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?
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?
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=-
"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.
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."
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.