How does it only have 37,000 dislikes? This CGI would be considered unacceptable in 2006

How does it only have 37,000 dislikes? This CGI would be considered unacceptable in 2006

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xW2xhBSfFps
youtube.com/watch?v=xkjoB4xwnlw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Maybe because the movie is like 6 months from being released. And unlike a DC movie that doesn't mean 6 months of script changes and reshoots.

>Number of posts before mentioning DC: 0

>tfw 37,000 people amounts to 0.0185%

Srs question. How and why has it become acceptable for the cgi in movies to look much worse than it did 10 years ago? Is it maybe on purpose as younger audience might actually want their live action movies to look like their videogames?

I know it's the default response but it's the Pokemon effect. When you realize how much you can sell without trying, vs how little you can gain over that by putting out something good, it becomes a business question. Disney doesn't want to invest in CGI when they know that these things are critic and audience proof already.

It's not, you're just older and more critical. Also better resolutions and higher detail available etc.

lets all dislike it, wait that will give it views
lets just ignore it

That doesn't make any sense. Raimi's Spiderman looks much better than Today's when you compare them now. The problem with this explanation is that production budgets have skyrocketed and most of the production process nowadays is cgi.

it's common knowledge that trailers use unfinished cgi shots all the time, no one gives a shit except for dumb autists like you

>Raimi's Spiderman looks much better than Today's
Maybe not on your VHS hooked up to your 30 inch CRT

whoops, replied to the wrong post

Replied wrong AGAIN

This is shrouded in darkness and it's from 2002.

That CGI wouldn't even be possible in 2006. I'm all for shitting on capeshit, but get your eyes checked.

...

>Raimi's movies looked better!
>They don't
>WELL IT'S OLD WHAT DID YOU EXPECT???
also scenes are usually made dark to hide the CGI, it would look even worse if it wasn't.

>mfw

>at first I was like
>then I lol'd

>10/10 cgi on Sup Forums

>b-but it was gud for its time!!

...

Is this for real? The ps4 spiderman game has better graphics than this shiny plastic shit

It looks like insomniac's new game is coming along well

>mfw

Are you pretending you didn't see the ending of Homecoming? It's the same suit.

Spider-Man 1 had better CGI than this shit. A LOT better.

I'm also guessing that the people who don't like capeshit don't actually watch Marvel trailers.

It still isn't a real suit

looks real here though

>b-but it was gud for its time!!

this came out a year before spider-man

last capeshit I saw was ironman3, now I refuse to see any of them.

for fucks sake it looks like something a junior student of computer graphics would do

Yes and a decade before Infinity War which is what this thread is about.

...

Look at Doc Ock's arms. They look incredible, even today. There's not a single effect in today's Marvel films which look as good as they do.

I wasn't that guy, but in a way it is better if you're going by standards of the time. No video game looked that detailed in game in 2002. OP's picture looks like in game footage of a game now.

>let's pretend that Thanos is bad cgi!!

It's really sad how many brand warriors infest this board. Wish they would fuck off back to Sup Forums.

That pic looks like shit and you know it.

...

I'm not talking about Thanos. Considering he's just Josh Brolin with some effects layered on, he should look real.
The issue is that the design is terrible.

Again, this is disguised. It goes by so fast in the movie that you don't have time to notice how bad it looks. I only just now noticed because you posted stills of it.

Looks pretty good for 2009.

faggots pretend they don't like the cgi, yet they make another capeshit thread

will this ever stop?

unlike all the cherry picked stills people always post from Marvel movies?

In Marvel movies entire characters look terrible. There isn't one scene where Ultron looks real.

it's fine

>Marvel has bad C....

>2005 realtime on the ps3

You know how you used to think old games from when you were a kid looked amazing, and then you try to play them now but the graphics are actually appalling? You're basically doing that with CGI.

Rose-tinted specks, my friend.

THIS

>implying the flaws aren't glaring in the movies themselves
The shitty cgi was the only thing I took note of in homecoming.

Yeah I don't get why people are complaining it looks great

This looks really good, not gonna lie.

If someone showed me that as a 3D model they made I'd be extremely impressed. But this is a movie where it's supposed to look real. It doesn't. It's obviously a video game.

This really isn't comparable. You;re comparing a split-second to a good couple of seconds that is genuinely noticeable in the Infinity Wars trailer.
It very noticeable the shift from the good-looking cgi at to the terrible cgi when Spider-Man stands up straight, like in the OP, and this just wasn't the case with the Raimi movies.

God damn that's jarring
kek it's almost on par

Am I crazy or does the thumbnail look like Adam Baldwin?

and then I make it dark like this guy said >also scenes are usually made dark to hide the CGI, it would look even worse if it wasn't.

why do butthurt fag? did you work for them and they fired your ass?

This fucking movie is gonna make 2 bill in the box office alone.

I live in Manhattan Beach and can hear Disney execs jerking it from here.

Rewatch 2006 movies.

A question from people who claim CGI got worse in this dacade:

Can you actually name a movie from arround 2007 with good CGI?

This isn't a cherry pick. This isn't a cherry pick either. Stop being a creepy drone.

>LET'S BE BAD GUYS

this still looks better than supermans plastered on mouth in JL

I'm not one of those guys, but since you said 2007 I'll have to bring up Zodiac. youtube.com/watch?v=xW2xhBSfFps

>How does it only have 37,000 dislikes?

because this is your average Marvel fan
youtube.com/watch?v=xkjoB4xwnlw

pirates of the carribean davy jones :^)

...

The average DC fan is a s-

oh wait DC has no fans :(

>being this desperate

This design is horrendous
But the CGI is absolutely amazing

>my spuperheero mobie is betta than ur spuperheero mobie

...

The cgi looks really good when he's on the ground and disappointingly terrible when he stands up. How is pointing out this fact 'desperate' faggot?

So this is the power of the Xbox One X

>all these underage defending this garbage
I bet you like Jurassic World and TFA too.

I think it's a pretty good design, fits the level of the universe at this stage
it's matched by the bleeding edge suit

...

>barely above a 14 year old movie

...

I don't get it...
Why are we pretending that games these days are the same as games back in 2006?

Of course CGI in 2006 would look way better than a game, game consoles back then couldn't handle much.

These days a game console can use the same CGI technology as movies, not during gameplay but in cutscenes for sure.

It doesn't look much worse, in fact it looks objectively better. Autists like you have just made it their new hobby to take screenshots of in-action sequences from trailers and bitch about it. I could also take a screenshot of some scene of the CGI wolf riders from The Two Towers and be like "what world of warcraft addon is this XDDD?"

Which episode of Mad Men is this?

The Ang Lee Hulk movie has notoriously terrible CGI. Just how much of a contrarian hipster are you?

It was hidden much better. Spider-Man being a hideous frogman with no dick was genuinely noticeable in the Infinity Wars trailer without pausing.

>Implying
Underage faggot. The Ang Lee movie has a lot of problems, but terrible CGI was never, ever one of the

Honestly, I know we just want to give Marvel a hard time because they win too much but we really really need to stop taking CGI out of context and posting webm of it. I would even be in favor of removing webm from Sup Forums because it's a very elitist format anyway.

CGI always looks horrible and shitty on your computer screen then when its in the movie you really never notice it. Like the Supermans Mustache fiasco, nobody reporting it bothering them during the movie but only those people who watched the webms were mad.

I just see too much of this lately. Also holy shit are Marvel fans entitled if they are whining about a 2M to 37K like dislike ratio wtf?

>terrible CGI
And the cgi in Infinity war barely looks better despite having a fuck huger budget and being 14 years newer.

>tfw once games start having the same level of detail in game that cut scenes have there will be no point in watching these CGI movies anymore

Can you name a movie that has actual good CGI in your opinion?

Blade Runner 2049

My explanation is that the movies evolved a lot in Phase 2 & 3 and the expectations got even higher for IW as well.

Captain America: Civil War was really peak point. Gritty and tragic. its basically the Marvel universe response to The Dark Knight, the movie's narrative was structured like a crime/cop drama, explored subjects like ethics and security and unveiled a whole lot of plot motifs that Phase 1 only superficially touched upon: but left unexplored. The phase 2 & 3 really retconned and balanced the main storyline in surprising quality and throughout way.Turns out even the heroes are directly causing the world to end , and the only time they are doing something good is when they are acting to save the world from some threat

Even Spider Man caused lots of destruction and almost indirectly killed civilians in his movie

It's definitely PG-13, and theres some action, but not all is fantastic, some of it is really tough drama and stuff that will make neurons work

i've assessed that all the best posters are night owls because cape shit gets the most retarded wojacks posts between the hours of 12-8 AM PST

I generally don't like CGI mixed with real environments and people since it always sticks out to me; but i'd probably say the CGI in War for the Planet of the Apes was good most of the time.

And? For anyone with IQ of over 120 (so average Marvel fan) it was apparent that OP meant to allude to DC from the very beginning

As if the dislikes aren’t people like you.

>let's all dislike it

yeah, those 50 dislikes will really make a difference

Go watch shit like that final fantasy movie from years ago. Real people watch Marvel for the stories, the characters. The cgi is solid and the viewer welcomes suspension of disbelief across the board anyway. These are serials for guys and soap operas for women, it’s not rocket science as to why Marvel is successful.

>This CGI would be considered unacceptable in 2006
>CGI is not finished yet
>That is a metalic/synthetic metal armor, not a cloth suit like always wears
It doesn't look really far from the one in the comics, it looks kinda metallic but "stretchy".