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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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=-
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.
Scooby Doo is fun. For 5 minutes. Then it quickly becomes tedious, then boring then just plain annoying. Ditto most comic book films.
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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... ]
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.
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
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.
And you are perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.
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.
Proof of concept?
bickerdyke
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
" 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 $100M+ spent on them per film.
Whereas, I don't like superhero movies either and think they're pretty dumb; really, it's for each their own. Most people on here won't like my taste in music, and I won't like theirs. We probably like different books. If people get a kick out of superhero movies- I don't have a problem with that. I'm more bothered by the commercial blasting I get everytime one is released than the movies themselves. That's more a product of our society than anything else though.. If it weren't superhero movies it would be some other movie being overly commercialized and advertised.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"Or I guess Marvel Comic/Cinematic Universe if you don't loathe these comic book crap movies. I've stopped watching movies since almost everything produced is a comic book movie now. "
I can relate. Also, the problem is the not CGI but the 4.50$ spend for the script.
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.
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
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...
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.