Why does Marvel cheap out on CGI?

Why does Marvel cheap out on CGI?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE
youtu.be/NJIjNs_s2NI
youtube.com/watch?v=vH7JxojKiMI
youtube.com/watch?v=1koa2xAxCAw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

nobody cares anymore.

About what? CGI quality or company wars?

...

Why is CG getting worse, not better?
Late 2000's CGI looks better.

cgi quality.

>300 million dollars

Not sure. There was never any truly awful CGI in the movies until Homecoming which gets an excuse for being insanely low budget for an MCU film. Ragnarok overused green screen but made up for it with great use of colors and cinematography but the third act of Black Panther just looked like straight shit.

What the fuck happened to practical effects?

Uncanny valley and just distracting if the character is highlighted as super realistic people will still notice it’s imperfect. There’s a fine middle ground between good design and realistic graphics where suspension of belief takes over.

The only really believable character that is super realistic and you can forget is cgi would be Unexpected Journey Gollum/Smeagol

I hate that character
so
much

Man, as a kid I really wasn't able to appreciate just how unsettling Robocop's face is. That's some damned good body horror there, the way that the uneven edge of his skin is stretched out across all of that nasty looking machinery.

CGI is cheaper than practical effects.

youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE

Don't even remind me of that. Those props and animatronics are probably sitting in some studio warehouse, rotting away too.

There's a reason why all the other prototypes they made in 2 killed themselves.

cg's cheap

Because dumbfucks would watch the movies regardless because it has MCU slapped on it. Might as well cut some corners.

Pull your head out of corporate asshole, every studio is using CG instead of practical effects when they can get away with it.

Because I've never noticed a CGI error in a MCU movie, outside the still images bandied about by butt hurt DC shills. Even then. What is wrong with Korg? He looks fine.

Because they have to do a shit-ton of it, so of course they gonna sacrifice quality for fast deadlines

Because the majority of their budget goes to paying all of their actors.

Why though? Every scene with Korg was a sidesplitting zinger.

>brought back puppet Yoda for TLJ
>slapped an awful CG filter over it for the ghost effect instead of doing it practically

I'm not seeing the issue here. Korg looks 1000x better than whatever the hell WB tried passing off as Cyborg.

Will it blow your mind if i told you that both are trash?

stupid unfunny character written by stupid unfunny weirdo aussie brit or whatever the fuck he is

>it can't be bad because the other is worse

What is wrong with Korg?

>weirdo aussie brit
taika waikikino is from new zeland

This silly whining about perfectly serviceable CG is tiresome.

Y'all gonna look silly as fuck when all the effects companies tank and we all end up watching JL-tier CG forever.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Korg looks fine. How should a living rockman look like?

It's actually not.

>it's another "CGI is bad because I know it couldn't have been done with anything but CGI... but stuff like stop motion is perfectly fine" thread

get your eyes checked, he looks even less realistic than doomsday

No one is saying that homecoming or black panther slow mo scenes were fine though

Man, that second prototype haunted me for years.
youtu.be/NJIjNs_s2NI

Its really not. Its just easier and quicker.

They used stop motion in Homecoming and Black Panther?

>Ghost effect
>Ever practical
My dude, the effect was done in post, it just looked bad here because they used the puppet and it looked like shit, practical effects should be used when it looks better than CGI, the vast amount of CGI you see is unnoticeable, though I do wish characters like Cyborg had more practical effects, atleast the head do it didn't look like it was floating or some shit

People got lazy.

How? And don't compare him to a reused Lord of the Rings CGI model troll.

That's not from the original scene

When you control the market, you don't have to try

This.

>How?
He fells totally out of place,you can easily imagine he's not there in the scene, the texture, everything makes him look closer than a piece of plastic than rock

And yes it is worse than evenf ucking doomsday
youtube.com/watch?v=vH7JxojKiMI

Jews

No

He's a kiwi you mong.

I was scared shitless of Robocain when I was a kid

Korg looked good in motion, though.

>Because the majority of their budget goes to marketing
ftfy

Damn I miss 80s movies that you where not supuose to see as a kid but did anyway.

Because the VFX studios are overworked and underpaid, and studios keep cramming more CG shots into every movie.

The only thing that scared me was when they showed his brain/eyes/spine. He was a scary fucker though, even when he was a face on a screen.

/r/ that webm of a melting Emil and being exploded all over a car

>Why does Marvel cheap out on CGI?
>Marvel cheap out on CGI
>Marvel
Oh, you!

Because the only people who give a shit are spergs on Sup Forums. You don't see Gizmodo or CBR posting clickbait articles about how to fix Marvel's CGI.

But they used CG instead of hiring a real alien living rockman. This is disgusting and totally racist towards Rockmen. It's 2018, if you want a rockman in your film, hir one, don't fleshwash it.

>But but DC!
Seem people don't care about CGI if the movies are good going buy this thread. Marvel can be cheap as a hell and nobody would care.

He looks like the grey cousin of the thing.

Yes.

Because Gizmodo and CBR have integrity.

This looks like a Chinese moba or mmo game.

Someone should slap a fake logo for a game on this clip and post it around the web

>integrity
More like they're well paid by the Mouse.

Except those who like good CGI.
And mousefags, who get so angry when people don't consider their movies a 10/10. Case in point,

Funnily enought, Mousefags don't realize the CGI from Marvel movies isn't even done by Disney but outsourced.

CGI is faster, easier, and doesn't require 8 hours in makeup, which makes shooting faster and thus cheaper.

Because they can, their sheep audience won't call them out on it.

>sheep audience
>tips fedora

Why do people insist on this delusion that practical effects can do everything CGI can? Yes, Robocop looked better, but good luck using it in a fight scene. If Peter Weller moved like Cyborg did he'd have ripped the suit to pieces.

Because everyone wants it but no-one wants to spend money on it anymore.

Nobody but you wombatfuckers can tell a difference or cares.

>I think a film's entire budget is spent on CGI

>Because Gizmodo and CBR have integrity.

thats not the point. the point is knowing when to use practical effects and not to. cgi should be used around practical effects, not instead of. otherwise just make an animated movie

It actually is, not having to wait for actors who spend 8 hours a day in makeup cuts massive amounts of time off the shooting schedule.

Strangely enough i always wanted to BE robo cain as a kid.
>there are two kind of people

This, his mannerisms and the angle it was shot at all contributed to making him look great.

isnt new zeldaland literally a small island off the coast of australia?

Which is what Marvel does, but people still bitch about that too. Face it, Sup Forums is a bunch of contrarian cunts who bitch about things that don't matter.

This. Gizmodo and CBR have turned nitpicks into entire articles just to get that sweet clickbait revenue. Just yesterday, Gizmodo had a huge article where the writer got mad at Black Panther for cultural appropriation all based off of one line of dialogue. If they wanted to make dozens of "lol, look at the bad CGI" articles, they would have done it already. But they don't, because nobody really gives a shit about the CGI.

>implying based Whedon didn't fix it as best he could
Can't reshoot everything, but you can add in one shot at the end to show you're aware of what needs to be fixed.

He's trying to say Korg is shit rather than admit HD was a mistake.

Its a sunken microcontinent

3 movies a year, the "assembly line" production philosophy of the MCU doesn't leave enough time for the CGI workers to polish it enough

it's not even just marvel, besides maybe the planet of the apes movies, cgi is almost always bad

People can go on all day about shills or sheep, but at the end of the day, the only people bitching about the CGI are a couple dozen weirdos on Sup Forums. And because nobody here knows how to convey why the CGI is bad besides "lol, it's shit" or "is this a video game", normies will never be persuaded by that opinion, clickbait websites won't agree with that opinion, and Marvel will just keep going "lol, if the only people complaining are Sup Forums, who the fuck cares?"

This. After years of listening to people bitch about CGI, no one can actually point out any REAL mistakes other than vague "look at it" bullshit. I have looked at it, and frankly I see nothing to complain about.

It's not true. There are directors who are not happy with how CGI is being used these days who are quietly moving back to real stunts and practical effects.

Is it just me or is that last fight scene in Ironman basically a ripoff of that fight from Robocop 2?

CGI is cheaper and lazier.

>Which is what Marvel does,

I'm seeing some misinformation being spread here and thought I'd just put in my 2 cents:

The main reason that studios insist on CGI is due to no one being able to stick to any vision or idea. Everyone wants to be able to change the color of a car at a whim or fiddle with a monster's design far into production. You can't do that with practical effects but CG allows for it.

This isn't in of itself cheap, but many studios, including most if not all British ones, don't pay for overtime, so Hollywood often abuses that to get as many retakes as they want rather than being clear and concise about what they want.

The T-Rex from Jurassic Park still blows me away though.
youtube.com/watch?v=1koa2xAxCAw

yup, the truth is people don't really care

these movies still make bank with subpar cgi, so why would they waste their money on it?

>sidesplitting zinger
I literally don't understand. Every line he spat out made me cringe. Every scene he was in he ruined. His. Fucking. Voice. I know he's going to be in Infinity War stinking up scenes too and I'm sort of pissed because I genuinely enjoy these movies.

You know they use multiple effects companies, right? They don't just go to a small studio and lump 3 films per year worth of SFX on them.

In the same way japan is a small island off the coast of china, yeah

Korg and Michael Pena's characters really were fucking awful. Only time I've seen a MCU character not get laughs at a showing.

they are not practical anymore

This pic made me laugh for some reason, is this shit true?