor to procure it; its some of the cheapest food in history. Yes you might be able to get food slightly cheaper than fast food at the grocery, but remember now you need to invest additional time / labor in preparing it for consumption; if you value this time at your usual day rate, fast food often wins.

      nor safe

      Again on comparative basis you probably less likely to contract a food born illness purchasing something at a fast food restaurant; than almost anything else you could do. Now maybe long term a steady diet of items source only from fast food menus might have negative health impacts. There is not however much evidence to suggest this is problem unique to fast food. You could again eat a very high carb/sugar, high fat diet sourced elsewhere and would likely have most of the same health issues over time. Finally again in "historical context" a steady diet of what you can order at your typical fast food joint is probably more nutrious than what most of the western worlds population lived on as recently as a couple centuries ago.

      And for "sustaining", watch "supersize me"

      There were lots of problems with that documentry. Others have done similar experiments and got very different results.

      I am not saying fast food is the best option, if you have time and resources to do other things. Its worth keeping in mind though that a couple dollars buys a lot of calories that are sterile, pleasant to consume, and available in abundance. There are a lot of people for whom its frequently their best option and again in historical context its pretty darn good one!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are there to make money, not to tell a story.

      Yea and they've probably done the ROI calculation and nailed the max profit at min cost. But these movies bored me years ago and I've stopped going. Disney makes some fantastic and thoughtful products, but the MCU has just become too profit driven.

    11. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by lgw · · Score: 2

      I see someone has never involuntarily gone a day without food.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair Nolan's story attempted to portray a person without any super powers in the most realistic way possible, and even Snyder confirmed this: "What's your super power again? I'm Rich!"

      In much of the MCU the powers the heroes posses just don't lend themselves for going light on the CGI. It's easy to create a practical effect of a rich man's car. Much harder so to depict the lightning charged god of thunder.

    13. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Ami! You got another +5.

      Looks like Slashdot is not that bad to you after all when you're not so busy SJ-ing up that W, ain't it.

      Welcome home, bro.

    14. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      No houghi, fast food is bad. It's unhealthy pure and simple.

      You know you're a privilidged 21st century 1st world twat when you can look at a plate of insanely inexpensive, safe, tasty, and sustaining food ... and declare that it's horribly "unhealthy" garbage.

      Safe is an amusing word choice for fast food. It's only safe in the short-term. Ronald McDonald has probably killed more people than all other clowns in history combined.

      Also "inexpensive" is misleading. You can probably buy a burger for 99cents, but there is a lot of hidden cost there. For one, you're missing out the mind-boggling subsidies we pay each year to farmers to grow (specifically) maize to feed those animals. Fast food is heavily subsidized (indirectly) in the US. The cost you pay for that burger in the drive through window is just a part of the overall money that has come out of your pocket to produce that burger. It also ignores how much more it costs us in health care because of the obesity epidemic in America.

      For each $1 you pay eating a low-quality McDonald's burger it's probably costing you another $2 in hidden costs elsewhere.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      he replaced her with a CGI model or pointed the camera at Gal Gadot's arse and it sucked.

      Isn't that the main reason the movie sold so well?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you inexpensive, but tasty? Come on - this is fucking cardboard. Once you start eating actual food, you realise how different this factory-farmed mass-produced crap actually tastes.
      I can't remember the last time I ate McDonald's and the like, which is maybe the modern equivalent of "I don't own a TV", but honestly, that type of fast food is just awful awful crap.

    17. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by bickerdyke · · Score: 0

      Neither a lack of calories nor availability of sterile* food are a problem in the US or in any area where fast food is readily available.

      I'm not saying I don't do fastfood. But that post that was trying to make it look healthy was just ridicioulous! There is nothing wrong as long as you see it as the occasional beer. But having a look at obese USA is probably a sign that too many people including c6gunner actually believe that fast food is beneficial. Another step towards Idiocrazy. Brawndo. Plants crave electrolytes!

      *Ignoring that completly sterile isn't the best option either - everyone is running to the probiotic stuff

      --
      bickerdyke
    18. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Probably not. But I can't imagine a scenario where you would have to and the only alternative would be McDonalds.

      --
      bickerdyke
    19. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      In much of the MCU the powers the heroes posses just don't lend themselves for going light on the CGI.

      But compare the MCU to the DCCU and actually the MCU is pretty light on CGI. In Justice League there were whole sections that were 90% CG characters on CG sets lasting for several minutes. The actors were only needed to mocap their movements and facial expressions to use as a starting point for the CG animators. The CG is really obvious too.

      While the MCU has its issues (especially colour grading), it does at least use a lot of actual humans doing actual stuff on camera, and the CG it seamless and barely noticable most of the time. That's because the movies are about the characters. Many of the best moments are Tony acting superior or Black Widow talking someone into revealing their secrets.

      A movie like Guardians of the Galaxy has multiple CGI characters and sets, but the memorable moments are real.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The point is, cheap high-calorie, high-protein food is a good thing to have available. Getting to a place, as the world gradually is, where being overweight is more of a health concern than starvation is a good thing.

      I get it: you're proud of your snobbery about fast food, and you're virtue-signalling as hard as you can. But the things you hold against it are virtues in other circumstances.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      "Supersize Me"? You mean the movie made by a man with an agenda he readily admits to and attains by eating in a manner that would do the exact same thing to you if done at a high end restaurant? *That* is your reference point?

    22. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Black Panther is so heavily CGI'd that if you have any athletic experience at all, nothing looks right. Not even the physics of jumping from car to car.

    23. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The same goes for these movies. You expect a certain standard and that is what you will get.
      And that is why I don't go to the cinema anymore.

      Blade Runner 2040 was obviously so bad the pulled it from the cinemas in Germany before I was able to watch it.

      They are there to make money, not to tell a story.
      I go to the cinema that they tell me a great story and I can watch it on superior equipment than my laptop.

      Disclaimer: I have no family with young and middle aged kids to entertain on a saturday afternoon/evening plus 1h drive to the theatre and 1h drive back and a possible additional late night dinner to plan for.
      I simply want to watch damn movie in a theatre that is made for a theater and for an intellectual developed adult visitor.

      Remakes of MARVEL comics are not such movies ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And how many places on the world in the 21st century you have no such food?
      Are you still stuck in the late '50s of the 20th century ?

      Even in the most remote war ridden Venezuela or Somalia town you have a Mac Donald's! Get a damn clue!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Fast food, like at Mac Donald's or KFC is not cheap.
      Considering the dirt they use to make that food it is absurdly expensive, how do you think the companies make that absurd amount of profit from it?

      https://www.prnewswire.com/new...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      "Supersize Me" is a movie about a guy who tests to eat for a while only in fast food restaurants, with a free gallon of coke to every meal and idiocies like that.
      Botom line it does not look nice for the IQ of americans ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Again on comparative basis you probably less likely to contract a food born illness purchasing something at a fast food restaurant; than almost anything else you could do.

      Now look, this is nonsense. The primary causes of food-borne illness are cross-contamination and arse-contamination, which both boil down to inadequate hand-washing. And the more you spend on your food, the more likely it is that the people who work there understand about washing their hands. Further, when you go really really far down the line, you wind up with employees literally putting their bodily fluids into the powdered bean mix at Taco Bell, and the like. Too many people I've known personally have told me they've done that kind of thing for me to fail to take it seriously. Some of these "restaurants" will hire pretty much anyone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interestingly Bruce Wayne's car in Justice League actually required a collaboration with Mercedes since it was unique and built specifically for the movie.
      It did talk alot of effort to bring it to screen. Just that most the effort was in pre-production instead of post-production.

      https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/12/02/car-justice-league-mercedes-benz/

    29. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I recently watched Justice League. The CGI was pretty awful anytime Aquaman was involved.

    30. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      This might come as a shock to privilidged twats like you and the other one I responded to, but in many parts of the world eating at McDonald is something people do on rare, special occasions, because they cannot afford it on a regular basis. Trevor Noah, in his book, devotes several pages to talking about how, as a teenager in South Africa, he felt so successful and proud when he could finally afford to show off by eating at McDonalds. I myself, having spent my formative years in a less-than-successful nation, remember McDonalds as being an incredible treat; my parents could afford to take me once or twice a year, and it made my friends incredibly jealous.

      tl;dr: get some perspective. You have no clue how lucky you are.

    31. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It might be come more to a shock to idiots like you:
      but in many parts of the world eating at McDonald is something people do on rare, special occasions, because they cannot afford it on a regular basis.
      Except Somalia and a few countries that escape my mind, such countries don't exist anymore since 30 ++ years.

      I myself, having spent my formative years in a less-than-successful nation, remember McDonalds as being an incredible treat; my parents could afford to take me once or twice a year, and it made my friends incredibly jealous.
      Wow, then you and your friends have a real mental problem: eating at McDoanld's is something to be proud about?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      everyone is running to the probiotic stuff

      Everyone is retarded. Probiotics are just one of the newest fads, like taking lots of vitamins so you'll have expensive pee, or insisting on eating "organic" and "gluten free" because you're afraid of frankenfood and Teh Glutens.

      No, you don't need probiotics, and no, they won't help you in any measurable way unless you've recently been taking antibiotics or have had a disease which affected your gut microbiome. They're also not free of negative side effects.

      Like most health/diet fads probiotics on the general market are basically a way to make the aforementioned privilidged twat feel special in order to get them to open their wallets. Which I'm actually pretty OK with; I find it incredibly annoying to listen to stuck up cunts talk about how their choices are better than everyone elses, but I also find it quite satisfying to realize that some corporation somewhere is making billions thanks largely to those same gullible stuck up cunts.

      On the other hand, those corporations are also making billions off the backs of average Joes (and Jills) who, while trying to do the best thing for their family, get fooled or guilted into buying unnecessary overpriced crap. Would be nice if they would just stick to fleecing self righteous idiots with more money than sense.

    33. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      let them eat cake

      FTFY

    34. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CGI was awful anytime there was anything CGI. It looked incomplete or made for a low budget video game.

    35. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by thecombatwombat · · Score: 1

      These movies are not "fast food." That doesn't make it fine dining either, but the economics involved are way more complicated than that analogy allows.

      Fast food is all about stream lining and getting cheaper over time and scale. These movies keep getting bigger and more expensive. If their aim were simply a short term investment to maximize profits on a single project, why bother? And why bother taking a risk like Black Panther?

      They are not following an 80/20 rule. They are playing an elaborate game to build a 20+ year continuity of movies with merchandising, theme parks, crossovers, and book/TV tie-ins. And they have to, because all of their risk is put up in one big project. I believe Black Panther cost ~$300 million.

      Reality TV is a better comparison to fast food. Big budget movies don't really compare.

    36. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lord of Thunder! Watch out for his fingers. They make sparks.

    37. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by dwpro · · Score: 1

      A candy-bar would meet that same carefully crafted definition. It's still unhealthy, and your taking offense that it's somehow a 'privileged' viewpoint is insane.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    38. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Compare Nolan's Batman to Snyder's movies. Nolan was actually very conservative with the CGI and focused on the characters instead

      The CGI in Nolan's Batman was annoyingly shit. But I'm a minority, I don't like Nolan's films. Snyder's done three different films I'd rather watch than any of Nolan's.

      Yeah, they're CGI heavy. That doesn't make them bad.

    39. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      It is neither inexpensive nor safe.

      Citation needed.

      And you're mixing up "tasty" with "engineered to be addictive"

      ie tasty.

      And for "sustaining", watch "supersize me"

      The problem with that approach is right there in the name. If you for some reason decide to live off fast food, don't supersize anything. In fact you're better off staying away from the sugar drinks and fries altogether.

      But you already knew that, didn't you?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    40. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      When I was single-digit age my parents told me the same thing "It's too expensive". Turned out that they knew it's unhealthy, but they didn't know how to explain it to a small kid, while managing money was something I picked up very quickly, so they simply used an argument they knew I'd buy.

      And yes, when I was that age going to McD was something to brag about around my peers. Because we saw people on American movies eating there, and at that time there was nothing more awesome to us than "America". It was a paradise beyond the sea, Tolkien's Undying Lands so to speak. So to eat at American restaurant then was something akin to audience by the queen of England. Yes, most of us grew out of it somewhere at the beginning of two-digit-age era.

      Except of course Happy Meal. We needed much more time for that one.

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
    41. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh yes I fully agree. I was just pointing out that Nolan's praise for practical affects in the Dark Knight series deserves some context. It would be quite challenging for him to do the same thing in Thor or the Guardians series.

      Then there's also style. I find the MCU is trending towards the hyper stylized. Thor Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, they are what you get when a unicorn throws up on a film edit during the colourising process. By comparison the DCU seems to be heading in the opposite direction with dark or single colourscheme graphics. It *should* be easier to cut the CGI on DCU as we see it now. Nolan did it, Snyder ruined it.

      Justice League, especially towards the end was utter garbage. I don't think any characters were real.

    42. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      But also, it is unhealthy. Unless you're ordering the grilled chicken salad, you're not eating healthy. Bread isn't healthy, it's just not the worst offender and red meat with cheese aren't the worst offenders either.

      Add in 90% of fast food includes fries and chips yes it's unhealthy. Very unhealthy. It's disingenuous to pretend that fast food and restaurants with what we eat isn't a huge problem for most people. We've all set the bar too low on what's healthy and I can accept that but don't pretend fast food is healthy.

    43. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't know what people want, but I would like to see something where batman at least halfway lives up to his title of world's greatest detective...

      That was the number one problem with Batman vs. Superman. Yeah, the movie was trash on multiple levels, but a recurring question that almost everyone who watched it was asking throughout was "why is Batman so dumb?"

    44. Re:Why has the bar set to be high? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The whole Korean chase sequence had a lot of noticeably bad effects. I kept thinking "well, it is a February movie, and not quite as much of a tentpole as the Avengers. They probably had a lower budget and are saving the good shots for later..." And they were, the effects got much better as the movie went on. Until the final battle, which was crap. But there was a lot of good stuff in between.

      Any shot that had Black Panther leaping through the air -- extremely poor CG, like almost any film that uses CG for such things.

    45. Re: Why has the bar set to be high? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Safe? Well you're unlikely to get E.Coli or water-borne diseases, but I would hardly call it safe. The American reliance on such food is a leading cause for our falling life expectancy compared to much of Europe.

  5. Why bother with humans at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's getting to the point where they won't really need humans. Be cheaper to do it all CGI.

    They're pretty much cartoons as it is, why not go the whole hog?

    1. Re:Why bother with humans at all? by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      Mod up insightful. This is precisely why you'll see more CGI "extras"... you don't have to pay them, just render them. If you're rendering the scene, what's a few generic models?

      It'd be fun to see if anyone can break down the actual cost to drop in a model versus a human.

      --#

    2. Re:Why bother with humans at all? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Mod up insightful. This is precisely why you'll see more CGI "extras"... you don't have to pay them, just render them. If you're rendering the scene, what's a few generic models?

      It'd be fun to see if anyone can break down the actual cost to drop in a model versus a human.

      --#

      Well, someone has to model realistic movements, otherwise the CGI will look way-off. A guy in one of those ping-pong-ball suits, I mean. Motion must be captured.

      A lone actor or a pair? Workable. A crowd? No. They are all reacting to each other around them, which changes their movements. So, unless for far-off shots like in Titanic, using real humans for a small crowd is still cheaper. Extras are often unpaid, too. . .

    3. Re:Why bother with humans at all? by zlives · · Score: 1

      there is some good anime out there to support this position.

    4. Re:Why bother with humans at all? by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. LOTR had large battle scenes, all CGI. Once you get a basic pattern down, re-use is eminently possible and over time, it only gets better, never worse.

      --#

    5. Re:Why bother with humans at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. LOTR had large battle scenes, all CGI.

      Hmmm, you mean stuff like this ?

      WETA has done some excellent work, but this just...isn't.

    6. Re:Why bother with humans at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is even worse.

      The physics are just flat-out stupid, unless Legolas is using some kind of magic (which isn't stated or even implied). You simply cannot push yourself upward from a falling object, and audiences intuitively know this.

      Actually it didn't really bother me when I saw it in the cinema, but I laughed out loud!

  6. news for NERDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not consumers.

    I skimmed it 10 times before I realized the story wasn't about running a webserver on a microcontroller.

    get off my lawn.

    1. Re:news for NERDS by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Comics - nerdish
      Computer graphics - nerdish
      Film technology - nerdish

      CGI - three letters that can mean different things even to the same people
      MCU - three letters that can mean different things even to the same people

      But hey, it's news for nerds, not arseholes. Maybe that's why this didn't appeal to you.

  7. Bash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I write my CGIs in C, you insensitive clod! (or failing that, in sed).

    1. Re:Bash? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Ill meet you guys in the middle. I wrote mine in csh
      (being the default shell on Solaris at the time)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. You dislike CGI because you only notice it when it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This says it well:
    https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24

    TL;DW: There is a shitload if CGI in movies today, and 90% of the time you never knew or could even imagine that it was CGI.
    The problem is, that you only start noticing it, when it is bad.
    And that is why CGI becomes associated with bad SFX.

  9. The real problem with the Black Panther by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is the premise. A super-advanced sub-Sahara African country that is at least a full century ahead of Europe, East Asia, the Americas and Israel... when in real life to my knowledge that region never even got to the level of the Roman Empire on its own before European colonialism?

    Sorry, but as cool as some of it looks, it practically screams "we wuz kangz!!!11!" at the audience.

    1. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Quakeulf · · Score: 1
    2. Re: The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because everything else in MCU is based solidly in reality right?

      The reality if you are a racist and hate the idea of successful Africans even just as fantasy.

    3. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait...

      So you're saying that in the movie set in a reality whereby a woman possesses Psionic Energy Manipulation; a boy gets bitten by a spider and can climb walls; a man can pick up and throw a car when he gets angry; and both magic and time travel exist - the *real* problem is that an African country is ahead of the rest of the world?

      Not happy with reverse cuttural appropriation?

    4. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahead of Europe? Politically they are stuck in ~3,000BC in every way other than the lack of slave markets!

    5. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Stormwatch · · Score: 0

      They had a welfare meteor.

    6. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember this is fantasy, except when they brought in the real killer "Black Panther" movement/ element in the hood.

    7. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah it's just a stupid story - virtual signaling for weak minded people with guilt complexes.

    8. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] when in real life to my knowledge that region never even got to the level of the Roman Empire on its own before European colonialism?

      Some of them did have a decent shot at it, actually. It didn't last, but they did try. Notice how neither Greeks nor Romans lasted either, but they left a whole bunch of fanbois in their wake that tried to make just like they did. So it's just that Europe got a little obsessed with the Roman Empire afterward, to the point that we ended up believing there was nothing else. And no longer really believing there could be anything else.

      That said, I'm not actually trying to defend Marvel or DC or any US comic book franchise's "universe". I don't read any of that and so it doesn't do much for me to go watch the franchise movies. Being European, it's all 'merkin to me.

    9. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Cederic · · Score: 1

      to the point that we ended up believing there was nothing else. And no longer really believing there could be anything else

      So you're telling me that my school lied when it taught me about Sumatra?
      The Egyptians didn't have millenia of civilisation before Rome was even built?
      I shouldn't associate the word Ottoman with 'Empire'?

      I mean, sure, I didn't learn about the Songhai Empire at school, but I didn't learn about the Aztecs, the Mayans or the Han Dynasty either. Turns out there was a fair bit going on closer to home through most of recorded history, took a while to cover that.

    10. Re:The real problem with the Black Panther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the premise. A super-advanced sub-Sahara African country that is at least a full century ahead of Europe, East Asia, the Americas and Israel... when in real life to my knowledge that region never even got to the level of the Roman Empire on its own before European colonialism?

      Actually, if you knew the MCU, their tech seems about on par with SHEILD tech. Their flying craft are pretty much the same and have the similar cloaking and thrusters, even in color. Probably for a a similar population but more concentrated. What they are is very resource rich with vibranium, which if it was going to be given an upgraded explanation would probably end up being some form of nanite computronium that affects those around it to be generally super. I think you're just insecure.

      Sorry, but as cool as some of it looks, it practically screams "we wuz kangz!!!11!" at the audience.

      Now you know what it's been like to sit around and watch pretty much every other US movie disregard anything done by any other race or culture for white Americans.

  10. Those are many words to say "It's shit". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Those movies spawned out of a renewed interest in propaganda based on what was origially literally the US equivalent of the Nazi Übersoldat (supersoldier) propaganda.
    They are basically the US version of Kim Yong Un making movies about his many great feats for all to praise and love.
    Of course they are shit.

    The question is, why anybody gives a fuck? No life? Caught in the propaganda?

  11. CGI least of the problems by orlanz · · Score: 2

    I think in almost all the group superhero movies, the story telling is kind of shit. And that's what movies, & comics should really be about... the story _telling_. The story has been here for decades, yet repeatedly they can't seem to properly tell it. Every time they just overpower the single bad guy, under power the heroes, and have a gang bang (really Aquaman couldn't hold a candle against Stephenwolf... underwater?!? I think Alfred & Gordon were more useful than Flash, Cyborg, & Aquaman combined.)

    Maybe the formula shouldn't be "some guy's vision of the hero".... because outside of Wonder Women's movie, and Iron Man 1; they been shit. Maybe the directors should pick some older comic nerds and incorporate their opinions into the scripts. Also, why are the theater versions of these movies less than the Blueray? Isn't that a spiral of encouring less people to go to theaters and thus poorer theater versions?

    Side Rant: Dear Apple, in what stupid universe does "...in almost..." autocorrect to "...I'm almost..."? Autocorrects the first word multiple times after the second as if Siri is absolutely sure I am wrong and doesn't want to offend me by correcting!! Seriously, are you guys that lost without Jobs QAing this garbage?

    1. Re:CGI least of the problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Side Rant: Dear Apple, in what stupid universe does "...in almost..." autocorrect to "...I'm almost..."? Autocorrects the first word multiple times after the second as if Siri is absolutely sure I am wrong and doesn't want to offend me by correcting!! Seriously, are you guys that lost without Jobs QAing this garbage?

      Just switch it off. I did when it started silently messing up whole sentences post-typing: not just guessing the spelling mistakes, actually trying to guess what I "really" meant and silently changing to that. Sure the occasional mistake gets through, but I'd rather risk embarassment via mis-spelled words than embarassment via something I didn't even type!

  12. Life isn't light. Ignorance is the bliss of the yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With experience, you start being able to tell that everything is retarded shit.

    The US is special here, because you guys have a culture of peer-pressured nearly mandatory positivism.
    (Here in Germany, and in most Slav countries, it's more the opposite. So it's especially apparent to us. Ours is just as bad, of course.)

    I think in most of the world, it is just accepted, that it's shit. I'm sure it is why we and the Slavs drink so much.
    While you Americans pop "happy pills" like candy to hold up a fake smile far past when you are aware of how shit it is.

    So no, you are not a stupid grumpy old fart. You just aren't ignorant enoughh anymore, to run through life like a clueless moron (as we all did when we were young).

    Move to another country and you won't be scolded for it anymore.

  13. The value of CGI shooting. by geekmux · · Score: 0

    "...where you see Nakia shooting two guys...Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?"

    Perhaps this is why you CGI shooting...

    "Brandon Lee (son of Bruce Lee) died on March 31st, 1993 at the age of 28 after an accidental shooting on set of The Crow...In the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 feet), the dummy cartridges were exchanged with blank rounds, which feature a live powder charge and primer, but no bullet, thus allowing the gun to be fired without the risk of an actual projectile. But since the bullet from the dummy round was already trapped in the barrel, this caused the .44 Magnum bullet to be fired out of the barrel with virtually the same force as if the gun had been loaded with a live round, and it struck Lee in the abdomen, mortally wounding him."

    1. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.

      How ironic that the whole very safe statistic was likely exactly the reason they chose to use real guns on the set of The Crow.

      I agree, it's obviously rare, but when it goes wrong, someone's life can end. When someone's life is on the line, it tends to dictate at least some risk analysis. If CGI shooting does not detract from a movie, then perhaps it does hold value.

    3. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      by this logic we should use CGI because transporting actors to the set (often by gasp car) could result in their lives being ended if something went wrong.

      The risk is very low, because the probability is remote, even if the cost is high. When the probability is so near zero there is little investment that is reasonable to control for it.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Then give them completely fake guns that and add the firing effects in CGI rather than giving the actor a real gun and adding the person being shot in CGI...

      Maybe put a speaker in those fake guns so that pulling the trigger makes a bang sound if you want the actors to blink at the right time. Make them clearly not guns but brightly colored with tracking markers all over them so they can be CGIed really easily to look like real guns. All of that seems better than replacing a person with CGI since people see things that are "off" about a person far more easily that most things.

      Or spend even more money making the CGI actually look right if you don't want to have stunt people falling over pretending to be shot in case they get hurt (which they do tend to do after all).

    5. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.

      Some actor in a "male-model-saves-people-in-spare-time"-type of series, in the late 1980's or early 1990's, was goofing around on set with one. He held it to his temple and fired -- not thinking about the wadding in the barrel (or simply the air pressure wave of a shot) -- and killed himself right there on set, totally by (stupid) accident.

      John Eric Hexam? Last name was Hexam or Hexham for sure.

    6. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It was the fault of the director. Even with blanks you shoot *to the side* of the actor, not *at*. If you need at, you layer two shots.

    7. Re:The value of CGI shooting. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      The very safe statistic is why you get out of bed every morning. Some one out there has died doing just about anything you will doing over the course of any day you live.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  14. Re:One Word: TRUMPVERSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the few cases where orange and teal color grading would work.

  15. Re:Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A comment to the folks who run Slashdot: Does anybody need or want these off-topic comments? No. It would make a lot of sense to IP-ban these ACs. A few weeks should suffice and if they continue afterwards from the same IP they should be shadow-banned.

  16. From the moment I started reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the moment I started reading I knew this was going to go negative about Black Panther.

    Slashdot, you really have gone weird.

  17. If you are fixating on CGI gunfire... by yoder · · Score: 1

    You're not actually watching the movie.

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
  18. That's Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?

    That camera movement right after might give you the answer. There is probably not much non-CGI in that particular shot. Also, they know their audience who also likely play interactive electronic games.

  19. The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by sandbagger · · Score: 5, Funny

    In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.

    It really, really takes me out of the moment.

    Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These movies are cartoons to a certain extent. As we progress, they are more cartoonish in any aspect.

    2. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.

      It really, really takes me out of the moment.

      Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.

      Hmm... so an extensive knowledge of archaeology and history isn't the only thing that can ruin movies for you, a physics degree will do it too?

    3. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.

      It really, really takes me out of the moment.

      Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.

      I was more annoyed when the animations in Avengers 2 moves through Escher space. It shows not only is there a lot of CGI it is apparently so lazy it is done in 2D and without making sure it matches what it is pasted on top of.

    4. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by hey! · · Score: 1

      That was my problem with Pacific Rim. I kept thinking, "those streets aren't engineered to take that kind of ground pressure."

      As for the second shot in the clip linked above, I didn't notice it On closer viewing, yeah, it looks fake, but not really any faker than what Hollywood has been doing for decades with squibs, not to mention its very unrealistic but dramatically satisfying explosions. And it's not just Hollywood.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.

      It really, really takes me out of the moment.

      Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.

      Totally! When The Hulk came out many years ago, I was turned-off by Hulk not leaning back when swinging a damned tank around by its main gun-turret.

      I suspend disbelief to allow for superheroes in my movie. Now I want those superheroes' foes to follow simple Newtonian laws of momentum and motion when tossed around. If THAT PART doesn't look real, then the CGI money has been wasted.

      Hell, even non-CGI can ruin it. In Mission Impossible (#1 w/T. Cruise), he jumps a motorcycle in a chase scene. OK -- I am suspending disbelief in that a human can make such unplanned maneuvers successfully. That's it. Then Tom's motorcycle follows a LINEAR PATH through the air, it being on a wire, which completely destroyed any action-excitement of the scene because it didn't 'look real'.

    6. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Basically every common sense ruins a movie in our days ...
      Even porn ..

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      A simple firsthand knowledge of athletic endeavors will do. Everyone I know understands that you can't stop a car coming at you at 5mph, much less 80+. It is *you* who will move regardless of how strong and invulnerable you are or what shoes you're wearing.

    8. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      My favorite is Thor. He can Throw his hammer, and by holding onto it he can "throw" himself. That's kinda like kicking your own ass in an attempt to fly.

    9. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It's even worse when you consider the fighting that takes place in sandy coastal waters. The Jaegers should have sunk into the sand pretty much instantly.

      But really, the giant robots made very little sense at all. It doesn't make it a bad movie. In fact it was an awesome movie.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hulk is a repeat offender. The one that got me originally (and the error has been repeated multiple times now) is this. Hulk will jump, like some demented kangaroo/deer/Jack-In-The-Box. Often from a standing start!

      Hulk is strong and massively muscled. Like an elephant, he is enormously powerful, but that comes at a price of agility and speed. Except not in bizarre movie world! In bizarre movie world Hulk can jump like a ballerina, like a cat, like a grasshopper. And not just like those creatures, but like supernatural versions of those creatures!

      It takes me out of the moment. I think, "wait, that can't be right. That can't happen." And my suspension of disbelief shatters and I can't quite get back in the movie anymore. I try but it's an effort from that point on.

    11. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But really, the giant robots made very little sense at all. It doesn't make it a bad movie. In fact it was an awesome movie.

      And why didn't the robot use it's giant awesomesword right at the start?

      But who cares? It's a giant robot! With a techno sword! I loved that movie.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      And why didn't the robot use it's giant awesomesword right at the start?

      It's the Voltron Rule, man! You never bust out an awesomesword until it's almost too late.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    13. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      When Mr Incredible stopped a train, he was dragged along with the train for a while. Most of the fixtures that supported Mr Incredible while he was stopping the train, kept breaking.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    14. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but think of Trinity doing her mid-air kick and sending the police officer flying to the wall (yes, I know it's inside the Matrix where the rules can be bent; but they do this kind of thing all the time in "real world" action movies).

      Also, it bugs me in ST2 when Khan lifts Chekov straight up into the air with his extended arm. I don't care how strong you are, you have to shift the center of gravity of both bodies over your feet to keep from tipping over. It might work if Khan weighed 600 lbs. though.

    15. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And why didn't the robot use it's giant awesomesword right at the start?

      It's the Voltron Rule, man! You never bust out an awesomesword until it's almost too late.

      The Voltron (and Power Rangers which it inspired) ruleset for every episode:
      1) Monster comes round.
      2) Get individual robots to fight it and get knocked around.
      3) Hey, why don't we form Voltron??
      4) Awesomesword = win.

    16. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > those streets aren't engineered to take that kind of ground pressure

      What do you mean? The Jaegers aren't that heavy. They get brought in by helicopters ... :/

    17. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The in-universe explanation is that every Kaiju death site becomes an instant superfund cleanup site. Crushing weapons and self-cauterizing weapons (like that painfully slow plasma cannon) were greatly preferred to reduce the environmental impact of Kaiju blood getting everywhere. The movie just happened to take place right as the Kaiju were re-designed to be able to absorb tremendous amounts of crushing damage. Of course some countries (like China) didn't seem to care as much about the environmental impact and went for Buzzsaws early. The implication is that for the most part earlier Kaiju were done in pretty easily with punches, so there wasn't a need to upgrade to the sword.

      This is also why they went for giant robots. Putting a punching weapon on a tank is kind of awkward and near impossible to use on fast movie Kaiju. Tanks can kill them, but they make such a horrendous toxic mess that a better solution was needed.

      Of course if you put real thought into it there are probably lots of better solutions. Giant steel net launchers and lots of fire perhaps. But probably not any that look as cool.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    18. Re:The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Everyone I know understands that you can't stop a car coming at you at 5mph, much less 80+

      It would be nice if you were right with "Everyone", but I'm not even sure you'd be right with "A majority of people"

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. There is no problem at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tickets are being sold and in time media will sell too. Those movies work as intended. No problem exists. Try to grow up and realize those are products intended for children and for adults who either have to take their kids to the movies or - more disturbing - actually enjoy them. Any adult who enjoys comic books, comic book movies, cartoons or anime is either socially impaired or mentally underdeveloped and should seek professional help.

    1. Re:There is no problem at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tickets are being sold and in time media will sell too. Those movies work as intended. No problem exists. Try to grow up and realize those are products intended for children and for adults who either have to take their kids to the movies or - more disturbing - actually enjoy them. Any adult who enjoys comic books, comic book movies, cartoons or anime is either socially impaired or mentally underdeveloped and should seek professional help.

      Well there is a problem, it's the butt hurt white boys who are pissed about a good movie with a mostly black cast. And are now they're looking for excuses to bring down the franchise.

  21. More CGI != Better movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the best movies I've ever seen either don't have much CGI yet still managed to create awesome effects, or are at least ground breaking in some way. The scenes in Terminator 2, Running Man and Total Recall for example.. Like magic,I don't want to know how it was done because it completely destroys any future immersion. It's kind of insulting when movies like this are compared to movies that AREN'T.

    Entertainment is not about who has the biggest budgets any more then silicone creates beauty.

  22. The real problem with Afrofuturism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrofuturism

    Or as I like to say, it's the black people's turn.

  23. That Moment at the 45-Second Mark by ytene · · Score: 2

    I did as Corey Hutchinson suggested and watched that moment in the clip, carefully, maybe a dozen or more times.

    I'm most assuredly not a CGI specialist, or even anything to do with film or television. However, I would hazard a guess: the crew shot that clip as part of the entire end-to-end series of shots needed to complete that portion of the story. Then, when they got the prints back and were looking at it in editing, they realised that something which happened on the balcony [i.e. the second guy getting shot] simply didn't work as they wanted it to.

    For reasons we don't understand, they then set up a green-screen shot and had an actor repeat the moves as if being shot directly, then composited it in to the main take. Unlike Corey, I don't think that what we see is a CGI moment, I think it's a human actor painted back in during editing.

    Does this quality as CGI or the over-use of CGI? I'm going to argue the negative and offer two reasons:-

    1. I don't think this is CGI per se. I think this is two sequences shot separately and then brought together via compositing.

    2. We have no way of knowing what the original shot looked like. But I'll give Marvel's editing team the benefit of the doubt and take on faith that this was the "least worst option". Marvel aren't in the habit of deliberately screwing up one of there movies when they have a better way on hand. [ Speaking of which, that would likely have been a complete re-shoot of that scene. We simply have no way of knowing if that was even possible... ]

    1. Re:That Moment at the 45-Second Mark by pz · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing, although with not quite as much determination, watching it only three or four times. My reaction: THAT? THAT is what you're going to complain about in terms of CGI? One small fleeting half-second of one person being shot so fast and so visibly small that you can't properly tell if it is or isn't CGI?

      There are so many other far more massive issues, and such a tiny one is a problem to the OP?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:That Moment at the 45-Second Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What struck me at the 45 second mark was the shitty physics / rendering / composition of the exploding light, more so than the CG actor who apparently got shot in the leg, after the bullet struck the light. I mean, it looks pretty freaking shoddy in comparison to everything else going on there. My guess is that they had filmed the actor shooting twice, but only had planned for once. They needed to make the second shot have some kind of purpose.

    3. Re:That Moment at the 45-Second Mark by ytene · · Score: 1

      Well. Yes.

      I guess that when something gets under your skin, it's going to chafe no matter what you do. Maybe that moment stood out in Corey's recollection and now he simply can't see past it.

      On the one hand: Meh. On the other hand, when the film in question is an MCU Production, which means that their budget is bonkers and their QA checking should be flawless, it's very [very] rare for this sort of thing to creep in, so perhaps it just seems a bit more egregious when we see it.

      I mean, if you look back at the gaffs in, say the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, with Legolas shooting not-arrows, with Gimli riding behind then in front then behind of Legolas [when they set out with Aragorn to muster the undead to the battle of Pelennor Fields]... I could go on, but the point is that even the most carefully crafted movie is going to have bloopers that make it in to production.

      In the case of this specific example, however, it really looked to me to be more like in-fill than CGI. I reckon this was touch-up work. But: it's not going to spoil my enjoyment of the movie...

    4. Re:That Moment at the 45-Second Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is shot as green screen now. There are Youtube videos which show how much is green screen. Pretty much everything from the backgrounds to the road they walk on. Even the animals they pet are some guy in a green suit.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lLAc03DaeI

      Don't like the sky - change it. Don't like the urban skyscape - change it. Ocean not the right color - change it.

  24. Diversity? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the Asians? The Native Americans? The Middle Easterns? The Hispanics? Considering the cast is 97% Black, this is hardly the bastion of diversity you think it is. Unless the definition of diversity has come to mean "more Blacks, only!", don't talk to me about "diversity" in Black Panther.

    1. Re:Diversity? Hardly. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Where are the Asians? The Native Americans? The Middle Easterns? The Hispanics? Considering the cast is 97% Black, this is hardly the bastion of diversity you think it is. Unless the definition of diversity has come to mean "more Blacks, only!", don't talk to me about "diversity" in Black Panther.

      It diversifies Marvel's content by finally having a black lead in one of their films. Overall, they're still pretty white-washed, but this diversifies their portfolio some.

      What amuses me is BBC content (well British content in general). Their idea of diversity seems to be based upon US racial makeup. The BBC has no problem including black actors, in fact, I think black actors probably make up a higher percentage of actors on TV shows in Britain than they do the British population as a whole. However, Asians (specifically South Asians) make up a lot larger percentage of Britains demographic (twice as many people from Indian peninsula in Britain than there are black people) and yet they're hardly represented on British TV at all.

      It's good that British TV is good at promoting black actors- it's amusingly sad how bad they are at recognizing the existence of other races.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Diversity? Hardly. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Yup, UK demographics show blacks as about 3% and Asians at 8%. Yet the TV industry only considers blacks. I put it down to the number of black people living in proximity to the BBC offices, so the liberals working there see so many of them they think the population is 50% black.

      They need to get out to Birmingham. turns out they're more racist than the "fascists" they rail against so much.

    3. Re:Diversity? Hardly. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In secondary roles, if they exist. Wong (Dr. Strange's supporter) is Chinese. The TV series Marvel's Agents of Shield does some better. One of the continuing main characters is Asian, one of the people with special powers is Hispanic, and the big black guy is clearly religious.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Diversity? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's because Asians are less likely to bitch about "oppression" and "the man" than blacks?

    5. Re:Diversity? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TV series Marvel's Agents of Shield does some better. One of the continuing main characters is Asian, one of the people with special powers is Hispanic, and the big black guy is clearly religious.

      Two of the main characters are Asian, Melinda May (Ming-Na Wen) and Daisy Johnson (Chloe Bennet). Chloe Bennet's real name is Chloe Wang, her father is Chinese.

  25. Re: Life isn't light. Ignorance is the bliss of th by fortfive · · Score: 1

    We still have Rick and morty.

  26. Blame Pixar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you see how much CGI they got away with in The Incredibles? Plus it's so unrealistic, like anyone is that strong or can stretch their body that far!!

  27. Re:You dislike CGI because you only notice it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My usual problem with CGI is that it still looks the same as it did in Jurassic Park (1993!)

    I don't know how they still, 25 years later, can't make a cityscape that looks 'real'.

  28. Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm by astralan · · Score: 1

    Seeing that Marvel is first and foremost a graphic novel distributor, I really don't know why they just don't use all that marvelous Pixar tech they bought and push out animated versions. I know Spiderman is slated for the end of the year, and the trailers look ok, but seeing all these movies get storyboarded to begin with, why not just continue with a toon?

    1. Re:Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Seeing that Marvel is first and foremost a graphic novel distributor, I really don't know why they just don't use all that marvelous Pixar tech they bought and push out animated versions. I know Spiderman is slated for the end of the year, and the trailers look ok, but seeing all these movies get storyboarded to begin with, why not just continue with a toon?

      I wonder how the cost of producing top quality animation (Classic DIsney/Pixar at the top of their game/Aaardman/Studio Ghibli and other top-drawer anime studios) compares with live action?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Because in general, the demand is higher for live action movies.

    3. Re:Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Because in general, the demand is higher for live action movies.

      They used to say that about prime-time TV shows and animated series . . . Then came The Simpsons for what, 30 years now? is in the teens of seasons. South Park is thriving in its 20's.

      Hell, how many seasons did the original The Flintstones run for? It was a prime-time TV series first!

    4. Re:Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the demand isn't there for animation or that animated features cannot be phenomenally successful, only that the demand is higher, in *general*, for live action movies than it is for animated films.

    5. Re:Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I know Spiderman is slated for the end of the year, and the trailers look ok, but seeing all these movies get storyboarded to begin with, why not just continue with a toon?

      They put out plenty of cartoon TV shows and even one-off animated movies aimed at more mature audiences. IMHO, it all looks like total crap compared to anything the Japanese are doing. Lame character designs, lazy animation, stiff animation that tries to cut as many corners as possible, bad music, bad voice acting (not that the Japanese are immune to any of this) ... I haven't been able to sit through much of any of it. Same goes for the DC stuff. If they're trying to reach adult audiences with cartoons that look like something we used to watch after school when we were in the 8th grade, they might as well pack it up.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  29. Well.. by ledow · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?"

    I've not seen the clip but:

    No actor to pay, just a CGI company already commissioned to work on the project. No cameraman. Get the shot exactly as you like, and do it years after shooting. No studio required. No casting agent. No wardrobe. No safety equipment or risk. No insurance required for stuntmen. Get the perfect shot and adjust as you go. No working hours. No rights.

    No worker's unions for all those groups of unnecessary people. No royalties to them, either.

    To be honest, I don't like the way movies are all about the CGI either. But they are also STUPENDOUSLY expensive, if you look at their budget figures. In some cases it would be cheaper to actually launch a shuttle and film scenes in space than it would be to make a studio set and film that way. But it's EVEN CHEAPER to just CGI everything in on footage shot on a backlot with a greenscreen. Even main actors (e.g. the "old" Terminator in Terminator:Genisys).

    I think, while we still care about "it looking exciting" over "it being a good movie" we'll have an inexorable slide towards this kind of "virtual" studio.

    Even great movies. The Shawshank Redemption. Two main actors. A disused prison. A library room. A sewer pipe full of chocolate sauce. A couple of outside scenes. No clever CGI or big stunts. Sort of thing you could film on the smallest of budgets. It cost $25m to make, in 1994. And that's chicken feed by modern movie standards.

    This is why the independent studios are popular among people who like movies to have plot, storyline, acting, etc. No big budgets, no eye-candy. Sure, "dull" by comparison but that's like saying that the book of 1984 is dull compared to a movie version. It's almost a different media in that same way.

    My ex- was European and hated anything that came out of the Hollywood... it was all the same dross with different explosions to her. I can see that point. Though I can turn my brain off and watch something mindless, I don't go to the cinema or watch most of the movies that everyone else does precisely because of that. I've got through any number of movies for about ten minutes and then just think "I'm bored".

    Hollywood is bouyed up by CGI, big-name actors, famous franchises, lots of comedy in even the biggest of movies, and loud music which follows the action. It's like a fast-food meal. Maybe satisfying and quick and mindless, but after a while you do get a bit sick of it.

    Video games are no different, though. This is why things like scandi-drama crime thrillers are now much bigger than they ever were... they are just actors acting in front of a camera with a decent plot.

    1. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the independent studios are popular among people who like movies to have plot, storyline, acting, etc.

      In my experience, most independent films tend to follow the same cookie-cutter approaches (person has cancer and everyone is sad, someone is homosexual and faces discrimination, the same coming-of-age story as Hollywood only with slightly less CGI, etc). What we're seeing is a polarization of film, where everything must now either be a $100m+ tentpole franchise or a $1m cookie-cutter indie darling with nothing in the between. Shawshank Redemption simply couldn't have been made today due to not fitting cleanly into the paradigm.

    2. Re:Well.. by nasch · · Score: 1

      Studios don't use CGI because it's cheap. The actors are getting paid anyway, it's not as though they're hourly and you can save money by sending them home. That's a sunk cost. CGI adds to the cost of a movie, it doesn't save money.

      https://misix.com/movie-qualit...

    3. Re:Well.. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You need to watch more indie films. Especially if you're open to including foreign language films as 'indie'.

      They're where the story telling takes risks, and you end up with interesting films.

      Stuff like Starred Up, Nightcrawler, Tyrannosaur, let alone We Need To Talk About Kevin.

      There are some excellent films out there, and some interesting but flawed ones. I really don't see the constraints you're suggesting.

      Shawshank Redemption simply couldn't have been made today due to not fitting cleanly into the paradigm.

      You shitting me? A film depicting the systemic oppression of the black lead character? Surprised there isn't a remake already in post.

  30. We weren't watching 1960s Batman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the whitty pseudo-intellectual banter, the inability of supposedly criminally insane and violent criminals to kill the vigilantes, or the super cool modified lincoln with the totally fake jet turbine farting flames out the back?

    What about the singing and dancing?

    Or was that the Monkees?

  31. GRAVITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest problem I have noticed is gravity. It's not correctly represented. Things and people tend to fall too fast, it isn't 32 ft /second / second like it should be.

  32. It's a simple state of mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marvel Characters, much like the Disney Conglomerate itself believe that the world centers on them and as a result an infinite amount of force directed against them is simply redirected somewhere else, whether it is the ground they are standing on, the air surrounding them, or deflected off into something else nearby.

    Marvel Characters epitomize Disney's corporate structure and public personality :) Also their cult of personality. Just imagine if we have a merger between Scientology and Disney. Indoctrination and financial extraction for all ages! :)

  33. Re:Life isn't light. Ignorance is the bliss of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you Americans pop "happy pills" like candy to hold up a fake smile

    This is really funny to me as an American. I'm not a terribly chipper person, just got my annual performance review, and one of the comments was basically "You aren't happy enough".

    God I need to move to a country that doesn't expect people to always be happy.

  34. Missing the joy in life by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is, but because of how it shat all over World War I history, because of how ignorant it was of any historical martial arts, and because of how plot-hole-riddled it was.

    You are watching a movie with a woman who can fly, fights gods, and has a magic truth telling lasso and THAT is what bothered you? Maybe you need to lighten the hell up and just enjoy the movie for what it is. Or try to up your dose of whatever medication you are on so you stop taking things that aren't important too seriously.

    It's a popcorn super hero movie, not a historically accurate period drama. Try to figure out the difference. You'll enjoy life a lot more when you don't take everything so damn seriously.

    Maybe I am just an old fart, unable to enjoy the lighter things in life?

    Gee, ya think?

    1. Re:Missing the joy in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoyed this comment, A+++++++++++++++++++ would read again

    2. Re:Missing the joy in life by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Suppose you were 15 years old, had never heard about the 6-day war, and you saw a superhero movie set in the backdrop of that war. Whatever happened in that movie, even if you knew it was fiction, would become your first impression about the war and the people. So if the movie made it look Arabs were jerks, then that would begin to form your opinion of them. If the movie made it look like Israelis were jerks, then that would begin to form your opinion of them. So while yes, logically we should discount anything we learn from a piece of fiction, that just isn't how human beings work. The writers should take some caution when using a historical or cultural event as a backdrop.

    3. Re:Missing the joy in life by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The writers should take some caution when using a historical or cultural event as a backdrop.

      Maybe if it was presented as the focus of the story, or it was a serious piece of work. As a comic-book fantasy-piece, it's not really even trying to convey "This is the truth". Let me put it this way, if someone is 15 and such an idiot that they can't see past the layer of hollywood, they're going to be fucked when it comes to actual political propaganda. Which is a hell of a lot more subtle and can be a lot more pervasive. Hell, at 15 you could even consider this a sort of inoculation to bullshit. At some point they're going to hear more about the 6-day war, and they'll learn that, along with the magical flying woman, not everything they had heard was true. Which is a damn important lesson. I guess I'm saying that we need to lie to teenagers, at least a little, to teach them to question the source and be at least a little cynical. Otherwise we're setting them up for failure. Of course some dumb fucks will blindly believe what they see in the movies. You can't help that.

      What you're proposing is that no-one can use any historical or cultural event in a movie, or a book, game, really any sort of media, without "being sensitive" to... something or other. Political finger-pointing? Making people look like "the bad guy"? Maybe for PG movies, but pg-13 and up is fine and should be expected. ....we're going to have movies rated PG-13 for cultural insensitivity aren't we? Or rated R for blatant propaganda. (haha, rated NC-17 for the truth)

    4. Re:Missing the joy in life by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Even "Dunkirk" had the normal "this is a work of fiction.." disclaimer at the end.

    5. Re:Missing the joy in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You are watching a movie with a woman who can fly, fights gods, and has a magic truth telling lasso and THAT is what bothered you?

      It's a very real phenomenon, and one that you shouldn't (or, at least, anyone with a stake in storytelling) discount out of hand.

      Suspension of disbelief is a funny thing. You can ask us to accept that there's a world where magic is real, where people can fly, where X, Y, and Z are all not like "the real world" ... but then you have to stop at some point. Once you set up the list of things that require suspension of disbelief, the *rest* of the stuff should flow naturally. There should be a logic to what happens and why characters behave the way they do. Plot holes certainly aren't unique to superhero films, but simply because "people can fly" is not an excuse for poor writing and plotting.

      Just because you've set up a world with magic, that doesn't mean that people will suddenly ignore when characters have shoddy motivation or "obvious" solutions to problems are ignored in favor of "advancing the plot" or "drama".

      It would be a mistake to hand wave away lazy/poor writing just because the film isn't a documentary or set in "the real world".

    6. Re:Missing the joy in life by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tolkien argued that if you had to suspend disbelief, the writer had failed.

      Yes, that's the sort of thing that SHOULD bother you. If you create a world where women can fly, then (as Terry Nation would have said), on that world a woman can fly. Under the Isaac Asimov Doctrine, you have to justify violations of known physics for it to qualify as sci-fi. And? Does that mean he couldn't write a bloody good story? No, it meant he wrote bloody good stories that were self-consistent and where deviations were acknowledged.

      And fantasy? Science fantasy is required to be internally consistent. So, again, if Amazonian women can fly then Amazonian women can fly and that is NOT a problem. Those are the rules that the creators and top writers of the genres developed. And violations of history are not given a green pass under them. Flying women (and flying cars) are. Edible food from McDonald's is borderline fantasy.

      This is how it has always been. And this is why pulp is regarded with such disgust by True Fans and True Authors alike. It is not sci-fi, it is Playboy in space, Westerns in space or Eastenders in Africa, but it is not sci-fi or fantasy.

      Now get off my lawn.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re: Missing the joy in life by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Does that mean Tolkien was atheist?

    8. Re: Missing the joy in life by jd · · Score: 2

      Hmmm. Let's see. I'll look at what he said on the subject and let's see what this indicates.

      At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
      (and must), but only dimly apprehend,
      great processes march on, as Time unrolls
      from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
      and as on page o'er-written without clue,
      with script and limning packed of various hue,
      an endless multitude of forms appear,
      some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
      each alien, except as kin from one
      remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.

      (Extract from Mythopoeia)

      The heart of Man is not compound of lies,
      but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
      and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
      Man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
      Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
      and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

      (Extract from Mythopoeia)

      Though all the crannies of the world we filled
      with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
      Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
      and sowed the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
      (used or misused). The right has not decayed.
      We make still by the law in which we're made.

      (Extract from Mythopoeia)

      Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.

      (On Fairy Stories)

      History often resembles myth, because they are both ultimately of the same stuff.

      (On Fairy Stories)

      Supernatural is a dangerous and difficult word in any of its senses, looser or stricter. But to fairies it can hardly be applied, unless super is taken merely as a superlative prefix. For it is man who is, in contrast to fairies, supernatural; whereas they are natural, far more natural than he. Such is their doom.

      (On Fairy Stories)

      Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make. If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion.

      (On Fairy Stories)

      No, I think it quite safe to say that Tolkien was not an atheist, but a theologian-philologist-mythographer of a type so exotic that there are almost no specimens left of such minds. He was an astonishingly astute observer of stories and it's a brave soul to say that he's wrong simply because he's different from a lot of contemporary views... held by people who will be forgotten long before he is and who will never have the same impact on the genre.

      I disagree with him on the theology (I actually am an atheist) but his views on stories are self-consistent and founded a rational analysis of stories and poems across a wide range of cultures and times.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Missing the joy in life by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I'm not asking for political sensitivity, and I don't think that is what the OP is asking for. Heck, even blatently stupid is fine. If they wanna make the 6-day war secretly orchestrated by aliens or demons, that won't mess anyone up for life. :-) I haven't seen Wonder Woman and I don't know what the OP was referring to as far as WW1 historical inaccuracies, so I can't address their specific complaints. But there are some things they should keep realistic. Like, don't use WW2 aircraft in a WW1 movie, that would be dumb. And don't make it take place in the wrong country. Don't make everyone white skinned if that's not the skin color of that region. Don't rewrite the history completely. If you do want to rewrite the history, call it a different war, or make-up a country. But if they use gun A instead of gun B well that seems pedantic.

    10. Re:Missing the joy in life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And fantasy? Science fantasy is required to be internally consistent."

      I'm not sure why you switched from saying just "fantasy" to using "science fantasy" just for this paragraph. Anyway, I think your real problem is trying to classify something you enjoy as "fantasy" and something you don't enjoy is "pulp". Most of those pulp stories are actually science fiction.

  35. Re: Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we welcome negative comments about a leader of a country? Derogatory comments that make fun of the color of his skin, size of his body, etc? It seems to go both ways.

    Once again, the liberal left believe in shaming as long as it doesnâ(TM)t focus on them.

  36. Re:Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    waaaaahhhhh waaaaaahhhh waaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

  37. Home vs hone. by Chas · · Score: 1
    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Home vs hone. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That post was extremely offensive. This is slashdot: please take your hashtags elsewhere.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Home vs hone. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Or else....what?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:Home vs hone. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Or else....what?

      The joke, you, whoosh etc.

      I was poking fun at you for being one of the perpetually offended types.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Home vs hone. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Nah. You ASSUMED I'm one of the "perpetually offended" types.

      What I ACTUALLY am is one of the snarky assholish types lacking a single, giveable fuck.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re:Home vs hone. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Nah. You ASSUMED I'm one of the "perpetually offended" types.

      I have read your posts. My assessment is not inaccurate.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Home vs hone. by Chas · · Score: 1

      As
      You
      Wish

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:Home vs hone. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Westley?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  38. Re: One Word: TRUMPVERSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See? Skin color shaming!

  39. Re:Life isn't light. Ignorance is the bliss of the by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    We have it - it's called "the east coast".

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  40. The article contains spoilers for other movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article contains spoilers for other movies.

    Just a heads up.

  41. Clickbait Article by mrthoughtful · · Score: 2

    Sorry - but this article is just clickbait. Someone is getting paid for the number of watches of black-panther-clip-dora-milaje-fight-scene at screen rant.
    Move along. Nothing interesting at all.

    --
    This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
  42. I've done it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I have blood drawn I fast the day before. Ex: last Monday meal at 1pm, fast on Tuesday, blood drawn at 8am Wednesday = 43 hours without food.

    1. Re:I've done it. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You do not understand the word "involuntarily".

  43. Re:Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure if trolling, but hopefully you are aware that the vast, vast majority of people have dynamic IP's, so IP-bans will do nothing but piss off other people.

    How would YOU like to be banned or shadow-banned just because the previous user of your IP was "naughty" before? Also there's Proxies and VPN...

  44. Re:Life isn't light. Ignorance is the bliss of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well played, sir. Well played.

  45. Why CGI that? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    There is a very simple reason to CGI that shot - complexity. There are actually 2 shots here. The first is the 1st where the camera travels up to the top floor - that's all CGI except for the extras. Then the 2nd shot as it lifts over the edge of the banister. It's technically very challenging, if not impossible, to do that shot in one continuous movement. Just on a simple level, the camera in the 1st shot is on a crane - they would need to remove the banister mid-shot for it to get the final angle in her fight.

    If you've got to split it up like that, why have all the expense of having everyone on set? It's a 2nd unit shot with 4-5 extras and a stunt double for the gunshots and some CGI, or insane complexity getting the choreographing just right. Between the gun angles, timing, and framing her face so that we see who's fighting right as the camera lifts over the edge - that'd be horribly difficult/expensive to do.

    To your greater point that the MCU has a CGI problem - I don't think it's the MCU. I think it's an industry problem as a whole. Between video games, TV, and movies the amount of CGI being done is huge. There is only so much artistic talent to go around and eventually something is going to go to the B or C team. A couple long distance henchmen is a normally good place to compromise on CGI rather than on your primary visual effects where DC seems to like to compromise. In this case it was a mistake because the gunshots were drawing your attention to them as a connecting visual so it became very obvious.

    What I think is a bigger problem is that because CGI is so "easy" they aren't putting a lot of thought into what they're actually creating. Wakanda's city was pretty but it was very rudimentary from an architectural perspective. That city is likely something that could be built with normal technology. They didn't think through what vibranium would allow them to create. It's a small detail but if you're bothering to do these long "inspirational" sequences showcasing your visuals - make sure they evoke something other than "here's a city".

    1. Re:Why CGI that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the director it's actually one continuous shot.

      Captcha: Blacked

  46. Cinema corpse by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    It is far cheaper to create cartoons than it is to pay actors.
    Seem apropos for the cheesy escapism that dominates cinema in the US.

    "CGI has fully ruined car crashes. Because how can you be impressed with them now?
    When you watch them in the '70s, it was real cars, real metal, real blasts.
    They're really doing it and risking their lives.
    But I knew CGI was gonna start taking over." - Quentin Tarantino

    1. Re:Cinema corpse by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This is though why the films that retain live action continue to stand out.

      Equilibrium had many flaws but its action scenes are quality.

      On the flipside, Kingsman's church scene is enhanced with CGI and is still truly excellent. Although.. there was a lot of physical acting going on there too.

  47. Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, y by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Originally it was an actor who eye-raped somebody in post production stage

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  48. Not the best worst example... by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

    I didn't really notice that the second guy shot was CGI while watching Black Panther. What I did notice was that everything was SUPER NOTICEABLY CGI when the climactic fight scene on the mag lev track starts.

    To me, that was the worst CGI I've seen in the MCU.

  49. YES! Uncanny valley for people who go outside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extremely bad kinetics break the illusion for anybody who has any experience with the real world. Today, it seems that a larger portion of the population grows up watching so much TV with it's slight to severe errors that peoples' grasp on reality is WARPED. Another example would be fights... depending upon the plot: heroes have built-in helmets with perfect aim and the grunts pass out from a bitch slap while being unable to shoot any primaries with an Uzi.

    Super powers and fantasy do not matter; the whole point of having REAL human actors and expensive realistic looking scenes is to make it look possible; like magic. It's almost funny how a cartoon will be more realistic than the expensive "real-action" remake... this is especially bad with superman movies.

    1. Re:YES! Uncanny valley for people who go outside by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      heroes have built-in helmets with perfect aim and the grunts pass out from a bitch slap while being unable to shoot any primaries with an Uzi.

      Which is why the shoot out in Heat is probably one of the best ever.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  50. Too many people by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Too many people onscreen - who the hell cares what happens to the thousand CGI extras that just got squished by Thor or Hulk? Their sheer number means I am instantly desensitised to whatever happens.

  51. getting lazy by ra66itman · · Score: 1

    They are just getting lazy on the cgi, I am sure they know that ANY marvel movie will make XXXX dollars. what is not being talked about is full CGI characters, even Hollywood recognizes them and has a term called Syn thespians. One day most likely less than 10-20 years. we will have fully CGI characters. instead of paying a actor 20 million, they can use a cgi for 10. Two movies have touched on this subject. Simone and Looker

  52. Racist Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the CGI in Black Panther, you need to GTFO and go back to Europe.

    1. Re:Racist Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell it like it be, Brother! #BlackLivesMatter

      White people WISH they had a country like Wakanda to call their own, but they doesn't. Only us proud people of color has a nation such as Wakanda, and white people be jealous of what we done accomplished without them. Without the white man, we be powerful, strong, and intelligent. All modern techmology done be invented by proud people of color, and anyone that claims udderwise is a racist cracker.

      Get on an airplain and visit Wakanda to see the glory of what people of color can produce without white man.

  53. It is a question about suspension of belief by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The things is super mutant with power is the basis of those universe. If you can't suspend belief about that, you won't watch those film. but even within those universe some thing are more difficult to swallow than other: e.g. your belief has to be suspended far harder. Alien with advanced tech ? Yes sure. Some part of human advancing far more than the rest of the world ? Be it Atlantis or Wancanda or whatever ? Nan. See most tech is based on advanced from earlier tech. This is why the world advanced more or less by period, the WHOLE world. But having par utterly isolated and having such advanced tech ? Difficult to swallow especially when the isolation ITSELF require already existing advanced tech like that shield. See tech would have spread to neighbor city BEFORE that shield would have been invented. That is why this is far more difficult to accept that suspension. There might be a bit of prejudice, I have no doubt of that, but for some people like me such highly advanced isolated iv is utterly incompatible with trying to suspend belief. Even in spite of accepting a boy bitten by a spider.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  54. Subproblem: Transformers' Fast-Action Cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first time I saw the all-CGI action scenes which cut or swing the camera more than once-per-second was Transformers, hence the name.

    Black Panther suffered from this in most of its action scenes - and the ones which didn't, I wish it had. Avengers Civil War had some problems, but not as bad nor as frequent as BP.

    Its... like the director couldn't figure out how to orchestrate a fight scene, so they don't let you see it well enough to register how horrid it is.

  55. Grumpy much? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.

    Who peed in your cereal this morning? If you don't like it don't watch it. Nobody cares if it isn't your particular brand of vodka and I don't agree with your assessment of it's artistic merit either. You aren't convincing anyone so I'm puzzled why you would hang out in a place like slashdot that clearly and overwhelmingly does not agree with you.

    Don't get me wrong, this isn't a get off my lawn rant,

    Yes it is.

  56. Opinions are like... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen Wonder Woman or Black Panther, but even the supposedly good Marvel movies have been a disappointment.

    You're entitled to your opinion but I (and millions of others) don't agree with it. Literally every marvel movie I've seen in the last several years has been reasonably well done and fun to watch. Some better than others but none of them sucked and I've considered the time spent watching them time well spent.

    So you end up with Jackie Chan fighting an unarmed guy with a ladder being 100% more entertaining because you know he's really doing it and can get hurt and the stakes are realistic.

    So there has to be real risk of bodily harm to the actors and stuntmen for you to find it entertaining? Wow, that's kind of barbaric of you. How about you just go watch some MMA fights if you want to actually see someone get hurt.

    1. Re: Opinions are like... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Growing up, a lot of stunts were shot Super Dave style, where the action starts and then camera switches to some far away shot where a dummy is clearly used and then cut to close up of aftermath with actor. Now, when you see a continuous sequence where some incredible shit happens in what appears to be continuous 2-3 fight scene, it's pretty fucking entertaining. 20 years ago, a horror movie didn't have much of a lasting effect with all the fake corn syrup and shit. But torture scenes are so real these days, I'm still fucked up from watching Hostile so many years ago.

    2. Re:Opinions are like... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So there has to be real risk of bodily harm to the actors and stuntmen for you to find it entertaining? Wow, that's kind of barbaric of you. How about you just go watch some MMA fights if you want to actually see someone get hurt.

      No one is interested in watching a guy in a harness fall back onto a mattress. A well-executed action scene is all about tricking your mind into believing what you're actually seeing. If it's not capable of suspending your disbelief, then it is failing in its intention to impress you. No one has to get hurt in the Real World making the movie for me to think that the action is great. But it does have to trick me.

  57. believability problm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With MCU, Marvel has a believability problem, perpetuating the stupid belief that if it weren't for colonialism, Africa would have magically transformed itself from the stone age hunter gatherer society it was into a technologically advanced continent, catching up with thousands of years of Western progress within a few centuries.

    And (judging by the clips), in the Marvel alternate reality, the path to progress for Africa seems to have been violence and resources, which, ironically, is why African societies keep failing.

  58. I'm not sure it matters by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the move is good, then bad CGI won't ruin it.

    If the movie is bad, then bad CGI won't redeem it.

    If the movie is mediocre, bad CGI might tip it into the "bad" category, but who cares? The movie was mediocre to begin with, and with so many movies being released, there's no reason to settle for watching mediocre ones.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  59. The bad physics is terrible by Kuruk · · Score: 1

    While looking good the physics in these movies make me cringe now.

  60. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Lots of the Marvel characters have mutant powers, sure, however impossible. However, there are exceptions. Doctor Strange studied magic, and became extremely good at it. A few characters are the product of scientific experiments (Captain America, Black Widow, Winter Soldier) where the science has been lost. Some are gods from elsewhere (Thor, Loki). More to the point, Iron Man is nothing more than an unstable narcissistic supergenius with an alcohol problem and superscience. Vision is the product of Iron Man's meddling with superscience. It's just as vital a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as helicarriers, maybe more.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  61. It's more of an issue of deadlines by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    I think the main issue is not CGI can't be great but that the short timelines don't always allow for perfection. Superman's moustache is a prime example. You'd think that it's trivial for a special effects company in general to remove his moustache but why was the effect so bad? Someone looking at the timing of film argued that given the change in directors, story, and re-shoots, the CGI company might have had a few weeks at best to do all the new CGI that was required including removing the moustache.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  62. Re:Forget Justice League (not hard to do) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD THIS MEANINGLESS KARMA WHORING COMMENT DOWN!!!

    Christopher Dale Reimer, aka cdreimer, aka creimer, aka cashews, is a well-known toxic bachelor and serial digital pest!

    Do not allow this tiresome dullard to copy and paste his own Cryptofeces Reimerium back on here to collect karma points!

    We just went through the whole process of getting him contained at -1 like medical waste in a BFI container.

  63. Re:Forget Justice League (not hard to do) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't click on his homepage link! creimer is trying to get you to subscribe automatically to his youtube channel and make money off you!

    CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE:
    Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on /. so make sure to go to:
    https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~criss69
    https://slashdot.org/~Anonymou...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    https://slashdot.org/~ILoveFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IHateFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IAteFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~ITapeFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IApeFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~IPrayFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!

    Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!

    creimer wrote:

    I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!

    Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.

    creimer wrote:

    All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

    But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

    Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
    Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king's horses
    And all the king's men
    Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
    Together again.

    Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Creimy's real pictures:
    Before the sex change:
    https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
    After the sex change:
    https://ibb.co/gVad65

    Creimy's "enterprise-level" chair, he talks about it all the time on slashdot:

  64. Modern Adult Males have a Maturity Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're over the age of 18 and still watching superhero pablum ment for children you have REAL PROBLEMS.

    Slaves.

  65. Re:Forget Justice League (not hard to do) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some posts from creimer's old accounts. I'll start with his love of child brides.

    If all my assets were liquidated, I would still have enough cash to buy a new car and head off to Mexico to find a chica to marry.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    You're aware that are some states in the U.S. that allow underage marriage as young as 14 years old?
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    As for my comment, I've heard stories of engineers retiring at 50, moving to Mexico and marrying underage girls. Since I work with ex-military, the Philippines is a popular retirement spot for marrying underage girls as well. It's all about getting the most bang for your retirement dollars.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    That only works if you retire to Mexico, build a mansion (by local standards), marry an underage sweet thing and bequeath all your possessions to the village.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    You need to be more specific. I wrote 3,000+ comments this year.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Nah... I just do it to piss off my trolls and make coffee money off of them.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    We have different priorities. You want to climb the corporate ladder. I want to own the corporate ladder.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Your bitch licks your balls. Most people don't brag about practicing bestiality. Is there a reason why you married a dog and not a goat?
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    My employers don't care about what my Slashdot trolls think. Now go off and lick your balls somewhere else.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete. As a Sprint customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always offer me a new iPhone if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    Miracle workers are never afraid to ask for a second opinion. Supervisor gave me his opinion ? and a mess to clean up. Lesson learned from this incident: if something isn't quite broken, break it.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    So you can turn around call me a liar again? People have been playing that game with me for years.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    Based on what I've read about Uber, he need to tell the boys to clean up their locker room behavior, zip up their pants, and attend sensitivity training until everyone agrees that women are not sexual objects.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Which doesn't violate the Slashdot TOS. If you got a problem with that, take it up with management.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    This year I've posted ~4,000 comments.
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the

  66. Too easy a question! by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    Specifically, hone in on the 45 second mark, where you see Nakia shooting two guys, the second of which is very obviously computer-generated. Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?

    I'd wager, it's cheaper to toss in some CGI victim, than paying an extra to fill that role of guy getting shot.

    I think an unnoticed detriment of CGI is simply employment in this industry. You can really see it in a lot of small screen shows. They are really skimping on extras and supporting actors. They use camera trickery to make a line of people seem like a crowd, sometimes they bother to fill in the backdrop with more CGI crowd, but hell, some small screen doesn't even bother with that.

    I worry about what potential talent is missing out on their break cuz studios are hiring graphic designers and CGI technicians rather than extras to fill in roles and possibly impress someone. Oh well.

    1. Re:Too easy a question! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'd wager, it's cheaper to toss in some CGI victim, than paying an extra to fill that role of guy getting shot.

      Not a chance. You still have to have a guy there and mocap him in order to have a cgi guy look good, and a mocap guy gets paid at least as much as a "real" stuntman that you can set on fire or what have you. You use a CGI guy when you can't feasibly get a real guy in there, and compositing in a real guy from a separate shot would look obvious.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  67. Not their job by sjbe · · Score: 1, Troll

    Suppose you were 15 years old, had never heard about the 6-day war, and you saw a superhero movie set in the backdrop of that war. Whatever happened in that movie, even if you knew it was fiction, would become your first impression about the war and the people.

    Grow up. It is not and should not be the job of fictional superhero movies to educate people on world history. Stop being such a kill joy.

    The writers should take some caution when using a historical or cultural event as a backdrop.

    That's not their job and expecting it to be their job is irrational. Their job is to write an entertaining story and to make money doing so. Historical accuracy only matters insofar as it results in more people paying to see their work. Their job is not and never will be to educate 15 year olds about history. That is the responsibility of parents and teachers.

    1. Re:Not their job by jd · · Score: 1

      Tell it to the Hobbits. Cos the hand stopped listening. Got bored with this constant whinging and whining about how you have to have movies your way and screw the rest of us who want to go see one.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  68. It's cheap because it's subsidized by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    both the food and the people. The food gets massive farm subsidies, the employees are subsidized in the form of food stamps, low income health care, etc. There's also a ton of hidden subsidies around the wasteful packaging (oil subsidies make the cheap plastics possible and we shift the cost of the waste disposal). And the farming techniques used to keep those prices down have a ton of long term issues (that's where the "sustainability" comes in).

    Fast food is 'cheap' because the costs are externalized.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: It's cheap because it's subsidized by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The food gets massive farm subsidies

      To the extent that this is true, it's true of all food and not just fast food. Ergo it's irrelevant to the discussion.

      the employees are subsidized in the form of food stamps, low income health care, etc.

      My local McDonalds is staffed entirely by teenagers and retirees, with an adult manager to oversee them. If any of those people are receiving "food stamps", I would be very surprised. As for healthcare, I live in a nation which provides socialized health care, so EVERY industry is "subsidised", according to you. Fast food is still comparatively cheap.

      There's also a ton of hidden subsidies around the wasteful packaging (oil subsidies make the cheap plastics possible and we shift the cost of the waste disposal).

      The only place I know of which still uses plastic packaging is Wendies, and that's only for their large drink cups. The vast majority of packaging has been switched over to paper/cardboard, so this seems like a minor issue at best. Moreover oil subsidies are so small in comparison to volume that the effect on the resultant plastic products is essentially unnoticeable; fractions of a cent for something like a plastic straw.

      And the farming techniques used to keep those prices down have a ton of long term issues (that's where the "sustainability" comes in).

      We are far better at sustainable farming than we have ever been before. While sustainability is certainly a concern, it's not a new one, and it's DEFINITELY not unique to the fast food industry.

      tl;dr: you're wrong about pretty much everything.

  69. Personally the fake punches were more annoying. by Rhipf · · Score: 2

    Personally I found the obviously fake punches (kicks) to be more of a distraction than the CGI. If you are going to miss your punches by that much make sure the camera angle is such that it at least looks like contact was made.

  70. We already did your Norse white guy hero by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Who do you think Thor and Loki are?

    Now stop complaining about a box-office crushing epic movie that everyone of all races loved.

    No, we're not going to CGI in more Star Wars tropes like you want.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  71. percent reality check wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to know what percent of the pixels in the whole movie were created in a computer.
    At what point is it just a cartoon? (With some faces added).

  72. This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fencing is no more related to a sword fight than tournament martial arts are related to a real fight. There are no rules in real fights. None. A "touch" isn't a worthy blow, and real fights don't proceed along straight lines and flat surfaces and without obstacles and etc. What you "know" is mostly not applicable.

    1. Re:This is why by Tuidjy · · Score: 2

      You managed to read the part about fencing at state level, but failed to understand what making baron in SCA or teaching HEMA means.

      Do you really think that those who spend ten or more hours a week training with swords never wonder what real fights entail? Do you think that burly sword geeks never get upset with each other and actually lay on each other? I've broken both ribs and wrists with a wooden sword and dislocated a knee in the plentiful grappling that accompanies HEMA training and grudge fighting (all accidental, I'll swear to anyone) and I have delivered hundreds of bruises, possibly thousands. And I've had cracked ribs and hundreds of bruises myself. For about fifteen years as HEMA enthusiast, it's about normal. No, this does not directly apply to fighting with a sharp blade, but it sure helps.

      Yes, fencing is not real fighting. But Princess Bride's swordplay is to fencing as fencing is to sword fighting. In the first 30 seconds of fighting, Hell in the first ten seconds of fighting, we have:
      - before the fighting starts, a blade is touched with bare hands, and sheathed without being wiped, by its owner, no less. On period steel that supposedly can hold an edge, that's a horrible practice.
      - the two combatants are standing much too close to each other, even after the fight has started. They are in not just in lunge range, they are even closer. At that distance, whoever thrusts, kills. Signals have no time to travel from your eyes to your brain and then to to your arms to start an effective parry once the opponent starts moving.
      - none, and I mean none of the swings would land on the opponent, even if they were not parried. But both combatants interpose their swords, or lean back, or duck those whiffs. When they do so, they place themselves completely out of balance. Their feet are too close, they have weight on the wrong foot considering which way they are likely to move next, the works.
      - then you have what is called flynning. They stand much too close to each other and start swinging high then low at 45 degree angle from the horizontal. The high moves (those are not attacks) do not reach the head, the low moves do not reach the knee. None need to be parried, each leaves you out of position to parry. You wait for it to pass, and you have a direct pathway to the heart. Neither takes it.
      - and then you have a full spin, outside the range where it could connect, but definitely within lunge range. As icing on the cake, the resulting swing is too high to bother someone who would be lunging at the exposed back.

      And frankly, after that there is no point to comment. That spin cannot be topped.

      During the whole time, there is one single thrust, not a lunge, and it is (1) too short (2) aimed a foot too high and a foot too far to the opponent's left, and (3) parried after the attacker has achieved extension, i.e.after it would do any good.

      Don't get me wrong. I still love the movie - it is being watched in my household at least once an year, and I even enjoy the fight scenes. But its characters would not last any longer against a teenage fencer with a dress sword (as shitty a sword as swords get) any longer than most superheroes would last against a Mob or Organizatsiya crew, or 99.9% of superheroes against a Marines platoon.

      That does not make it a bad movie by any means. It's just that it gets a pass from me where Jessica Jones or Luke Cage do not.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
  73. Kudos for seeing the heart of the matter by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    The parent comment wins the thread as far as I'm concerned.

    Watching entertainment as entertainment is entirely pendant upon your ability to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ideas. Kids tend to have fewer disbeliefs to need to suspend, so they're good at taking a movie as entertainment.

    If your idea of consuming these things is to analyze and pick them apart wherever possible, then you're going to be a lot less entertained unless simply being a whiny bitch entertains you. I have to say that listening to someone take apart a movie doesn't make me think less of the movie...

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Kudos for seeing the heart of the matter by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why thank you. I think kids do have a natural advantage in this area because the world is new to them and they're still learning what's possible and what's not. But we also tend to get old and bitter, and I think a lot of that is simply losing our sense of wonder and possibility.

      You might enjoy this:

      I watched the Honest Trailers review of Kong (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saTFPCuQfvw).

      The director is part of the episode, and seems like the best kind of director: a big kid who thinks movies are awesome (and also knows a lot about them). There was a comment about the "Kong drama," so I went and looked it up, and found this article:

      http://www.indiewire.com/2017/...

      Yup. Right there is the difference. The Honest Trailers people love movies and their criticism is hilarious. I watched most of the CinemaSins rant about Kong. Don't. It was terrible.

  74. the bullet hit looks like a last minute fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so performer either wasn't out of shot fast enough or some other issue where they needed existing footage to be altered at the last minute in order to make something work. they probably did not intend to do that.

  75. Forgot to shoot the connecting scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the principle shoot someone probably said, "Let's crane up to the balcony to connect these two shots" and someone else said "We didn't shoot for that" and then a third person said "Don't care". That's how these things usually happen. I've been asked how much for CG chickens because the actual chickens were one hour late to set.

  76. Re:Forget Justice League (not hard to do) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh yes. Just finished my daily cdreimer downmoderation session. Always feels satisfying even on days when nothing else seems to work out for me. I know I can mod down your two daily nuggets-o-shit and if I'm lucky I'll get to mod down a crunchy sockpuppet as well.

    Why don't you post more creepy female role play? You can be the nerd girl we all wish existed in our youth. Ahem, "back in the day". I'm also disappointed you think that namefagging attention whore FatCashewsLovesMe is your only troll. He's at -1!!! How on earth could he be your only troll.

    @FatCashewsLoveMe. You need to exchange keys with me. We can contain creimer much more effectively with a small amount of coordination. I will provide you with a large quantity of ladyboy pron as a reward for your effort.

  77. If all you have is a hammer... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    ...everything looks like a nail.

    I don't think this is limited to Marvel. This is across the industry. CGI is "relatively" new, and as technology has increased has become increasing popular. However there are many examples of not only overuse, but misuse. I think like the title of my comment many have become either over dependent upon it or just lazy. However I think the trend is only now just starting to correct itself where perhaps movie makers are realizing that CGI like anything is just a tool, and like any tool it is good for somethings and not so good for others. Really good movies depending on the need are going to use a lot of tools in the toolbox. Some might just need a screw driver, while others might need extensive use of the hammer so to speak.

    I think a perfect example of this was the latest Star Wars. The didn't use CGI on Yoda, but rather went back to the roots and used a puppet. I enjoyed it much better. The other side of that coin is I recall in one of the prequels an extensive lighsaber battle between Yoda and Count Dooku. I remember laughing out loud, but not in joy, but rather in the total ridiculousness of it. Perhaps they felt CGI was required to make that happen, when really someone should have just said "nooooo!".

  78. Fewer royalty checks to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CGI crew don't get royalty checks like actors do. The CGI artists only get paid once.

    1. Re:Fewer royalty checks to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CGI characters don't get paid at all. Except for King Kong who gets "triple scale."

  79. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by swillden · · Score: 1

    Some part of human advancing far more than the rest of the world ? Be it Atlantis or Wancanda or whatever ? Nan. See most tech is based on advanced from earlier tech. This is why the world advanced more or less by period, the WHOLE world. But having par utterly isolated and having such advanced tech ? Difficult to swallow

    Meh. Wakanda had access to a very flexible and easy-to-use energy source that the rest of the world didn't have. This enabled them to become relatively advanced early on and convinced them that they needed to hide themselves. They were also in a position to coopt all of the advances made by the rest of the world while keeping their own secrets. Works for me.

    Now, the fact that they seemed to have only a single research scientist in the entire nation, that was hard to swallow.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  80. Re:You dislike CGI because you only notice it when by antdude · · Score: 1

    Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... was interesting.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  81. Re:Forget Justice League (not hard to do) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There can only be one troll.

    ---
    Bananas!

  82. Why CGI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    âoeSpecifically, hone in on the 45 second mark, where you see Nakia shooting two guys, the second of which is very obviously computer-generated. Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?â

    Because if you look at it carefully, that shot is actually a number of shots composited together. A camera on a giant crane would have been used to push from the ground floor up to the railing. The camera would be big enough, that the railing was likely in the way, so even though it appears to go over the railing, in real life it would have had to go through. The camera then appears to switch to a new shot done with a steadicam on the upper floor. Overall it's very well done and totally believable that a single camera was used here, except for the animation on the henchman that gives away it's a gag.

  83. This dude is legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pay attention to this dude. If anyone knows anything on this site about arse contamination it is the Drinker of Poo.

  84. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly - the real problem is that Wakanda became super advanced by building a wall and making the rest of Africa pay for it.

  85. yeah you are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is,

    Yeah, yeah it was. The very fact that the first thing you have to write is a denial means it was a primary thought. It's called projection, aka a guilty dog barking, and you were barking pretty loud. I mean, you immediately followed it up with a shit comment about Black Panther and we weren't even talking about that movie. I'm surprised you didn't start the comment about it with "I'm not racist but..."

    You have some issues, bud. The first remedy is to stop voting Republican.

  86. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You took the time to know the proper spelling of the white nation, Atlantis, but couldn't give two shits to even google how to spell the black nation Wakanda. Yeah, there might be a bit of prejudice here whether you know it or not. THAT is what is meant by systemic racism.

  87. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

    You should add to your rant, that isolation usually slows down scientific progress, as you can't discuss your ideas with people from the outside your own circle.

    Then again, while you argue some good points, you are wrong. As soon as you accept Tony Stark, lone genius capable of putting together any tech he needs from whatever he has at hand, places like Wakanda are reasonable. we are talking about whole nation - what stopped them from having their Tony Stark's three generations in a row?

    --
    What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  88. Home in by blibbo · · Score: 1

    hone
    hÉ(TM)ÊSn/Submit
    verb
    1.
    sharpen (a blade).
    "he was carefully honing the curved blade" synonyms: sharpen, make sharper, make sharp, whet, strop, grind, file, put an edge on;
    2.
    refine or perfect (something) over a period of time.
    "some of the best players in the world honed their skills playing street football" noun
    1.
    a whetstone, especially one used to sharpen razors.

    "Hone in" is not a thing. If you heard someone else say it, they said it wrong or you heard them wrong. The appropriate expression is "home in" \pedentry_end.

    1. Re: Home in by blibbo · · Score: 1

      PS, Slashdot, fix your Unicode support FFS.

  89. Re:Forget Justice League (not hard to do) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what else was a big stinker? That wet spot you left on the bus this morning!

  90. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    You took the time to know the proper spelling of the white nation, Atlantis, but couldn't give two shits to even google how to spell the black nation Wakanda.

    Because we've had 2500 years of tales about the hidden nation of Wakanda, right?

    Wakanda is a recent invention. Atlantis has permeated Western culture since the time of Plato. Don't put Wakanda on too high of a cultural pedestal.

  91. Hone vs Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's from the post: "hone in on the 45 second mark". You "hone" a razor, or, metaphorically, an argument. You "home in" on a target, like a homing pigeon. "Honing in" makes no sense.

  92. Re:It is a question about suspension of belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trying to parse out your comment (it's amusing trying to figure out why this is where you draw the line) but the grammar/puncuation is just too much for me to decipher.

  93. Dance movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just cant get on the MCU hype.. there are really just dance movies. Like the hobbit. what a joke. you KNOW no superhero is dying, so - ofc. they will manage.. and while fight scenes are endless.. you just see CA or Thor - bashing one after the other while jumping around like a dancer. boring as s..t. The effects however, are no doubt worldclass, perhaps even leading. But like transformers from 1 to 2, it went from awesome to "what am i looking at".. a soup of cramped-in effects.

    i know this is unpoopular, but i dont care :D

  94. What else should I use, when talking to Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just FYI: I don't hate Americans. I generally don't hate. Because grown-ups can separate criticism and personal attacks.
    I am not perfect either. I'm still fat for European standards, and that is a bad thing, and you can happily tell me that I am fat and that is bad and hence I suck. Why would factual reality bother me? Somethig about me being bad does not imply that I am bad! Something bad about you does not imply that you are bad.
    I disapprove of some of your properties. I do not disapprove of you

  95. Marvel nailed it... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    DC is praying that they can mimic even a fraction of Marvel's success. They're copying Marvel's formula as closely as they can...

  96. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I didn't see the CGI'd guy so thanks for ruining it for everyone.