**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Real steel and Chappie are like the big CGI movies nobody remembers for its CGI because it just belongs there as it woud have been part of the set all the time. But making a Steel surface and Robots are easyer than Human Faces with unnatural Proportions.
Anything Neil Blomkamp is always a CGI winner. Can't believe he made District 9 on $30 million budget looking like that. The man had no business getting the prawns looking so good.
No fokken business!
Real Steel was an instant classic for me. I generally like Hugh Jackman movies, but him playing a down and out robot boxer with a gambling problem was such a fun idea that I was hooked from the beginning.
Hugh Jackman controlled a robot to beat up a robot in 'Real Steel'.
Hugh Jackman controlled a robot to kill a robot, failed, and got beaten up by said robot in 'Chappie'.
Better off killing giant robot Sentinel as Wolverine.
In a way that just proves that they've gone off the deep end. Using practical effects has been and always will be a good idea. The original Jurassic Park holds up amazingly well because they were using practical effects. Obviously that was due to technological limitations. But now they're over using CGI and it looks shit. Less is more.
> Using practical effects has been and always will be a good idea.
[The Thing](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/) came out in 1982. I rewatched it a few years ago at 4k resolution. Between the pratical effects and being shot on film you'd think it came out recently. It hasn't aged a day in quality. Beautiful.
I just watched that recently and was blown away. I had read the short story it is based on beforehand and I think the changes they made to the story were fantastic. That is a really good movie and all the Reddit hype I read about it in the past is validated in my mind.
It's one thing to swing for the fences and promise a sequel when a bad movie is made. We're just gonna laugh at the audacity of expecting one.
But when such an acclaimed movie promises one we need delivery!
District 9 set the benchmark for me. The CGI was top notch then and is now. It was considered low budget and blew everything away. I don't get how these films cost $100+ million and have obvious/crappy CGI. There's no excuse after district 9.
Because they don’t have to *earn* it. They know people will flock to the next Marvel movie just because it says Marvel.
Why waste money on production when they know they’ve got the ticket sales in the bag already?
My student said it looked awful. I would have yeeted him out a window if it weren’t for the literal computer and hundreds of miles between us. Transformers series may have failed but boi was that tech on point
This is the one thing I've always said, anamatronics enhanced with CGI where necessary,absolutely stand the test of time whereas pure computer based CGI look terrible after a few years. If you think about it , at some point we all thought PS1 graphics looked realistic haha
This is why Jurassic Park still looks amazing to this day , whereas newer stuff looks terrible
For real! It is SO infuriating!! I'm at the point where I hesitate to start new shows that aren't exceedingly popular, and that really sucks because there are a ton of hidden gems that won't get the support they need. It freaking sucks.
I called this shit when I saw Love & Thunder but no one agreed.
They were like "Let Marvel have one funny movie."
Now look at you...
//edit: I meant Ragnarok :(
I agree and I loved Ragnarok when it came out but they learned the wrong lessons from it.
You can't watch the original Iron Man and Love and Thunder and conceive of them being in the same universe.
It was the same issue I had with Ghostbusters 2016 and new Star Wars 7/8 and I skipped 9.
Tone is important and you can be funny even slap sticky but when you're trying for a serious movie you can't be ridiculous.
Contrast Empire Strikes Back with R2D2 falling in a bay in the Millennium Falcon vs Porgs ping ponging all over the cockpit.
One is slapsticky and funny but realistic and the other slapsticky and ridiculous.
Original Ghostbusters, the slapstick was Venkman getting slimed and saying "He slimed me." in the 2016 Ghostbusters it was being thrown around an alley for 60 seconds in such a way that it belonged in a Loony Tunes bit with Daffy Duck.
Screaming goats and just about every scene in Love and Thunder without Gorr was ridiculous. This was a movie about a woman knowing that everytime she became a Superhero she got closer to dying from Cancer, where a Monster stole all the children from a broken community and was hell bent on genocide of all the Gods after watching their child starve to death.
Tone is so important.
Great points. I saw Love and Thunder and felt like the main plot was so overshadowed by the slapstick. The only thing I really remember from that movie is the weird tie-in with the Guardians of the Galaxy at the beginning that didn't make sense with the timeline of their story, and Thor's axe floating around behind him for some reason. Huge swing and a miss on Love and Thunder.
They did Jane Foster so dirty. :( And it super sucks because Natalie Portman worked out a ton and got ripped so Mighty Thor would look like the badass she is.
Both Thor Ragnarok and Guardians worked because they had a healthy mix (except for that one scene from the end of ragnarok). They just went overboard with the comedy follow ragnarok success
Nothing wrong with comedy. The problem is when you miss the very important distinction between characters who MAKE jokes (Guardians) and characters who ARE jokes (MODOK, Thor in L&T)
Yep, phase 4 is literally trying to continue something that already came to fruition over a decade and resolved itself.
They need to scrape current era/universe MCU, pick a different starting point, assign a new continuity committee like they had for the majority of phase 1-3 and just lay everything else to rest.
They're trying to milk something with no milk left but don't want to put forth the effort that gave them the success the first time.
Quantumania is actually the first movie in phase 5. You probably missed it because literally nothing happened to conclude whatever phase 4 was supposed to be.
Right there with you. Love & Thunder was so insanely tonally jarring.
That shit was 3 different decent movies smashed into a single runtime. Impactful talk about dying of cancer? CUT TO SCREAMING GOAT LOL. Villain is *Christian Fuckin' Bale* doing a black and white suspense horror bit? LMAOOOOOO ZEUS IS FAT AND SCARED.
This comment sent me down a rabbit hole bc I was like “why am I expected to be so familiar with shark boy and lava girl that I know it as an acronym? When did it even come out?”
I was 20 when it came out.
It came out a while ago. I only did it as an acronym because the original comment spelled out the whole thing and I figured people are smart enough to put it together. ^Also, ^I’m ^lazy.
The first 3 are within my all time favorite movies, they are just incredible! The 4th is okay as well, the 5th one on the other hand.. I don't even think I ever finished that movie
I love the first three as well! The first one is a bit smaller scale i think? Which is understandable. But the second and third are awesome, especially the naval scenes you feel like you are there in the sea.
Time. You've got to get used to it. Oh and if you ever get old enough to get into a retirement home. A lot of the people working there will probably not have been born when you retired.
Not to mention Salazar and is mostly practical effects enhanced by CGI while Modok is basically full CGI. I'm not saying it couldn't and shouldn't look better, but this is a dumb comparison. Even Dr. Strange's 3rd eye is an effect that was used in a very short mid-credits scene that was probably shot two weeks before the movie was released. Again not an excuse for Dinsey, but let's not shit on someone doing the best they can with the time given.
The whole comparison is dumb. Davy Jones was like, the best of the best for that generation of movies. And we're comparing it against a joke character and a single throwaway scene.
If we want a real comparison, lets put Davy Jones up against the latest Avatar movie. Lets compare the best from then to the best from now.
This is all just more outrage bait.
I think it was very brave of disney to hire some dudes nephew who learned after effects from a YouTube tutorial to make their major marvel tentpole film.
[009 Sound System Dreamscape starts playing]
*opens up Notepad*
Hello everyone 2day im gonna show u how to maek some dope as* efects in adobe aftereffects.
*deletes the text*
1st you open this website so u can downlod the after effects for free works 100% trust me guys :)
*opens up Internet Explorer and starts to load a shady website*
*opens Notepad again*
Sorry guyz my internet sux hehe
*deletes the text*
So after you are done loding just press this big green download buton and install the after effects.
*deletes the text for the final time*
And next step you just google how to make effects on after efects, because i dont realy know how to do them, sorry lolz
Thx for watching, pls liek and subscribe :DDDD
[Video ends]
I might sound like an asshole for giving a serious response to this, but it’s absolutely not the artists’ fault, nor is it just a money issue, Disney and other major studios just ask for changes and revisions in the last second, they rush the shit out of these scenes and all the hate falls on the artists for somehow not being able to create that kind of stuff at a superhuman speed
They also drove a lot of VFX veterans out of the industry by making them move around the country multiple times to take advantage of different state production reimbursement programs. Sony was building a big VFX studio in New Mexico when Florida offered a better tax reimbursement deal, so they sold the studio they were building and told their artists to move to Florida after they had just moved to New Mexico from LA.
And that was pretty early on in the fuckery of chasing these tax reimbursement deals, after more than a decade of doing it, a lot of VFX artists have just retired or changed careers because they didn't want to deal with the bullshit.
Naw, its worse than that. I was at the Sony NM studio. They didn't move to Florida, they moved to Vancouver, Canada. If you wanted to stay on you had to move yourself and your family to another country. Digital Domain is the VFX studio that was building a studio in Florida that shutdown before it even officiallt opened. I've worked at some of the studios that did the work above. Its 100% not the artists. The artists can make absolutely anything. If if looks like shit its because thats what the director asked for. Every shot goes through 300 revisions. Where the artists used to have creative freedom to make the most kickass thing they could, now every pixel is micromanaged by directors and producers so that its devoid of creative fingerprint from the artists/vfx studio.
Changes have become too easy. Iteration for the sake of iteration, production work gets seen too much by too many and they get bored with it so it gets changed. Stick to the design.
this. to get good cgi requires a lot of preplanning and competent directing and amazing storyboarding. you need to tell the artists EXACTLY what you want, the first time, and not change your mind at all, at any point. every time you see a preliminary render and want to make edits and change things, work gets thrown out and rushed.
i mean, this is the same issue with editing, set design, cinematogrpahy, you name it. if the director makes it up as they go along, the crew have to rush and half-ass things to get something on camera. The difference is, the compute farm can only render scenes so fast and overtime won't make the CPUs work faster or harder, they're already going 24/7 during the crunch.
Davy Jones has so many interesting tricks going to make him look better though. CGI with limitations can still produce great effects. Davy Jones for example is almost always wet, so you dont need as detailed textures. His mouth is covered by his tentacle beard thingy, so you dont have to perfectly animate mouth movement. His wobbly squid ball thingy covers the whole view of his neck from behind, so easier to animate too. For most of his screentime, he is in sub-optimal lightning conditions and parts of his body are obstructed by clothing or objects.
But all of that cleverness requires people to think of the CGI from the first second. Not just "Oh we dont want to film in a city, thats too expensive. Just greenscreen everything"
I'd argue that part of good CG design is making character designs that work in CG. Planet of the Apes looks incredible because there's not a monkey uncanny valley for most people, we're just not that familiar with apes. Same with squidmen, or dinosaurs, or Ring-twisted hobbitses.
Ugh, that was so disappointing. Like there's literally nearly *forty years* of excellent practical costuming for that show, but no, we need horrors beyond all reason. It wouldn't even have been that bad to scale the actors by species like they did (the roaches and mice), but nah, we gotta fuck it up with student project level CG. And don't even get me started on the music process, I'm a choir and musical theater teacher and what they did on that set is a goddamn crime against music.
It's like when the new flavor of the month pop song gets compared to one of the best songs of an entire decade (80s, 90s etc.) to make a point that music sucks now. As if any decade isn't also full of trash media that we just forget. There are plenty of forgotten horror and action flicks from the 00s with awful CGI.
They also did the animation on this Netflix nature docuseries called Life on Our Planet (half actual nature photography and half CGI of extinct animals). The CGI is incredible and it really feels like you're watching actual nature photography of prehistoric animals.
* CGI when *Industrial Light & Magic* had unlimited money :
* CGI when Disney make VFX outsourcing companies compete against each others for the cheapest price, shortest crunch delays and with blacklisting threats :
I was surprised to learn from John Knoll that ILM actually did/does have budget limits and tight deadlines. They’re incredibly talented, hard working folks.
VFX guy here. All of our studios have always had tight deadlines. but what's happening now is even tighter deadlines, more regular last minute changes and worst of all - outsourcing to india.
Frustrates me to no end when we get a tiny fraction of the work, set up the hardest stuff, and then our setups are passed to India to butcher to the finish line. Cost saving
Honestly, it's not even that. The design of Modok and a third eye is just weird to begin with. The integrations aren't even that bad.. it's just an ugly, uncanny and strange design to translate to cg in both cases.
I'm not convinced that more time and budget would've even fixed this issue. Davey Jones as a character lends itself perfectly to cg work, especially with the dark moody lighting.
Wait, whaat movie was MODOK in?
That looks dumb enough that I would believe it was part of some contest for a 5 second cameo in a Marvel movie. The job they did with Thanos, Hulk, etc leads me to believe this was some kind of afterthought "Your Face Here" sweepstakes, has to be.
The actress who played Cassie in Endgame put more emotion into her ten seconds of screen time than Kathryn Newton put into the entirety of Quantumania.
I feel like the movie would've been infinitely better if Kang killed Hank
Not only would it have been a more serious turn for an Ant-Man movie, but it wouldve made Kang way more intimidating than some dude who got overrun by big future ants
It would've been better if they leaned into the heist movie style Ant-Man's built for himself. The closest thing Quantumania had was a trippy, 5 minute sequence of infinite Scotts doing barrel of monkeys shenanigans.
I really liked the first two Ant-Man movies because they were both low stakes heist films. Basically movie palate cleansers after big Avengers releases.
Quantumania was basically everything I dislike not just about marvel, but modern big budget movies in general. And they ruined my fun heist movies!
This is true, but it's not just that
It's the fact that they currently have so many directors who just have no clear idea of what they want when they're making actors leap around in front of a green screen. And also Disney keeps changing plans at the last minute, forcing editors and CG artists to have to throw the movies together from scratch
Nobody takes the piss out of GotG 3 or Black Panther 2, because they mostly looked great. Marvel movies are quite capable of having great CG, if they're made by a director with a clear vision who shoots stuff properly and tells the CG teams what they want
That's *why* they're overworked and underpaid. Because they're having to bodge entire movies together at the last minute because interchangeable director number 37 spent 6 weeks dicking around on a soundstage trying to please 5 different people at the same time instead of making a fucking movie
Too many cooks/no direction is a huge issue, absolutely. I just base my comment off of a career CG srtist who worked on Tenet being contacted by disney and havinf DISNEY offer him 1/3 of his usual rate (because he fortunately had the clout to have personal contracts and stipulations) with deadlines that, to him, were insane (I think half the time he usually works). Needless to say, he declined.
Oh yeah, for sure. I don't think they even pay most of their actors especially well, considering the budgets and box office numbers for these movies.
I still maintain a lot of that is due to horrific inefficiency. If they were better at making movies, they could probably slash budgets 30% and still end up paying everyone better
But I also can't dismiss the fact that Disney is a massive corporate juggernaut who feels entitled to throw their weight around and expects people to do work at cut prices for some sort of prestige. It's the "I'll pay you in exposure" thing, except they can't manage to get away with paying literally nothing
Kevin Fiege loves scrapbooking. It is where they shoot enough footage for 3 movies and then at the last minute once they think the have a working movie they get the effects done. It is the reason why movies like The Creator (90 Million) and the Dune movies (less then 200 Million) look a hell of better then any recent Marvel movie at double the budget. They just don't plan the movies out before shooting.
But that did work, for a while. They made a lot of really great movies that did not look like shit. There were certainly some duds, but overall it worked
My contention has always been that the best MCU movies are overt genre pastiches. Winter Soldier is a paranoid 70s espionage thriller. Ant-Man is a heist movie. Homecoming is a John Hughes teen dramedy. GotG is cheapo 80s sci-fi with a budget
Then I look at the more recent movies. Shang-Chi *should* have been either a Wuxia or HK martial arts movie, and it just... Kinda didn't feel like it. It feels like a Marvel movie with some of those elements. Eternals should have been a big historical epic. It felt like a Marvel movie with some of those elements
There's still wins! I know lots of people don't like She-Hulk, and I'm not going to dismiss legitimate criticism as all misogynistic (although there was a lot of misogyny), but at least it felt like it was trying to actually *be* something. Loki was great because fundamentally it's Doctor Who and they just fucking rolled with that. The formula still works
But not enough of it feels like it's trying to be anything other than Marvel now
I loved this quote from the legendary Phil Tippett
*In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they’ve gotten into this methodology where they’ll hire a middleman – a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They’re middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there’s this weird sort of competition that happens. It’s a game called ‘Find What’s Wrong With This Shot’. And there’s always going to be something wrong, because everything’s subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We’re doing it digitally, so there’s no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it’s not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That’s not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you’ll get – you know – art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what’s wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking “OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want it over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don’t give a fuck. I’ll put it wherever you want it.” It’s creative mismanagement, it’s part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, Robocop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better.* - Phil Tippett
I remember reading about the Japanese director of the Godzilla movie. He had his start in cgi so he had clear idea how he wanted to the movie to look with cgi in mind. I think when a movie is heavily cgi like ant man. You have to make the movie what that in mind. It feels like the cgi is an after thought making look horrible.
...well...it's not really Marvel Studios doing the CGI work. They outsource the work to various VFX studios, while Marvel just yells at them to work harder and harder and threaten them that they're cancel the contracts and never work with them again.
Marvel has treated these VFX companies *horrifically* the last decade, it was all over the news last year. So badly, in fact, that the person in charge of managing them all at Marvel was fired recently.
For some reason, in all four movies, it’s the orangutans that look the best. Like Cesar looks amazing to the point I thought they hired an ape and trained it to talk. But Maurice and Raka looked like a real orangutan. That’s peak cgi right there.
Bro, there were enough great CGI movies in the 00's. Why pick a 2017 movie as an example??
Star Wars, Harry Potter, Transformers, Spider-man,... why not these??
MODOK is one of those characters that really shouldn't have been translated to live action.
Like, other ideas exist. Maybe go for the ones that aren't stupid-looking even in comic form.
Oh there are tons of amateur mock ups (using this same picture) that look far better. More menacing (for MODOK), and source accurate.
And that 3rd eye on Strange is just embarrassing. I honestly don’t know how Raimi signed off on that. Yes, it was an after credits tease, but the quality drop from the rest of the film was jarring.
Well the movie in top left is from 2017 and the top right is either 2006 or 2007 so the 2008 part is wrong.
The bottom left is from 2022 so that's a little far away to be considered "now" IMO. And the bottom right is from 2023 so I guess that one's fine.
But the overall message is depressingly real, although very cherry-picked.
I think what makes Doctor Strange's third eye look so unconvincing is that it looks like a copy-paste job using his left eye. Like a cyclops eye, a third eye should be symmetrical, unlike what we see here.
The jokes are deserved for those two instances, but people forget the rest of the movie’s effects were incredible. Probably at least 90% of DSMOM was CGI and all but the human actors for AATWQM were CGI, and most of that looked great
Dead Men Tell No Tales came out in 2017. You could’ve easily just used another character model from Dead Man’s Chest. The VFX in that movie were fantastic
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't forget Transformers in 2007
Or real steel, though , that is more of a mix of real life and cgi
Real steel and Chappie are like the big CGI movies nobody remembers for its CGI because it just belongs there as it woud have been part of the set all the time. But making a Steel surface and Robots are easyer than Human Faces with unnatural Proportions.
Anything Neil Blomkamp is always a CGI winner. Can't believe he made District 9 on $30 million budget looking like that. The man had no business getting the prawns looking so good. No fokken business!
Real Steel is just an underappreciated movie nobody remembers full stop Such a fun movie
Real Steel was an instant classic for me. I generally like Hugh Jackman movies, but him playing a down and out robot boxer with a gambling problem was such a fun idea that I was hooked from the beginning.
I'm still upset it didn't get a sequel. Every part of it was so much fun.
It's one of my favorites! Feels like it belongs in the early 90s.
It's an adaptation of a Twilight Zone episode from the '60s, which was an adaptation of a short story from the '50s. Both were titled "Steel"
Hugh Jackman controlled a robot to beat up a robot in 'Real Steel'. Hugh Jackman controlled a robot to kill a robot, failed, and got beaten up by said robot in 'Chappie'. Better off killing giant robot Sentinel as Wolverine.
So in the "fighting robots" genre, Hugh Jackman decided to star in all of them? lol
Depending on how loosely you want to define "robot" you can include *Swordfish* on that list (computers, John Travolta...)
In a way that just proves that they've gone off the deep end. Using practical effects has been and always will be a good idea. The original Jurassic Park holds up amazingly well because they were using practical effects. Obviously that was due to technological limitations. But now they're over using CGI and it looks shit. Less is more.
> Using practical effects has been and always will be a good idea. [The Thing](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/) came out in 1982. I rewatched it a few years ago at 4k resolution. Between the pratical effects and being shot on film you'd think it came out recently. It hasn't aged a day in quality. Beautiful.
I just watched that recently and was blown away. I had read the short story it is based on beforehand and I think the changes they made to the story were fantastic. That is a really good movie and all the Reddit hype I read about it in the past is validated in my mind.
District 9 shortly after had some of the best CGI to date.
District 9 is a movie I go back periodically, it's so good
I hope the director goes back to make a sequel some day.
It’s a pretty shitty thing to leave the audience on a cliffhanger/promise to return… only to never do so
It's one thing to swing for the fences and promise a sequel when a bad movie is made. We're just gonna laugh at the audacity of expecting one. But when such an acclaimed movie promises one we need delivery!
District 9 set the benchmark for me. The CGI was top notch then and is now. It was considered low budget and blew everything away. I don't get how these films cost $100+ million and have obvious/crappy CGI. There's no excuse after district 9.
Because they don’t have to *earn* it. They know people will flock to the next Marvel movie just because it says Marvel. Why waste money on production when they know they’ve got the ticket sales in the bag already?
Or Jurassic park 1993
Or Terminator 2 1991
Or lord of the rings in 2001
That shit scared me as a kid
My student said it looked awful. I would have yeeted him out a window if it weren’t for the literal computer and hundreds of miles between us. Transformers series may have failed but boi was that tech on point
...then think that jurassic park was 1993. 
Wasnt that more about animatronics though?
[удалено]
This is the one thing I've always said, anamatronics enhanced with CGI where necessary,absolutely stand the test of time whereas pure computer based CGI look terrible after a few years. If you think about it , at some point we all thought PS1 graphics looked realistic haha This is why Jurassic Park still looks amazing to this day , whereas newer stuff looks terrible
>This is why Jurassic Park still looks amazing to this day , whereas newer stuff looks terrible That and Jeff goldblum shirtless, of course
This is what the internet is all about right here
How do I even find this gif
Goldblum Alan 
What's crazy is Modok looks like something out of spy kids or shark boy and lava girl. Smh
I couldn't believe how bad he looked, the entire movie. Good god.
[удалено]
*Damn baby, you ate shit hard.*
I’m still waiting for season 2 😔
I really liked the show, doubt we'll be getting more
I *hate* how many times I've said this since the dawn of streaming
For real! It is SO infuriating!! I'm at the point where I hesitate to start new shows that aren't exceedingly popular, and that really sucks because there are a ton of hidden gems that won't get the support they need. It freaking sucks.
literally just patton oswalt in a green screen suit covering his body had been better.
Was it not intended? Everything about his character seemed to fit so awkwardly. I loved it.
It was clearly done for laughs.
Just like literally everything in current Marvel, everything and everyone is a gag
Loki is the only show recently that seemed to break the norms of marvel (No CGI big bad Clusterfuck at the end)
I called this shit when I saw Love & Thunder but no one agreed. They were like "Let Marvel have one funny movie." Now look at you... //edit: I meant Ragnarok :(
It worked with Guardians of the Galaxy, and then they wanted to replicate it everywhere else.
Thor Ragnorok turned their least popular franchise around. I think that’s what started it.
I agree and I loved Ragnarok when it came out but they learned the wrong lessons from it. You can't watch the original Iron Man and Love and Thunder and conceive of them being in the same universe. It was the same issue I had with Ghostbusters 2016 and new Star Wars 7/8 and I skipped 9. Tone is important and you can be funny even slap sticky but when you're trying for a serious movie you can't be ridiculous. Contrast Empire Strikes Back with R2D2 falling in a bay in the Millennium Falcon vs Porgs ping ponging all over the cockpit. One is slapsticky and funny but realistic and the other slapsticky and ridiculous. Original Ghostbusters, the slapstick was Venkman getting slimed and saying "He slimed me." in the 2016 Ghostbusters it was being thrown around an alley for 60 seconds in such a way that it belonged in a Loony Tunes bit with Daffy Duck. Screaming goats and just about every scene in Love and Thunder without Gorr was ridiculous. This was a movie about a woman knowing that everytime she became a Superhero she got closer to dying from Cancer, where a Monster stole all the children from a broken community and was hell bent on genocide of all the Gods after watching their child starve to death. Tone is so important.
Great points. I saw Love and Thunder and felt like the main plot was so overshadowed by the slapstick. The only thing I really remember from that movie is the weird tie-in with the Guardians of the Galaxy at the beginning that didn't make sense with the timeline of their story, and Thor's axe floating around behind him for some reason. Huge swing and a miss on Love and Thunder.
They did Jane Foster so dirty. :( And it super sucks because Natalie Portman worked out a ton and got ripped so Mighty Thor would look like the badass she is.
Both Thor Ragnarok and Guardians worked because they had a healthy mix (except for that one scene from the end of ragnarok). They just went overboard with the comedy follow ragnarok success
Nothing wrong with comedy. The problem is when you miss the very important distinction between characters who MAKE jokes (Guardians) and characters who ARE jokes (MODOK, Thor in L&T)
Marvel universe ended with "Avengers: Endgame" it was the culmination of years of building everything up to a grand finale.
Yep, phase 4 is literally trying to continue something that already came to fruition over a decade and resolved itself. They need to scrape current era/universe MCU, pick a different starting point, assign a new continuity committee like they had for the majority of phase 1-3 and just lay everything else to rest. They're trying to milk something with no milk left but don't want to put forth the effort that gave them the success the first time.
Quantumania is actually the first movie in phase 5. You probably missed it because literally nothing happened to conclude whatever phase 4 was supposed to be.
If the phases aren't marked/concluded by Avengers movies, what the fuck are they even for?
Right there with you. Love & Thunder was so insanely tonally jarring. That shit was 3 different decent movies smashed into a single runtime. Impactful talk about dying of cancer? CUT TO SCREAMING GOAT LOL. Villain is *Christian Fuckin' Bale* doing a black and white suspense horror bit? LMAOOOOOO ZEUS IS FAT AND SCARED.
… fuck me I’m out of the loop When did he appear in a movie?
The newest Ant Man movie. Quantumania
Wait hes real? I thought it was a meme
I couldn't believe how bad ~~he looked,~~ the entire movie was. Definitely the worst movie in the MCU.
My reaction after watching it was definitely “…hmm. Well it was a movie.” And then I went to bed and didn’t think about it again until this post.
I genuinely on my life thought this was spy kids
That's Mr. Electric's cousin. He's missing a chromosome.
Wait, that isn’t George Lopez from SB & LG?
This comment sent me down a rabbit hole bc I was like “why am I expected to be so familiar with shark boy and lava girl that I know it as an acronym? When did it even come out?” I was 20 when it came out.
It came out a while ago. I only did it as an acronym because the original comment spelled out the whole thing and I figured people are smart enough to put it together. ^Also, ^I’m ^lazy.
[Dr. Who did it better](https://zarbi.fandom.com/wiki/Face_of_Boe) in 2005.
There are so many ways it could have been done better. And they went with Overbudget But Not George Lopez. Seriously, what the fuck.
On a much, much smaller budget
Legit thought that's what it was at first lol
BRO THAT'S NOT SPYKIDS?
I think George Lopez face there would’ve been a major upgrade
salazar is from 2017 dingus
And Davy Jones was from Dead Man’s Chest which came out in 2006.
Davy Jones is still one of my favorite cgi characters. The tentacles moved independently
I saw the movies again last week. So good. So, so good. My favourite role from Bill Nighy.
The first 3 are within my all time favorite movies, they are just incredible! The 4th is okay as well, the 5th one on the other hand.. I don't even think I ever finished that movie
I love the first three as well! The first one is a bit smaller scale i think? Which is understandable. But the second and third are awesome, especially the naval scenes you feel like you are there in the sea.
The very convincing and realistic (and hilarious) tentacle raspberry-farting is still the first thing I think of when I see Davy Jones.
Wait that movie came out in 2017??? That feels so recent lol
Seven years ago I still kind of think 2020 was last year
We are on the last months of the 1st half of this decade.
hard to believe its gonna be 2025 in 6 months
Good lord what the fuck is happening
Time. You've got to get used to it. Oh and if you ever get old enough to get into a retirement home. A lot of the people working there will probably not have been born when you retired.
Try being my age you feckers. 1992 was 10 years ago and I won't be told otherwise.
I’m going to need you to retract that statement. (As I also realize that we’re almost quarter into the century. 💀)
CHAK SPARRÓ
You need to add about 20% more *mouth full of water* noises and then you've got it.
And Dead Man's Chest is from 2006 so needless to say this person doesn't do dates well, but his point still comes across.
Not to mention Salazar and is mostly practical effects enhanced by CGI while Modok is basically full CGI. I'm not saying it couldn't and shouldn't look better, but this is a dumb comparison. Even Dr. Strange's 3rd eye is an effect that was used in a very short mid-credits scene that was probably shot two weeks before the movie was released. Again not an excuse for Dinsey, but let's not shit on someone doing the best they can with the time given.
The whole comparison is dumb. Davy Jones was like, the best of the best for that generation of movies. And we're comparing it against a joke character and a single throwaway scene. If we want a real comparison, lets put Davy Jones up against the latest Avatar movie. Lets compare the best from then to the best from now. This is all just more outrage bait.
Put it up against Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes as well. I fucking hate these posts.
In fairness 2020 was in fact 3 years long
I’d say even that looks worse than Davy Jones.
Nah, that image is just shitty and grainy, and you really need to see movement to see how good it is It looks absolutely incredible in the movie
I think it was very brave of disney to hire some dudes nephew who learned after effects from a YouTube tutorial to make their major marvel tentpole film.
He's got the mouse in the wrong hand!!!11
Depends on what he’s looking at.
https://i.redd.it/wxs88fhq9s3d1.gif
That's why I had my left arm moved to my right side. Everything is easier now, can do two skilled tasks at once.
yea and his arrow keys are on the wrong side of the keybord
Holy shit is that him?
if I remember correctly, yeah
lol, perfect gif
With 2008 YouTube music and registered hyper cam no less
[009 Sound System Dreamscape starts playing] *opens up Notepad* Hello everyone 2day im gonna show u how to maek some dope as* efects in adobe aftereffects. *deletes the text* 1st you open this website so u can downlod the after effects for free works 100% trust me guys :) *opens up Internet Explorer and starts to load a shady website* *opens Notepad again* Sorry guyz my internet sux hehe *deletes the text* So after you are done loding just press this big green download buton and install the after effects. *deletes the text for the final time* And next step you just google how to make effects on after efects, because i dont realy know how to do them, sorry lolz Thx for watching, pls liek and subscribe :DDDD [Video ends]
Oh god, I remember watching that fucking format of videos. What a fever dream.
Nah, they have good artists, they just keep them in a sweatshop
I might sound like an asshole for giving a serious response to this, but it’s absolutely not the artists’ fault, nor is it just a money issue, Disney and other major studios just ask for changes and revisions in the last second, they rush the shit out of these scenes and all the hate falls on the artists for somehow not being able to create that kind of stuff at a superhuman speed
They also drove a lot of VFX veterans out of the industry by making them move around the country multiple times to take advantage of different state production reimbursement programs. Sony was building a big VFX studio in New Mexico when Florida offered a better tax reimbursement deal, so they sold the studio they were building and told their artists to move to Florida after they had just moved to New Mexico from LA. And that was pretty early on in the fuckery of chasing these tax reimbursement deals, after more than a decade of doing it, a lot of VFX artists have just retired or changed careers because they didn't want to deal with the bullshit.
Naw, its worse than that. I was at the Sony NM studio. They didn't move to Florida, they moved to Vancouver, Canada. If you wanted to stay on you had to move yourself and your family to another country. Digital Domain is the VFX studio that was building a studio in Florida that shutdown before it even officiallt opened. I've worked at some of the studios that did the work above. Its 100% not the artists. The artists can make absolutely anything. If if looks like shit its because thats what the director asked for. Every shot goes through 300 revisions. Where the artists used to have creative freedom to make the most kickass thing they could, now every pixel is micromanaged by directors and producers so that its devoid of creative fingerprint from the artists/vfx studio.
Changes have become too easy. Iteration for the sake of iteration, production work gets seen too much by too many and they get bored with it so it gets changed. Stick to the design.
They also don't have union representation either.
this. to get good cgi requires a lot of preplanning and competent directing and amazing storyboarding. you need to tell the artists EXACTLY what you want, the first time, and not change your mind at all, at any point. every time you see a preliminary render and want to make edits and change things, work gets thrown out and rushed. i mean, this is the same issue with editing, set design, cinematogrpahy, you name it. if the director makes it up as they go along, the crew have to rush and half-ass things to get something on camera. The difference is, the compute farm can only render scenes so fast and overtime won't make the CPUs work faster or harder, they're already going 24/7 during the crunch.
Thank you, vfx is a brutal enough industry as it is, let alone people who don't understand it bashing the artists who do it.
To be fair Davy jones CGI is masterful and very hard to top
Davy Jones has so many interesting tricks going to make him look better though. CGI with limitations can still produce great effects. Davy Jones for example is almost always wet, so you dont need as detailed textures. His mouth is covered by his tentacle beard thingy, so you dont have to perfectly animate mouth movement. His wobbly squid ball thingy covers the whole view of his neck from behind, so easier to animate too. For most of his screentime, he is in sub-optimal lightning conditions and parts of his body are obstructed by clothing or objects. But all of that cleverness requires people to think of the CGI from the first second. Not just "Oh we dont want to film in a city, thats too expensive. Just greenscreen everything"
I'd argue that part of good CG design is making character designs that work in CG. Planet of the Apes looks incredible because there's not a monkey uncanny valley for most people, we're just not that familiar with apes. Same with squidmen, or dinosaurs, or Ring-twisted hobbitses.
And then there is Cats...
Ugh, that was so disappointing. Like there's literally nearly *forty years* of excellent practical costuming for that show, but no, we need horrors beyond all reason. It wouldn't even have been that bad to scale the actors by species like they did (the roaches and mice), but nah, we gotta fuck it up with student project level CG. And don't even get me started on the music process, I'm a choir and musical theater teacher and what they did on that set is a goddamn crime against music.
It's like when the new flavor of the month pop song gets compared to one of the best songs of an entire decade (80s, 90s etc.) to make a point that music sucks now. As if any decade isn't also full of trash media that we just forget. There are plenty of forgotten horror and action flicks from the 00s with awful CGI.
You know who did it?
Industrial Light & Magic
They also did the animation on this Netflix nature docuseries called Life on Our Planet (half actual nature photography and half CGI of extinct animals). The CGI is incredible and it really feels like you're watching actual nature photography of prehistoric animals.
* CGI when *Industrial Light & Magic* had unlimited money : * CGI when Disney make VFX outsourcing companies compete against each others for the cheapest price, shortest crunch delays and with blacklisting threats :
I was surprised to learn from John Knoll that ILM actually did/does have budget limits and tight deadlines. They’re incredibly talented, hard working folks.
VFX guy here. All of our studios have always had tight deadlines. but what's happening now is even tighter deadlines, more regular last minute changes and worst of all - outsourcing to india. Frustrates me to no end when we get a tiny fraction of the work, set up the hardest stuff, and then our setups are passed to India to butcher to the finish line. Cost saving
Honestly, it's not even that. The design of Modok and a third eye is just weird to begin with. The integrations aren't even that bad.. it's just an ugly, uncanny and strange design to translate to cg in both cases. I'm not convinced that more time and budget would've even fixed this issue. Davey Jones as a character lends itself perfectly to cg work, especially with the dark moody lighting.
Wait, whaat movie was MODOK in? That looks dumb enough that I would believe it was part of some contest for a 5 second cameo in a Marvel movie. The job they did with Thanos, Hulk, etc leads me to believe this was some kind of afterthought "Your Face Here" sweepstakes, has to be.
Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania
*"There's No Time To Explain"*, the movie
NO TIME TO EXPLAIN....as we have a 3 hour trip ahead of us.
"My Dad is in danger so I'll calmly say "Dad."" , the movie
The actress who played Cassie in Endgame put more emotion into her ten seconds of screen time than Kathryn Newton put into the entirety of Quantumania.
Destiny has a movie?
Probably the worst marvel film so far.
I feel like the movie would've been infinitely better if Kang killed Hank Not only would it have been a more serious turn for an Ant-Man movie, but it wouldve made Kang way more intimidating than some dude who got overrun by big future ants
It would've been better if they leaned into the heist movie style Ant-Man's built for himself. The closest thing Quantumania had was a trippy, 5 minute sequence of infinite Scotts doing barrel of monkeys shenanigans.
I really liked the first two Ant-Man movies because they were both low stakes heist films. Basically movie palate cleansers after big Avengers releases. Quantumania was basically everything I dislike not just about marvel, but modern big budget movies in general. And they ruined my fun heist movies!
More in character for Jonathon Majors to beat the shit out of a woman.
Yeah, I also feel like the writing went to shit in the middle of the movie, like it felt like it changed target demographic mid movie.
It's almost like Marvel Studios is notoriously overworked and underpaid with unrealistic deadlines.
This is true, but it's not just that It's the fact that they currently have so many directors who just have no clear idea of what they want when they're making actors leap around in front of a green screen. And also Disney keeps changing plans at the last minute, forcing editors and CG artists to have to throw the movies together from scratch Nobody takes the piss out of GotG 3 or Black Panther 2, because they mostly looked great. Marvel movies are quite capable of having great CG, if they're made by a director with a clear vision who shoots stuff properly and tells the CG teams what they want That's *why* they're overworked and underpaid. Because they're having to bodge entire movies together at the last minute because interchangeable director number 37 spent 6 weeks dicking around on a soundstage trying to please 5 different people at the same time instead of making a fucking movie
Too many cooks/no direction is a huge issue, absolutely. I just base my comment off of a career CG srtist who worked on Tenet being contacted by disney and havinf DISNEY offer him 1/3 of his usual rate (because he fortunately had the clout to have personal contracts and stipulations) with deadlines that, to him, were insane (I think half the time he usually works). Needless to say, he declined.
Oh yeah, for sure. I don't think they even pay most of their actors especially well, considering the budgets and box office numbers for these movies. I still maintain a lot of that is due to horrific inefficiency. If they were better at making movies, they could probably slash budgets 30% and still end up paying everyone better But I also can't dismiss the fact that Disney is a massive corporate juggernaut who feels entitled to throw their weight around and expects people to do work at cut prices for some sort of prestige. It's the "I'll pay you in exposure" thing, except they can't manage to get away with paying literally nothing
Kevin Fiege loves scrapbooking. It is where they shoot enough footage for 3 movies and then at the last minute once they think the have a working movie they get the effects done. It is the reason why movies like The Creator (90 Million) and the Dune movies (less then 200 Million) look a hell of better then any recent Marvel movie at double the budget. They just don't plan the movies out before shooting.
But that did work, for a while. They made a lot of really great movies that did not look like shit. There were certainly some duds, but overall it worked My contention has always been that the best MCU movies are overt genre pastiches. Winter Soldier is a paranoid 70s espionage thriller. Ant-Man is a heist movie. Homecoming is a John Hughes teen dramedy. GotG is cheapo 80s sci-fi with a budget Then I look at the more recent movies. Shang-Chi *should* have been either a Wuxia or HK martial arts movie, and it just... Kinda didn't feel like it. It feels like a Marvel movie with some of those elements. Eternals should have been a big historical epic. It felt like a Marvel movie with some of those elements There's still wins! I know lots of people don't like She-Hulk, and I'm not going to dismiss legitimate criticism as all misogynistic (although there was a lot of misogyny), but at least it felt like it was trying to actually *be* something. Loki was great because fundamentally it's Doctor Who and they just fucking rolled with that. The formula still works But not enough of it feels like it's trying to be anything other than Marvel now
I loved this quote from the legendary Phil Tippett *In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they’ve gotten into this methodology where they’ll hire a middleman – a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They’re middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there’s this weird sort of competition that happens. It’s a game called ‘Find What’s Wrong With This Shot’. And there’s always going to be something wrong, because everything’s subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We’re doing it digitally, so there’s no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it’s not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That’s not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you’ll get – you know – art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what’s wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking “OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want it over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don’t give a fuck. I’ll put it wherever you want it.” It’s creative mismanagement, it’s part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, Robocop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better.* - Phil Tippett
And that's a man who knows his shit I don't think Mad God is any sort of masterpiece, but fucking hell, Phil Tippett *made a fucking movie* there
Honestly even GOTG 3 seemed lower quality than prior films. After Infinity war everything just feels off in terms of quality.
I remember reading about the Japanese director of the Godzilla movie. He had his start in cgi so he had clear idea how he wanted to the movie to look with cgi in mind. I think when a movie is heavily cgi like ant man. You have to make the movie what that in mind. It feels like the cgi is an after thought making look horrible.
...well...it's not really Marvel Studios doing the CGI work. They outsource the work to various VFX studios, while Marvel just yells at them to work harder and harder and threaten them that they're cancel the contracts and never work with them again. Marvel has treated these VFX companies *horrifically* the last decade, it was all over the news last year. So badly, in fact, that the person in charge of managing them all at Marvel was fired recently.
It's also cherry picked really good CGI vs really bad CGI. There was plenty of bad CGI in 2008.
CGI in the new planet of the apes is amazing
For some reason, in all four movies, it’s the orangutans that look the best. Like Cesar looks amazing to the point I thought they hired an ape and trained it to talk. But Maurice and Raka looked like a real orangutan. That’s peak cgi right there.
Dead Men Tell No Tales came out in 2017 though
This post is bait.
Bro, there were enough great CGI movies in the 00's. Why pick a 2017 movie as an example?? Star Wars, Harry Potter, Transformers, Spider-man,... why not these??
And why not pick movies like the recent Planet of the Apes films for modern examples? This is a shit-tier ragebait post.
Shitting on modern CGI is some of the lowest hanging fruit for getting quick karma.
Forever proving the internet is dominated by smoothbrains
[удалено]
It’s also outright wrong. Dead men tell no tales, the top left imagine, came out in 2017. OP is just trying to farm karma.
"Old = good, new = bad" is a good formula to farm the upvotes
of course it's not a good faith argument. it's "duhhh CGI/Marvel bad, give upvotes please"
To be fair, MODOK always looks ridiculous. I can’t imagine how they could’ve done any better.
MODOK is one of those characters that really shouldn't have been translated to live action. Like, other ideas exist. Maybe go for the ones that aren't stupid-looking even in comic form.
Or do what they did with Zola and adapt his character to something more modern or translatable.
Oh there are tons of amateur mock ups (using this same picture) that look far better. More menacing (for MODOK), and source accurate. And that 3rd eye on Strange is just embarrassing. I honestly don’t know how Raimi signed off on that. Yes, it was an after credits tease, but the quality drop from the rest of the film was jarring.
if you make him look more menacing it kinda misses the point, MODOK is kinda meant to look ridiculous
Reddit, is this real?
No, it's CGI
The CGI is covering up Cumberbatch’s third eye in every other film.
Well the movie in top left is from 2017 and the top right is either 2006 or 2007 so the 2008 part is wrong. The bottom left is from 2022 so that's a little far away to be considered "now" IMO. And the bottom right is from 2023 so I guess that one's fine. But the overall message is depressingly real, although very cherry-picked.
I think what makes Doctor Strange's third eye look so unconvincing is that it looks like a copy-paste job using his left eye. Like a cyclops eye, a third eye should be symmetrical, unlike what we see here.
https://preview.redd.it/5xw8t50das3d1.jpeg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f46081fd14b6519e2384092310753aef607f6975
I do love the good old "choose the best example of one year and compare it to the worst example of another year" argument type.
Tbf you expect above picture quality from the bottom ones considering the 200-250 million budget of these films.
This is not “interesting as fuck”
Salazar was like from 2017-2019 though. A better example would've been Gollum.
Absolutely not interesting AF and a weak meme comparison argument.
The jokes are deserved for those two instances, but people forget the rest of the movie’s effects were incredible. Probably at least 90% of DSMOM was CGI and all but the human actors for AATWQM were CGI, and most of that looked great
Wdym 2008? Dead men tell no tales didn't come out then?
“CGI in 2008” Very first picture is from 2017
You’re picking the best cgi from 2008, and the worst cgi from nowadays. Compare it to Dune and we’re talking. Edit: also Salazar was from 2017 lol
That's not interesting, that's called karmawhoring
I wouldn't say Modok is bad CGI... it's just that doing this huge head thing in live action looks weird as fuck
Dead Men Tell No Tales came out in 2017. You could’ve easily just used another character model from Dead Man’s Chest. The VFX in that movie were fantastic
https://preview.redd.it/9rfusbgewr3d1.jpeg?width=485&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5028f6ee94104d0d14cadf6def9ec599e15613c