Marvel Cinematic Universe Has a CGI Problem (screenrant.com) 398
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?
use of CGI is becoming more and more noticeable (Score:5, Funny)
overuse of CGI is becoming more and more noticeable.
Yes, I can understand that, especially if your CGI script is written in bash and you haven't patched your system against Shellshock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Ill meet you guys in the middle. I wrote mine in csh
(being the default shell on Solaris at the time)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why has the bar set to be high? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of these movies are bad, and they are bad because they boil down to being fights between CGI good guys and CGI bad guys, none of whom you care about and which is nothing you haven't seen before.
DC is actually far worse for that. Compare Nolan's Batman to Snyder's movies. Nolan was actually very conservative with the CGI and focused on the characters instead. You didn't notice most of the CGI because it was just there to enhance the acting and sets, not to create silly action figure fight scenes on obviously fake sets.
It's not just that Batman is a more down-to-earth character either. Wonder Woman managed to do the same thing, it was a film about the character's coming of age and taking her place in the world as a champion of justice. When Snyder got hold of her he replaced her with a CGI model or pointed the camera at Gal Gadot's arse and it sucked.
Directors who are obsessed with CGI treat the actors the same way - meat to create a certain image on screen, usually just some dude 'roiding out or some generic "hot babe" to wank over. And their movies all suck. And DC can't seem to figure this out.
Marvel is doing much better. Sony keeps botching Spiderman and the Fantastic 4, but the other movies are actually pretty good. Avengers, Thor, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dr. Strange, Ant Man and now Black Panther is probably the best of the lot, or at least in the top 3.
Re: (Score:2)
DC should rewatch the 1960s show and play the Arkham games and realise that what people really want is Batman beating the crap out of people.
Re:Why has the bar set to be high? (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair Nolan's story attempted to portray a person without any super powers in the most realistic way possible, and even Snyder confirmed this: "What's your super power again? I'm Rich!"
In much of the MCU the powers the heroes posses just don't lend themselves for going light on the CGI. It's easy to create a practical effect of a rich man's car. Much harder so to depict the lightning charged god of thunder.
Re: (Score:3)
In much of the MCU the powers the heroes posses just don't lend themselves for going light on the CGI.
But compare the MCU to the DCCU and actually the MCU is pretty light on CGI. In Justice League there were whole sections that were 90% CG characters on CG sets lasting for several minutes. The actors were only needed to mocap their movements and facial expressions to use as a starting point for the CG animators. The CG is really obvious too.
While the MCU has its issues (especially colour grading), it does at least use a lot of actual humans doing actual stuff on camera, and the CG it seamless and barely not
Re: (Score:2)
he replaced her with a CGI model or pointed the camera at Gal Gadot's arse and it sucked.
Isn't that the main reason the movie sold so well?
Re: Why has the bar set to be high? (Score:5, Insightful)
No houghi, fast food is bad. It's unhealthy pure and simple.
You know you're a privilidged 21st century 1st world twat when you can look at a plate of insanely inexpensive, safe, tasty, and sustaining food ... and declare that it's horribly "unhealthy" garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
No houghi, fast food is bad. It's unhealthy pure and simple.
You know you're a privilidged 21st century 1st world twat when you can look at a plate of insanely inexpensive, safe, tasty, and sustaining food ... and declare that it's horribly "unhealthy" garbage.
Safe is an amusing word choice for fast food. It's only safe in the short-term. Ronald McDonald has probably killed more people than all other clowns in history combined.
Also "inexpensive" is misleading. You can probably buy a burger for 99cents, but there is a lot of hidden cost there. For one, you're missing out the mind-boggling subsidies we pay each year to farmers to grow (specifically) maize to feed those animals. Fast food is heavily subsidized (indirectly) in the US. The cost you pay for that
Re: Why has the bar set to be high? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is neither inexpensive
in terms of calories per hour of labor to procure it; its some of the cheapest food in history. Yes you might be able to get food slightly cheaper than fast food at the grocery, but remember now you need to invest additional time / labor in preparing it for consumption; if you value this time at your usual day rate, fast food often wins.
nor safe
Again on comparative basis you probably less likely to contract a food born illness purchasing something at a fast food restaurant; than almost anything else you could do. Now maybe long term a steady diet of items source only from fast food menus might have negative health impacts. There is not however much evidence to suggest this is problem unique to fast food. You could again eat a very high carb/sugar, high fat diet sourced elsewhere and would likely have most of the same health issues over time. Finally again in "historical context" a steady diet of what you can order at your typical fast food joint is probably more nutrious than what most of the western worlds population lived on as recently as a couple centuries ago.
And for "sustaining", watch "supersize me"
There were lots of problems with that documentry. Others have done similar experiments and got very different results.
I am not saying fast food is the best option, if you have time and resources to do other things. Its worth keeping in mind though that a couple dollars buys a lot of calories that are sterile, pleasant to consume, and available in abundance. There are a lot of people for whom its frequently their best option and again in historical context its pretty darn good one!
Re: (Score:3)
I see someone has never involuntarily gone a day without food.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. But I can't imagine a scenario where you would have to and the only alternative would be McDonalds.
Re: (Score:3)
Why bother with humans at all? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's getting to the point where they won't really need humans. Be cheaper to do it all CGI.
They're pretty much cartoons as it is, why not go the whole hog?
You dislike CGI because you only notice it when it (Score:5, Insightful)
This says it well:
https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24 [youtu.be]
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.
CGI least of the problems (Score:3)
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?
If you are fixating on CGI gunfire... (Score:2)
You're not actually watching the movie.
The MCU has a newtonian mechanics problem (Score:5, Funny)
In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.
It really, really takes me out of the moment.
Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.
It really, really takes me out of the moment.
Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.
Hmm... so an extensive knowledge of archaeology and history isn't the only thing that can ruin movies for you, a physics degree will do it too?
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to not rotating when pushing or punching things that are more massive than they are; the protagonists also seem to have an infinite amount of friction when it comes to the bottom of their feet.
It really, really takes me out of the moment.
Don't get me started on Wire-Fu.
I was more annoyed when the animations in Avengers 2 moves through Escher space. It shows not only is there a lot of CGI it is apparently so lazy it is done in 2D and without making sure it matches what it is pasted on top of.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my problem with Pacific Rim. I kept thinking, "those streets aren't engineered to take that kind of ground pressure."
As for the second shot in the clip linked above, I didn't notice it On closer viewing, yeah, it looks fake, but not really any faker than what Hollywood has been doing for decades with squibs, not to mention its very unrealistic but dramatically satisfying explosions. And it's not just Hollywood [youtube.com].
That Moment at the 45-Second Mark (Score:3)
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... ]
Re: (Score:2)
I did the same thing, although with not quite as much determination, watching it only three or four times. My reaction: THAT? THAT is what you're going to complain about in terms of CGI? One small fleeting half-second of one person being shot so fast and so visibly small that you can't properly tell if it is or isn't CGI?
There are so many other far more massive issues, and such a tiny one is a problem to the OP?
Well.. (Score:2, Informative)
"Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask?"
I've not seen the clip but:
No actor to pay, just a CGI company already commissioned to work on the project. No cameraman. Get the shot exactly as you like, and do it years after shooting. No studio required. No casting agent. No wardrobe. No safety equipment or risk. No insurance required for stuntmen. Get the perfect shot and adjust as you go. No working hours. No rights.
No worker's unions for all those groups of unnecessary people. No r
Re: (Score:2)
Studios don't use CGI because it's cheap. The actors are getting paid anyway, it's not as though they're hourly and you can save money by sending them home. That's a sunk cost. CGI adds to the cost of a movie, it doesn't save money.
https://misix.com/movie-qualit... [misix.com]
Home vs hone. (Score:2)
http://www.writersdigest.com/o... [writersdigest.com]
https://english.stackexchange.... [stackexchange.com]
https://www.newyorker.com/book... [newyorker.com]
http://grammarist.com/eggcorns... [grammarist.com]
Grammar nazis REPRESENT!
HEIL WEBSTER!
#SayNoToJive
Clickbait Article (Score:3)
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.
Why CGI that? (Score:2)
There is a very simple reason to CGI that shot - complexity. There are actually 2 shots here. The first is the 1st where the camera travels up to the top floor - that's all CGI except for the extras. Then the 2nd shot as it lifts over the edge of the banister. It's technically very challenging, if not impossible, to do that shot in one continuous movement. Just on a simple level, the camera in the 1st shot is on a crane - they would need to remove the banister mid-shot for it to get the final angle in
Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, y (Score:2)
Originally it was an actor who eye-raped somebody in post production stage
Not the best worst example... (Score:2)
I didn't really notice that the second guy shot was CGI while watching Black Panther. What I did notice was that everything was SUPER NOTICEABLY CGI when the climactic fight scene on the mag lev track starts.
To me, that was the worst CGI I've seen in the MCU.
I'm not sure it matters (Score:4, Insightful)
If the move is good, then bad CGI won't ruin it.
If the movie is bad, then bad CGI won't redeem it.
If the movie is mediocre, bad CGI might tip it into the "bad" category, but who cares? The movie was mediocre to begin with, and with so many movies being released, there's no reason to settle for watching mediocre ones.
Personally the fake punches were more annoying. (Score:3)
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.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh dear, is someone forcing you to watch these movies?
It's escapism, a break from the mundane. It doesn't have to be realistic or have a complex plot. It just has to be fun.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
Scooby Doo is fun. For 5 minutes. Then it quickly becomes tedious, then boring then just plain annoying. Ditto most comic book films.
Re: (Score:3)
The Hex Girls are hot.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
The complaint against overly-obvious CGI is perfectly valid, when they start relying way too much on it, rather than doing actual stunts or redoing shots that were less than optimal. It is a valid critique, and may lead the author to skip future Marvel movies if they continue in that direction.
Viol8 is complaining that not every movie is made specifically to his taste, but no one is forcing him to watch them.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [slate.com]
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".
Re:Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the complaint, though. The complaint was about completely unnatural movement. There wasn't even an actor there to composite bullet holes onto, and the CGI-generated bad guy moves in a very Uncanny Valley way, which does take you out of the suspension of disbelief.
Re: (Score:2)
And specifically in this case, was not for "safety reasons" as the CGI character didn't do any real stunt.type move, he just fell down on the same floor he was standing on.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Viol8's critique boils down to "this is not to my taste, therefore it's bad for everyone". He can just skip the movies and not care about them, in silence. Not every movie is for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Box office receipts agree with you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And don't forget the "If you're not with me, you're against me" binary logic that has permeated almost everything in our society. If you're not a SJW, then obviously you're a Self Centered Sociopath.
I realize that you may not be saying exactly that, but enough people reading what you said, agreed, quickly reinforcing their own binary view of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you're not with us, you're against us" is famously from the President Bush of this century. I never regarded him as an SJW or leftist.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear, did someone insult something you like by giving their honest opinion of it?
No. Actually if you read the original post someone directly insulted the GP, not just something the GP likes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the free market in action. If you like a movie, pay to see it. If you don't, avoid it. People can complain about other people's tastes, but enough people like the Marvel Cinematic Universe to keep it going.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read what you wrote, and found myself agreeing. And then I remembered enjoying "Back to the Future", "Robocop", "Conan the Barbarian", "The Princess Bride". "Escape from New York", etc.
So, speaking for myself, I've found that the things I really liked when I was younger do not hold up all that well to closer examination. The sword work is laughable, the premises farfetched, the plot holes abundant. Hell, I still enjoy watching those movies, especially the ones I first watched with my now wife. But while I -think- they are better than today's drek, I am not sure how much of that is just nostalgia.
So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is, but because of how it shat all over World War I history, because of how ignorant it was of any historical martial arts, and because of how plot-hole-riddled it was. I got through "The Black Panther", but I many things annoyed me, would not dream of watching it again. Still, I wonder how much I would have enjoyed it if I had seen it when I was 15. Nowadays I mostly watch things that do not take itself seriously, or things that my wife can't even stand for being too grim and depressing. We just started watching "The Frankenstein Chronicles", and although it looks really good to me, it is too dark for her.
Maybe I am just an old fart, unable to enjoy the lighter things in life?
Re: Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone who just watched Indiana Jones told me that it was insensitive for Indie Jones to pull out a gun and shoot the "Kung Fu" swordsmen.
I said, "what what what?". Regardless of what, the scene delivers a hard cruel truth to the young me, and strongly influenced how I view Kung Fu. It was high humor, and effective.
We are both too old for this generation of reality-hating snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who just watched Indiana Jones told me that it was insensitive for Indie Jones to pull out a gun and shoot the "Kung Fu" swordsmen.
I said, "what what what?". Regardless of what, the scene delivers a hard cruel truth to the young me, and strongly influenced how I view Kung Fu. It was high humor, and effective.
We are both too old for this generation of reality-hating snowflakes.
I loved that scene in Indiana Jones. It worked on many different levels. It was funny (from a childish perspective), unfair (based on movie rules), and had a dose of reality at the same time. I think, though, that you have to be at a certain age for it to have it's full effect. As a child you would just find it funny, as an adult you wouldn't get the same sense of humor or feel just how unfair it is (based on movie rules). You have to be in your early teens to get the full effect.
I'm thinking that this
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a clip some time later of Indy going after the sword guy with his whip, so I don't know how much work Harrison Ford got out of there. There was also the scene in the second movie where he's confronted by a swordsman, reaches for his holster, and finds it empty.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Missing the joy in life (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is, but because of how it shat all over World War I history, because of how ignorant it was of any historical martial arts, and because of how plot-hole-riddled it was.
You are watching a movie with a woman who can fly, fights gods, and has a magic truth telling lasso and THAT is what bothered you? Maybe you need to lighten the hell up and just enjoy the movie for what it is. Or try to up your dose of whatever medication you are on so you stop taking things that aren't important too seriously.
It's a popcorn super hero movie, not a historically accurate period drama. Try to figure out the difference. You'll enjoy life a lot more when you don't take everything so damn seriously.
Maybe I am just an old fart, unable to enjoy the lighter things in life?
Gee, ya think?
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose you were 15 years old, had never heard about the 6-day war, and you saw a superhero movie set in the backdrop of that war. Whatever happened in that movie, even if you knew it was fiction, would become your first impression about the war and the people. So if the movie made it look Arabs were jerks, then that would begin to form your opinion of them. If the movie made it look like Israelis were jerks, then that would begin to form your opinion of them. So while yes, logically we should discount
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tolkien argued that if you had to suspend disbelief, the writer had failed.
Yes, that's the sort of thing that SHOULD bother you. If you create a world where women can fly, then (as Terry Nation would have said), on that world a woman can fly. Under the Isaac Asimov Doctrine, you have to justify violations of known physics for it to qualify as sci-fi. And? Does that mean he couldn't write a bloody good story? No, it meant he wrote bloody good stories that were self-consistent and where deviations were acknow
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm. Let's see. I'll look at what he said on the subject and let's see what this indicates.
At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'er-written without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
an endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
(Extract from My
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit skeptical of these superhero movies in general, but I have to admit I quite enjoyed Wonder Woman. I'm not sure why historical accuracy would detract in a movie that invents a new Greek/Roman god, who is then integral to the events in the 20th century. I mean, all bets are off, right? At the very least, you could have turned the sound off and enjoyed the eye candy that is Gal Gadot for 2 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I started watching "Wonder Woman", and stopped in disgust - not because of the woman empowerment, whatever that is, but because of how it shat all over World War I history, because of how ignorant it was of any historical martial arts, and because of how plot-hole-riddled it was.
You just have to let go. Every plot has holes, but some of them have good stuff also, you have to look for the good stuff. In Wonderwoman (there was nothing realistic about a movie featuring the God of War) the philosophy was deeper than in any movie we've seen for a long time. It presented a full awareness of the evilness of both sides in a conflict.
Re: (Score:3)
>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 R
Opinions are like... (Score:2)
I haven't seen Wonder Woman or Black Panther, but even the supposedly good Marvel movies have been a disappointment.
You're entitled to your opinion but I (and millions of others) don't agree with it. Literally every marvel movie I've seen in the last several years has been reasonably well done and fun to watch. Some better than others but none of them sucked and I've considered the time spent watching them time well spent.
So you end up with Jackie Chan fighting an unarmed guy with a ladder being 100% more entertaining because you know he's really doing it and can get hurt and the stakes are realistic.
So there has to be real risk of bodily harm to the actors and stuntmen for you to find it entertaining? Wow, that's kind of barbaric of you. How about you just go watch some MMA fights if you want t
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Life isn't light. Ignorance is the bliss of th (Score:2)
We still have Rick and morty.
Re: (Score:2)
We have it - it's called "the east coast".
Re: (Score:2)
Action movies are the best sellers for the CGI. Kids used to the spend their Saturday mornings watching slapstick movies like "The Three Stooges", Westerns, The Disney Club and other comedies like "Laurel and Hardy". Spaghetti Westerns were made in Italy (like "My name is Trinity") and had more comedy in them.
It was discussed here on slashdot years ago that scriptwriters had been told to make sure that their storylines were comprehensible to an average 12-year old.
But there are many movies presented at the
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Careful man, /. has become "news for people pretending to be nerds," as such we must welcome the dregs of comic conventions with open arms.
Oh wait, we don't. Fuck the wannabe nerds, send everyone who upvotes this story back to Reddit where they belong, this shit article doesn't even meet the qualifier of "tech" which most of the slashvertizements do.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.
Because they are fun, enjoyable, and entertaining.
But maybe you're right. Maybe you're the only sane person around and the vast majority of the world are the crazy ones. Just because you're dead inside doesn't mean the rest of us don't genuinely enjoy these movies. Especially Thor because that was a frigging hoot.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
" Why the hell would they even bother to CGI that, you ask? "
I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a get off my lawn rant, I love action films as much as the next guy, but the utter dross that are the "stories" from comics (no, they're NOT "graphic" novels, they're comics - for kids) don't deserve to be on daytime kids TV, never mind $100M+ spent on them per film.
Whereas, I don't like superhero movies either and think they're pretty dumb; really, it's for each their own. Most people on here won't like my taste in music, and I won't like theirs. We probably like different books. If people get a kick out of superhero movies- I don't have a problem with that. I'm more bothered by the commercial blasting I get everytime one is released than the movies themselves. That's more a product of our society than anything else though.. If it weren't superhero movies it would be some other movie being overly commercialized and advertised.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't watch them? Who cares if other people like them. I don't like the electronic music my son listens to, he doesn't like the metal I listen to. Somehow, neither one of us wants the other's music to not exist.
As to why they deserve to have $100+ million spent on them - people who have the $100+ million to spend think they'll make a better profit doing so than the alternative investments they could make.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because many of us are kids at heart.
As an adult myself (who can be considered middle age) real life is complex, People with the authority to do things, lack the ability. People with the ability often are not given the authority. Big complex problems need to be expressed at an 8th grade education level, so the masses will get on board, otherwise they reject any idea they don't understand.
There are a lot of things, it is complex, often unfair, and anything we do has limited impact on this.
So yes I like to go to the movies, watch people who more or less live a simple life style, in a world with an obvious bad guys (even if you can relate with them and are sympathetic.) and good guys with the Power and Ability to do something about it.
We don't have Tony Stark worry about going out and saving the day, because he will miss a meeting of an important contract which would cause him and his family to loose everything they own. Or Captain America having to figure out how to make ends meat after leaving shield as it closes down, he just finds an other organization or country to reside in.
I know it is fiction, however after watching it, I feel slightly more empowered, where I may just take that extra risk to bring me forward in life.
This stuff is for kids, but kids live in a world of possibilities, where the future has many options, so such shows opens up options to them. As an adult it brings that childhood like optimism back for a little bit.
Grumpy much? (Score:2)
I think a better question to ask is why anyone over the age of 15 goes to watch this sort of cookie cutter content free derivative crap with people in silly costumes doing not even suspension of disbelief believable stuff in the first place.
Who peed in your cereal this morning? If you don't like it don't watch it. Nobody cares if it isn't your particular brand of vodka and I don't agree with your assessment of it's artistic merit either. You aren't convincing anyone so I'm puzzled why you would hang out in a place like slashdot that clearly and overwhelmingly does not agree with you.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a get off my lawn rant,
Yes it is.
Re: Why the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.
Comments such as "what about Blade then?" or "so what, is the movie any good?" and entirely unhelpful to the narrative and thus often ignored completely by the MSM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.
Blade, Hancock, ... and those are just the more recent ones
How come you SJW's dont know shit about literally anything? You act like you are pioneering something thats already been fucking done, and done a lot better too, and at the time there didnt need to be a bunch of SJW's praising it.
You people are awful.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. you didn't even read the 2nd sentence in my 2 sentence post! well done you.
muppet.
Re: Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.
Comments such as "what about Blade then?" or "so what, is the movie any good?" and entirely unhelpful to the narrative and thus often ignored completely by the MSM.
"What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it? Compared with the 20 or so Marvel films in the last decade?
And the film appears to actually be good. Sorry if that shits on your "I'm cleverer than the MSM" parade.
Re: (Score:3)
Proof of concept?
Re: (Score:2)
PoC I think he means is "Person of black colouredness"
Re: Why the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah... ok...
but still... desperately finding reasons why all the previous ones don't count... really?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want something not to count toward your narrative, you make it counts as something else. "yeah those movies happened, but this is the first one in this very specific subgenre so it is special somehow.
I don't think it is as malicious as that sounds though. I think it is more that people like to be a part of firsts. So any excuse to make something" the first time [such and such] has happened " will be jumped upon.
Re: (Score:3)
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 "wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey
I'm going to skip answering most of the replies, since they seem to be people insisting on missing the point, but around Storm/Ororo Munroe, think of it as the difference between Storm being a supporting character in the X-Men movies (really) and an Origins movie for Storm, depicting her past growing up in Africa, and finding an identity.
One doesn't bring much new to the table though it lets some people see someone that looks like them in a hero-role, while the other lets a large group of the people arou
Re: (Score:3)
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, As
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, UK demographics show blacks as about 3% and Asians at 8%. Yet the TV industry only considers blacks. I put it down to the number of black people living in proximity to the BBC offices, so the liberals working there see so many of them they think the population is 50% black.
They need to get out to Birmingham. turns out they're more racist than the "fascists" they rail against so much.
Re:Why the hell? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF is an MCU (Score:5, Informative)
Marvel Cinematic Universe like the title says. I'm not even a fan of the movies (they're good movies to watch once with some popcorn, that's about it for me) and yet I figured it out before getting to the second instance of MCU in the summary.
Re:WTF is an MCU (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF is an MCU (Score:5, Funny)
"Or I guess Marvel Comic/Cinematic Universe if you don't loathe these comic book crap movies. I've stopped watching movies since almost everything produced is a comic book movie now. "
I can relate. Also, the problem is the not CGI but the 4.50$ spend for the script.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real problem with the Black Panther (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait...
So you're saying that in the movie set in a reality whereby a woman possesses Psionic Energy Manipulation [wikia.com]; a boy gets bitten by a spider and can climb walls [wikipedia.org]; a man can pick up and throw a car [youtube.com] when he gets angry; and both magic and time travel [wikipedia.org] exist - the *real* problem is that an African country is ahead of the rest of the world?
Not happy with reverse cuttural appropriation?
It is a question about suspension of belief (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actors have been shooting blanks at each other for a century very safely. A single freak accident doesnt imply any measurable amount of hazard for an actor.
How ironic that the whole very safe statistic was likely exactly the reason they chose to use real guns on the set of The Crow.
I agree, it's obviously rare, but when it goes wrong, someone's life can end. When someone's life is on the line, it tends to dictate at least some risk analysis. If CGI shooting does not detract from a movie, then perhaps it does hold value.
Re: (Score:2)
by this logic we should use CGI because transporting actors to the set (often by gasp car) could result in their lives being ended if something went wrong.
The risk is very low, because the probability is remote, even if the cost is high. When the probability is so near zero there is little investment that is reasonable to control for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then give them completely fake guns that and add the firing effects in CGI rather than giving the actor a real gun and adding the person being shot in CGI...
Maybe put a speaker in those fake guns so that pulling the trigger makes a bang sound if you want the actors to blink at the right time. Make them clearly not guns but brightly colored with tracking markers all over them so they can be CGIed really easily to look like real guns. All of that seems better than replacing a person with CGI since people see
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing that Marvel is first and foremost a graphic novel distributor, I really don't know why they just don't use all that marvelous Pixar tech they bought and push out animated versions. I know Spiderman is slated for the end of the year, and the trailers look ok, but seeing all these movies get storyboarded to begin with, why not just continue with a toon?
I wonder how the cost of producing top quality animation (Classic DIsney/Pixar at the top of their game/Aaardman/Studio Ghibli and other top-drawer anime studios) compares with live action?
Re: (Score:2)