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