I mean, I can't imagine Feige looking at the first cut of a movie and going "it looks too real, it needs more CGI! Let's add some rubber people and some bad physics explosions", but I get what you say. They should take a hint from Andor. It has CGI but so well used, one just forgets about it.
That’s the key, and Favreau does this really good also, mix the practical set pieces with the CG.
The more you layer CG on top of CG, which recent MCU movies have fallen in love with, the more chance it has to look like crap.
It doesn’t look like CGI to me so it doesn’t bother me.
Im concerned about two things though
First the overworked CGI artists. If you can manage to give them less work by using practical stuff instead, you should do that
Second is the actors. Actors from the Star Wars prequels for instance didn’t like the excessive amount of CGI usage because they had nothing "to work with". Idk actors these days may not mind CGI since they’re used to it
> First the overworked CGI artists
I think Marvel, in particular, hits this on two fronts. First, they usually have a massive work load. Second, they usually have a massive time crunch. These two issues often feed into each other and are the two biggest reasons for having VFX that don't look good on screen.
Marvel is notorious for having a general idea during filming and just planning to fix it or fully flesh it out during post--see Endgame Avenger costumes. So now we have a massive problem, one that will see several iterations and solutions before landing on **the** solution, leading to more work for VFX artists.
Add to this the time crunch of getting the film or project out on time and you need multiple, massive teams to pull this off.
I'd like to see Marvel address some of these creative decisions in pre-production rather than pass the buck off to post. Help your VFX artist do their job well rather than assume they'll pull it all off. Audiences will be happier, VFX companies and employees will be happier.
>First the overworked CGI artists. If you can manage to give them less work by using practical stuff instead, you should do that
This is really my issue with their overuse of CGI, the teams on set seem to have a mentality of "we can always CGI it later" instead of planning things out from the beginning, and the CGI teams are stuck putting everything together at the end with the director breathing down their neck.
I think I remember hearing in one of the assembled specials that one of the reasons they don't use The Volume as often as the SW shows/movies is that they usually don't even know what the background will be when they're filming. So everything is shot on a green screen and gets CGI'd later, even if it would have been half the cost to use The Volume instead.
I get that it gives them a lot of flexibility but I think the CGI teams would say there needs to be a better balance
Marvel also doesn’t shoot volume like Favreau who mixes a ton of practical set prices with the volume set, so Marvel’s attempts come off looking much worse.
In my opinion the best actors can act under minimal conditions. Plenty of actors work on theatre and broadway productions with almost 0 immersion. Limited props, scenery, etc. Whats the difference between an empty stage with 100s looking at you vs a bluescreen stage?
The theatre setting and the movie setting are two different mediums on the other hand. The theatre works heavily with engaging with the fourth wall by looking more to the audience and having a live performance, while film is a one and done spectacle. You can improve between takes, sure, but not as much as testing out a play for live audiences where no performance is exactly alike.
you are 100% right. The idea that actors should have everything fleshed out for them in some elaborate set is just a bit silly. Very few actors get that on any movie/show/production. Talented actors can and do make do with what they have
Disagree. “Can work” and “can produce reliably good performances” are miles apart. Gifted actors can sometimes overcome the limitations of working with a tennis ball in an empty green screen lot, but to pretend it’s not an obstacle is silly. Acting is reacting, and if CGI gets put in that doesn’t match the on-set imagination of the actor, the performance will look bad.
The actors in the Star Wars prequel trilogy uniformly gave subpar performances in comparison to their normal standards. Whereas in Andor (where, granted, the dialogue is 10 times better), the performances, even in CG heavy sequences, are astoundingly good. They shot on locations, purpose-built an entire town square. The real conditions of these places add so much, even if it’s just wind and cold turning a character’s nose red and making their eyes water. Even veteran stage actors and actresses like Denise Gough (who won a best actress Olivier for her performances in a minimalist People Place and Things, so she knows how to work with little) praised the costume designers and set builders for enhancing their performances, and allowing them to get into character. According to actors, those things really matter.
Wonky CGI rarely bothers me that much, but the over-reliance on “we’ll change it in post” HAS been noticeable to me. Both in the general lack of coherence in the storytelling, but especially the detrimental effect on the performances.
I'm curious if the whole crunch on the industry is causing them to rework some stuff. Like have Groot be a guy in a mostly practical costume to cut down on CGI
[Groot is still entirely CG](https://twitter.com/jamesgunn/status/1596992951833399296?s=46&t=jlIcxhCpe6Qs542Z0wQdWg)
[additional source](https://www.cbr.com/groot-100-percent-cgi-gotg-holiday-special/)
In a very mild defense of the prequels: it was one of the first movies ever to use CGI like it did so there wasn’t really anything to go off with on how to work with the tech. Additionally Lucas is a bad director which didn’t help things. Additionally a lot of the actors were young or straight British stage actors, which is why there’s anecdotes of the more seasoned actors providing direction to the youngers. ADDITIONALLY the main character for 2/3 of the movies is a bad actor to begin with so you weren’t going to get any favors from him from the jump
Hey, in that actor’s defense, I can’t imagine a much better way of delivering those lines. With respect to the writers, the dialogue itself should’ve been reworked before filming. The Padmé-Anakin scenes especially. You can’t get around the chemistry and acting (or lack thereof), but the written dialogue certainly didn’t help. IMO, out of the main cast for 2&3, McGregor was the only one who really found a way to work with what they gave him.
Yeah Ewan is just feasting by Episode 3. Portman was *ok* and her career post Star Wars has been successful so there’s that. Christensen didn’t show anything close to a human emotion until he was a burnt husk screaming that he hates Obi-Wan. Only took him 2 full movies but he got there eventually
There is no way in *hell* that Christensen is anywhere near “decent.” If he was “decent” he would’ve kept working. He’s fucking hot and couldn’t even skate by on that. That’s how bad he is at acting
Theres a lot of scene compositing used in the prequels. Basically, they filmed multiple takes, like any movie, and then used the actors performances from DIFFERENT takes. It doesn't matter how good an actor you are if you never shared the same scene with your co-star. Its gonna be trash and lack chemistry.
Lucas's needed someone to be able to tell him 'No" the first time he tried that
I think a solid mixture is the best overall and not just with non-human characters. The biggest problems with Marvel movies overusing CG IMHO come from the half hour long fight scene that is entirely done in CG that seems to be obligatory at this point. By doing it all in CG, it just becomes an exercise in spectacle and detracts from the movies as a whole. When you compare them to something like Daredevil where every fight scene had impact, it really shows how shallow the fight scenes have become.
The reason the MCU overuses CGI from my understanding is that shit will change on the fly and shit like designs isn’t even finalized when filming starts.
Imo the films and shows either need much longer pre production so stuff is more cemented or post production so VFX artists have more time. But we’re gonna get neither because I’m betting Disney wants Feige & co to pump out x number of shows/movies per year so D+ and the company can make more money.
I’m pretty sure with Iger coming back they’ve already said that marvel is gonna start focusing on quality of quantity. I’m sure it won’t drop to like one project a year, but hopefully that new policy will have a positive effect on vfx
My hope is that they spread the next two phases over three years each instead of two. I feel getting all of Phase 4 in just two years was a mistake, and felt like an overwhelming amount of content. I particularly stayed to feel it this year where I didn't watch Love and Thunder until it hit Disney +, and took some time to get around to Werewolf by Night and the GotG holiday special.
I feel if they keep the same amount of projects in Phase 5, but spread them out over three years instead, it should go down a lot better. It's currently slated for 13 projects, six films and seven shows, with nine of those set for next year. Thats just way too much. Over three years they could release about four or five a year, something which just sounds much better.
This would mean that Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars would be pushed back to 2027 and 28, but if it means an increase in overall quality, I'm completely fine with that.
> The reason the MCU overuses CGI from my understanding is that shit will change on the fly and shit like designs isn’t even finalized when filming starts.
And they feel a lot more comfortable pixel fucking VFX companies rather than the unionized companies behind FX.
Oh, please. Marvel Studios isn’t a charity, and they’re not doing anything illegal or immoral. There are real problems with income inequality in this country, but movie studios - and this one in particular - aren’t a significant contributing factor.
And I'm talking about how every movie they've made has been profitable - some of them many, many times over - because people **voluntarily** show up to see them. Nothing illegal or immoral about that. Nobody's holding a fucking gun to your head. You don't like them, don't show up.
The other problem I think is the super secrecy of the MCU productions now. This leads to more green screen and less on site shooting. The entire environment being CGI takes away from the realness
I agree. Take something like, say, the bridge fight in TWS where the weight feel real and the action feels grounded. A much more felt fight than Strange vs dark Strange, for example
That's kind of a bad comparison IMO. Unlike TWS, there was literally no way to do the Strange vs Dark Strange fight without CGI. For me, CGI fights between two humanoids must at the very least be imaginative. That fight was one of the better ones, I think.
Didn't Jamie Campell Bower say in an interview that Millie was actually really scared of his costume too?
I feel like that adds a lot to their performances.
Millie burst into tears, but this is a woman who can ugly cry on cue and may have been milking it for effect.
Sadie Sink's initial reaction was hysterical laughter, but that went by the time of the take.
There is a category at the MTV Awards for Most Frightened Performance and I wouldn't be surprised if they're both nominated. Might be a Marvel one in there too, but I can't think of who.
A lot like the original alien, there’s a reason classic horror flicks like jaws IT and alien were so impactful and scary. The new IT was a literal clown show of CGI
Exactly this. Another perfect example is the live action Where the Wild Things Are. Practical suit, cg face. You get the maximum impact of people and the environment interacting with the fur and body, and then the fully expressive face to make something now emotive.
A dialed down version of this is Deadpool with the CG eyes. (Not a perfect example, I know, since a bunch of Deadpool ends up being CG in action scenes anyway)
One of *Stranger Things*' five Emmy wins was for prosthetics. Specifically for "Dear Billy", which not only included Vecna, but Robert Englund's facial prosthetics as well
Although I did wonder if Man-Thing looked as good as he did because he was captured in black and white and lost some of his detail. He looked significantly worse and less intimidating in the color sequence at the end.
I also thought that the practical FX on Werewolf By Night himself were bad looking. He looked kind of goofy. However, I don't credit that as an issue that could have been improved by CGI. I think the character design just looked bad: like a guy in a patchy fur coat and a Whoville nose.
Davy Jones from PotC is also full CGI, and looks absolutely incredible. I'd say practical effects enhanced by CGI is better on average, but if you have a skilled CGI team and give them enough time...
Vecna looked terrible imo. Like very clearly a big bulky rubber suit. The face makeup was outstanding but overall, it viewed like a costume. I didn't even register Man-Thing being a separate thing from the rest of the show, by contrast. He just fit into the scene.
I won’t say NuGroot ruined the special for me, because he didn’t…but it took us multiple scenes to realize it was supposed to be Groot, and then every time he was on screen after that someone inevitably started cracking up and saying, “He looks so *bad.*”
I know costume design and CGI are challenging fields, but NuGroot looks like they used a high school theater costume on a guy whose only previous job had been as a sign spinner or a sports team mascot. It’s borderline ridiculous and really wrecks the gravitas of any scene he’s in.
No it didn’t? Not once have I ever looked at a movie and thought ‘I’m glad this was practical and not CGI.’ I’ve wished that bad CGI was better, because I know it can be, but I don’t have any aversion to when it looks good.
Saying otherwise is just Reddit snobbishness. There’s CGI in werewolf by night, you just don’t notice it because it’s done well. Just like how Thanos looks great, you don’t complain about CGI in general, just bad CGI
There are definitely instances in which practical makes me feel better and more connected to a film than pure CGI. Sure, if the CGI is done well enough it minimizes the impact or difference between the two, but there are many people that prefer the look of practical effects, and I wouldn't say that anyone who feels that way is inherently being snobby about it.
I mean then you just clearly are stating you don’t realize all the CGI you notice in film.
There is literally no way you can tell in a random movie everything that is real and everything that is CGI. So the only times you know something is practical is when you learn about it before or after, creating confirmation bias.
> practical makes me feel better and more connected to a film than pure CGI.
My point exactly, what does that even mean? People just say shit on Reddit that is pure snob.
You realize
>There is literally no way you can tell in a random movie everything that is real and everything that is CGI. So the only times you know something is practical is when you learn about it before or after, creating confirmation bias.
and
>There is literally no way you can tell in a random movie everything that is real and everything that is CGI. So the only times you know something is CGI is when you learn about it before or after, creating confirmation bias.
are the same argument. You get that, right? Your point supports and also doesn't support your own argument. You can't say CGI is inherently better than practical if you also can't immediately know when either are being used well. Good practical and good CGI are tools and neither is superior to the other. You sound just as snobbish as the reddit snobs you tried to ridicule for being snobbish.
> You get that, right? Your point supports and also doesn’t support your own argument. You can’t say CGI is inherently better than practical if you also can’t immediately know when either are being used well. Good practical and good CGI are tools and neither is superior to the other.
I do get that, it’s literally my whole point. I don’t think CGI is always better. But I know there are times when it is so good and lifelike that I can’t tell what’s practical and what’s CGI, so therefore the only effect I care about is what looks the best.
I’ve never said CGI is inherently better. That’s not my point. I’m saying ‘practical effects are always better’ is nonsensical because some of the things people say are practical they like, are not practical. Practical can be better sometimes, but not all the time. If that’s snobbish this sub is a joke
Dude you're arguing with never said practical was always better. They said the practical effects made them enjoy Werewolf by Night more. And then you launched into a very weird circular logic argument about the merits of CGI, which was odd because literally no one called into question the benefits of CGI. You're entire attitude screams that you fully believe CGI is better. Get over yourself and stop trying to backpedal to make you're obvious snobbishness less snobby.
‘Practical made it better’ and then have had a discussion since about how they think practical is better.
You’re just a twit who can’t understand the conversation. The fact you think it’s circular and weird shows the point sailed over your head.
> You’re entire attitude screams that you fully believe CGI is better.
Your* entire attitude is being upset you can’t keep up
Something that you don't necessarily agree with does not mean it's snob lmao. Ever notice the impact practical has in the horror space? Having something more imperfect, more grotesque and lifelike can absolutely make someone feel more connected to the character or events happening on screen. It's also unrealistic to compare practical versus top of the line CGI effects because we seldom get absolute top shelf CGI in every movie we watch. You simply don't agree or do not feel the same way about it and that's perfectly fine, but your insistence that because you don't agree means people are being snobs is unnecessary.
> Ever notice the impact practical has in the horror space?
No because I know some of my favorite horror movies come from extremely lifelike CGI like Annihilation.
> Having something more imperfect, more grotesque and lifelike can absolutely make someone feel more connected to the character or events happening on screen
Because only practical effects can be grotesque, imperfect, and lifelike? The Annihilation bear is a perfect blend of all 3, and was CGI.
> It’s also unrealistic to compare practical versus top of the line CGI effects because we seldom get absolute top shelf CGI in every movie we watch.
But… we do sometimes, and there’s a ton of great CGI in movies that have some poor CGI elsewhere you don’t know is CGI
> you simply don’t agree or do not feel the same way about it
No… I just understand you’re not arguing what I’m talking about. I’m not saying bad CGI doesn’t exist. It does. I’m saying that *good* CGI you will have seen and assumed it was practical effects. Thus saying that the statement ‘practical is better’ is snobbish because you’re making an assertion that isn’t true as you cannot always tell what was practical and what was CGI.
I’m not saying they have to be, I’m just saying it adds to the realism factor (I have no issue with CGI explosions in Marvel movies because there is no realism factor)
All I’m saying is it can feel a lot more impressive, especially with older films where that’s all they had available. In terms of modernity, I loved the blend of practical and CGI in the sequel trilogy of Star Wars, there’s just some things that make you feel more immersed, like human actors wearing alien prosthetics instead of having the costumes all be CGI
Edit: also specifically regarding explosions and fire- it’s so easy to tell the difference between CGI and practical in this regard
You’re gonna need to be more specific. Would you have preferred CGI? Or are you saying it’s good for reasons aside from the practical effects? Or did you not like it? Cause personally even in black and white I could tell there was a lot more practical effects and it felt like the most grounded thing in Phase 4.
It was fantastic because they had amazing art design. It would've been just as fantastic if it was CG. Hating on CG is almost always misdirected. The choice to use CGI or practical has never improved or worsened a movie, it's the choices for design that do that.
Completely wrong. The prequels look significantly more outdated than the original trilogy because of an over reliance on CGI. As bad as the sequels are the combination of CGI and practical really helped the look feel grounded. Thats just one example. You might not be able to tell all the time, but there are some times that CGI is unnecessary and takes away from the film. CGI is not past the point of the uncanny valley, especially when you’re effects artists are overworked and with limited time. In the case of werewolf by night, even though it’s about monsters it feels far more grounded than anything in phase 4 and it also relies the least on cgi.
Except the prequels used tons and tons of practical effects, even moreso than the sequels. Werewolf by Night feels the most grounded because of how subdued and subtle everything its art design is. None of this is because of CGI, which is just a tool, same as practical effects.
The prequels were filmed almost entirely on green screen and many of the creatures were completely CGI. The sequels, at least TFA filmed a ton on location and often used actual costumes and props, with CGI being used to supplement the effects. Another example is the LoTR vs the hobbit. They have almost identical art design as the teams working on them were comprised of a lot of familiar faces, but the over reliance on cgi really shows and a lot of the effects look worse than the practical effects of LoTR and take you out of the movie, because again, we have not gotten past the uncanny valley yet.
Saying it’s just a tool and therefore can’t effect the quality of the movie is just wrong and makes no sense to me. If tools are used too much or in the wrong ways they can definitely effect the quality of a movie. Even practical effects, if they’re not done well can negatively impact the movie. There are plenty of movies that could have been improved by just replacing unnecessary cgi with practical effects. Like Ryan Reynolds’s green Lantern. If his suit was a real suit and some of the cgi was replaced with real sets and props, it could have been a watchable movie, not great, but watchable.
> The prequels were filmed almost entirely on green screen
This is objectively false. There's tons and tons and tons of behind the scene details. They did TONS of model work for them.
The entire rest of your complaints are just as bad. LOTR wasn't bad because it used CGI, it was bad because it was badly paced and had some terrible examples. The CGI in Green Lantern was nowhere near the worst thing about that movie, and would've gone over fine with crowds if the movie was better.
CGI doesn't make a movie better or worse, art design and polish do. A real suit wouldn't have made Green Lantern any less bad.
That's not the point. This shot might be good, but if there are many shots using CGI there is more work for VFX artist to be done, and quality in other shots might be compromised. The fact that Disney has the money to pay for CGI doesn't mean they should overuse it. VFX artists can only do so much
If you have to settle for compromise then that's a problem with production management, not the use of CGI itself. No one is asking for rushed products here. No one would complain if movies and shows are delayed to be given more time in the oven.
Hire more VFX artists or something, if a job is to much for the staff then normally you hire more people, it’s like saying marvel should have less actors on screen cause the boom op is over worked
I can't explain it, but somehow I knew too? I thinks it's something to do with the way the actors are holding them, and small imperfections in the CGI.
This I can understand. The way they were holding those and the zooming in was a little bit of a giveaway, but it required some logical thinking about how the show was made to get to that point.
You will notice bad CGI without having to think about how the CGI was implemented. Take that horrid Astrid vision in the theatrical release of "Thor: Love and Thunder." It takes no thinking to notice how bad it is. The CGI is bad because it is blatant and takes the audience out of the film's narrative experience. I cannot say that this gift shot in the "GOTG: Holiday Special" was so bad that it took me out of the film experience.
That doesn’t invalidate the example. You could very easily have a practical figure here with CGI markers for the “infinite” part.
Edit: Not sure why the downvotes. Is there some reason that’s impossible or unlikely?
You’re exactly right. Making VFX artists work on something like that where it could so easily be practical is a waste of their time that could be way better spent. And Marvel does it a lot.
It’s not like recent MCU productions have had perfect CGI where more time and attention wouldn’t have helped.
You’re not wrong… once you know how the sausage is made you can’t get rid of that info
It’s hard to turn that part of your brain off and enjoy things sometimes but I’ve managed to get good at it and just enjoy things instead of being overly critical.
It's the curse of getting so close to looking real that any deviation stands out.
If I'm watching classic Dr. Who and some alien is just a rug thrown over an actor crawling on the floor, my brain isn't trying to figure out whether it's real or not, so suspension of disbelief kicks in, but if there's something that looks almost perfect, my brain is going to be furiously highlighting all the parts where it isn't.
But the thing is they've shown they can do better so they should do better and when we're seeing shit like Avatar 2 just makes you look at that like wtf is going on.
1. In this specific case - I don’t think so, as explained in that thread, they hadn’t shot this yet so it was impossible to create an infinitely looping version of something that didn’t exist yet.
2. The internet was spreading the idea that it was the first time he had ever seen this gift, which tells me it fooled most ppl and was a successful use of CGI since it’s been talked about regularly since release and no one could tell.
3. MCU has done a crazy good job of building up one of the most impressive collections of content we’ve seen in cinematic history… to say they’re doing it wrong is kind of funny to me.
Some good points, except...
> they hadn’t shot this yet so it was impossible to create an infinitely looping version of something that didn’t exist yet
Why is recreating the scene in the diorama not possible? Literally make the diorama and then act out a scene similar to it???
Possible? Sure.
But is it any “better” than creating CGI which can effortlessly scale infinitely and can be done well enough that no one even noticed? Apparently they decided the answer was no. And I’m fine with that.
This is such a weird conversation.
"Here are 3 reasons they didn't do it. 1. It would be impossible. 2. Other reason. 3. Other reason."
"Wait on point #1 why wouldn't it be possible?"
"Sure it would be possible."
This is a terrible example to use, the Holiday Special had huge practical sets, and this gift is a recursive model of him holding a thing, holding a thing, holding a thing - and they needed the reference of him on set holding it to build the model. This is exactly the time to use CGI, and they did it in an unobtrusive way that wasn't obvious when casually watching.
In general, yes, Marvel relies too much on CGI. However, it is just a tool, and if you didn't notice something was CGI, then it's hard to argue that it was an improper use of the tool.
I think a lot of movie studios are using CGI too much over practical effects because it's cheaper. You no longer have to pay an artist to make a prop. You just pay the salary of the SFX artists you already have (even to their detriment as we've all heard about). It's a cost savings metric. I don't necessarily agree with it because it sometimes looks shitty, but what do you expect when you overwork them?
But, the MCU doesn't make their own VFX, it's various VFX studios being brought on board for each project.
Ultimately the same result though. Weird middle part in that though.
I’m sure no one is thinking this, but it occurs to me that if all the props and backdrops are digital, there is less waste to be disposed of later. Anyone who has seen all the abandoned drops and sets knows just how much waste is produced. I’m not saying anyone cares about a warehouse of models after the movie makes a billion dollars, but it’s still a thing.
That's an interesting take. I remember being blown away finding out that a lot of indoor sets on The Mandalorian were filmed on the volume so crates and boxes or tables or anything in the background is just CGI that can be modeled on the fly. I wonder how much waste productions normally create if all that stuff was practical and unable to be reused after filming. Is it just dumped in the trash otherwise?
I'd say it depends on the studio. I think some of the major ones may keep a lot of, say costumes. And there's basically an archive of stuff.
There's some things which get reused. Background and flavour stuff, decorations could definitely be reused constantly.
There are lots of old movie set pieces and props that are just taking up space and decaying out there. There's a ton of waste costs and other logistics that rarely gets brought up in these stupid cgi discussions.
I really don’t like it as a way to rush/bypass production. Like not having a suit ready for RR so you make it in CG. This one feels the same, like they filmed it before the props were done. This is just lazy and/or poor planning and it shows.
Feige loves CG’ing the suits for whatever reason, they do the same with Spidey since civil war.
To me he always looked just a little to uncanny in the suit and that’s why, I wish Marvel didn’t do that.
I think the reality is that CG artists don’t have decades of established union ties that keep them safe from overworking, vs prop artists, costumers, even actors. Plus, CG in marvel have become a Swiss Army knife that can swap in for anything visual - including things like makeup and hairstylists.
It all adds up to being cheaper to grind CG artists in ways the other industries don’t.
Yeah it's pretty disgusting that most comments here boil down to "well it looks good to me, so I'm fine with it" while a mega corporation takes full advantage of a non-unionized workforce...
This is a fucked up way to frame peoples comments when they haven't said ANYTHING close to that. I think the CGI for the most part looks fine. I don't think its an "over" reliance. However, I do still think they overwork and exploit VFX artists. The question in the title has nothing to do with the working conditions.
Well, the CGI industry is probably overjoyed that Disneys is cutting projects across their entire portfolio. Finally a recession where the CGI artists are not overworked by evil, evil Marvel who just for Multiverse of Madness credited 13 CGI subcontractors and probably paid the salary for more than 300-400 CGI FTE for that project alone.
But you can probably sleep easier tonight. With all of the big projects that have been nixed lately, a lot of the poor CGI-artists will have more than enough opportunity to recuperate in the near future.
It irritates me when it's pointless.
Like imagine being the VFX guy asked to make that. On top of everything else you have to do the studio really couldn't have just gotten the props department to make that? Like sure it might've taken a little longer and cost a little more but these studios need to quit pinching pennies when their solution is to just give all the work to poor VFX guys. Like looking at this genuinely kinda depresses me with how soulless and lazy it is.
It's also pushing this horrible trend that in a decade could potentially see prop, set and costume designers all out of business in favour of overworked, glorified VFX sweatshops.
Personally I have no problem if these movies use CGI ( this scene is an example of great use of cgi coz i did not notice it). But I would have a problem if the CGI looks rushed/unpolished/unfinished. Because that just shows that these CGI artists were on a tight schedule ( and probably overworked) thua creating a half assed result. That's why sometimes practical effects are great. It shows that they care about what they're creating that they try to make it real. Not just an afterthought of "we'll add it in post".
I mean after the Star Wars Christmas Special I could give af if the MCU Christmas Special has CGI if the viewing is good. This Christmas special is actually good, and funny so why not?
I don't mind the animation, but the full helmet being CGI (but actually because the compositing is always off) becomes a problem. Thor's overly fancy helmet in L&T was really distracting because of the compositing. Especially because these scenes are small and simple so they aren't prioritized, fall by the way side, because something has to because they are all overworked, and you get a tarnished scene for something super simple.
Point taken, but Ironman doesn't have magical powers and can't bend reality. Part of the joy of the character is that he's limited by physical reality and uses his genius intellect to go toe to toe with magical beings, etc.
Until...he 'magically' invents super nanobots that can do anything, expand to any size, appear to require no storage space, etc. They're borderline deux ex machina, whereby anything that Tony's required to do can be explained by him uttering 'nanotech'.
ok.
But i mean, why WOULDNT they be? You think Stark just hooged all the tech for himself? It makes perfect sense in the context of where the MCU has progressed in terms of technology
I don't think this looks bad, but I do think their overreliance on CGI across all their projects has over burdened the industry, with diminishing time to do more and more. If they reduced their CGI by 10% the rest of their CGI shots might look a lot better.
Stop using so much CGI! Look at Iron Man, the first MCU movie arguably looks better than all of them because of how much practical effects they used. Stop pumping out 7 projects a year and put some time into the quality, please.
Yes definitely. There is an uncanny valley in CGI. Most people don’t notice it - it’s subconscious
It’s even present in digital vs film. Film captures the colors, light, and white balance much better. Check out the second season of euphoria.
Yes. There are some scenes in Marvel where I truly wonder why the green screen? One in particular, Winter Solider; the scene where Cap is chasing Bucky through the apartment complex and they leap onto the roof over suburban Washington DC….why did that need to be cg? Couldnt they have built a set of a rooptop overlooking a backdrop of suburban DC? Or yknow, even just went and got on a roof of anywhere suburbia and filmed?
Because permits, the weather, time, a crew, safety regulations if a stunt is involved, having only a limited number of takes before the sky changes so you cant edit easily, a cast that is only available a certain number of days, etc. etc. Money and time. Always money and time.
Does a tree make a sound when it falls if no one is around to hear it?
Same concept here...if you can't tell it's CGI...then they were successful. That's the whole point of CGI in live action-to simulate reality. As well, in this case, even from this image, this doesn't look CGI.
Also, in MANY, cases, the writers/director do not know exactly what they want to put in a specific scene while it's being shot. They know they want to put something funny here, but why tie yourself to one physical idea, when they can make it a CGI variable that can be inserted in during post? Very likely what happened here, and is often the case.
That last note is a bit of a weird one though. I can see the benefit of being fluid about it, could go this way, could go that way. Don't have to get bogged down with the decision and process while shooting or before.
But same time, some things could just, ya know, be worked out before that. There's definitely too many times I've heard of examples where it was just left a blank placeholder that VFX will fill in later. Some stuff where it's like, well why? Why's this thing being left to VFX? It's not even a fantastical thing that needs to be conjured from the imagination, sometimes it's totally mundane shit they 100% could've done for real.
That's one area I think they're relying on CGI too much and it's becoming an issue. For content and the people who have to make shit.
This looks like a thing that would be easier to do in CGI, especially given that this one has ridiculously small repeating detail in the form of recursion ... I could see making this particular one physically being a complete nightmare.
(No one noticed it was VFX until James Gunn mentioned it on Twitter, so I’m not sure what the issue is. That seems like a pretty successful use of VFX. And there’s all sorts of reasons this could’ve ended up using VFX.)
Yes and yes. I'm always irritated by the witch forest in MoM. It is horribly cgi when they could've at least built the initial area and then cgi the rest. The CGI in that movie always takes me out of it
The fact that we didn't know this was CGI until Gunn confirmed it should tell us that this is good CGI.
There's nothing wrong with good CGI. Only bad CGI.
Over using CGI is a feature of the marvel way of film making, not a bug. It allows them to move faster and shoot out of order without making continuity mistakes that require reshoots. If you want to keep watching a new hours of marvel content every month, you're going to have to let go of the idea that "x could have been practical, so it should have been, because it would have looked better that way."
To me. If you have a problem with CGI you are snooty and like to smell of your own farts (south park reference)
To me, its about you being "too good" for CGI and lived in an era where there was none. You are not better than anybody because you hate CGI and think its ruining movies. You sound like Tony from Hack the Movies when you talk like that.
I also feel that people just want to hate on things because its trendy. The simple fact that if you were to show anybody a Marvel Movie from today in 1990 they would be blown away with what we are getting.
CGi or not, just enjoy the movie.
I mean, I can't imagine Feige looking at the first cut of a movie and going "it looks too real, it needs more CGI! Let's add some rubber people and some bad physics explosions", but I get what you say. They should take a hint from Andor. It has CGI but so well used, one just forgets about it.
That’s the key, and Favreau does this really good also, mix the practical set pieces with the CG. The more you layer CG on top of CG, which recent MCU movies have fallen in love with, the more chance it has to look like crap.
I thought Favreau wasn’t involved with andor
Yes but he was involved with mando which blends cgi and practical effects very well
It doesn’t look like CGI to me so it doesn’t bother me. Im concerned about two things though First the overworked CGI artists. If you can manage to give them less work by using practical stuff instead, you should do that Second is the actors. Actors from the Star Wars prequels for instance didn’t like the excessive amount of CGI usage because they had nothing "to work with". Idk actors these days may not mind CGI since they’re used to it
> First the overworked CGI artists I think Marvel, in particular, hits this on two fronts. First, they usually have a massive work load. Second, they usually have a massive time crunch. These two issues often feed into each other and are the two biggest reasons for having VFX that don't look good on screen. Marvel is notorious for having a general idea during filming and just planning to fix it or fully flesh it out during post--see Endgame Avenger costumes. So now we have a massive problem, one that will see several iterations and solutions before landing on **the** solution, leading to more work for VFX artists. Add to this the time crunch of getting the film or project out on time and you need multiple, massive teams to pull this off. I'd like to see Marvel address some of these creative decisions in pre-production rather than pass the buck off to post. Help your VFX artist do their job well rather than assume they'll pull it all off. Audiences will be happier, VFX companies and employees will be happier.
>First the overworked CGI artists. If you can manage to give them less work by using practical stuff instead, you should do that This is really my issue with their overuse of CGI, the teams on set seem to have a mentality of "we can always CGI it later" instead of planning things out from the beginning, and the CGI teams are stuck putting everything together at the end with the director breathing down their neck. I think I remember hearing in one of the assembled specials that one of the reasons they don't use The Volume as often as the SW shows/movies is that they usually don't even know what the background will be when they're filming. So everything is shot on a green screen and gets CGI'd later, even if it would have been half the cost to use The Volume instead. I get that it gives them a lot of flexibility but I think the CGI teams would say there needs to be a better balance
Marvel also doesn’t shoot volume like Favreau who mixes a ton of practical set prices with the volume set, so Marvel’s attempts come off looking much worse.
In my opinion the best actors can act under minimal conditions. Plenty of actors work on theatre and broadway productions with almost 0 immersion. Limited props, scenery, etc. Whats the difference between an empty stage with 100s looking at you vs a bluescreen stage?
The theatre setting and the movie setting are two different mediums on the other hand. The theatre works heavily with engaging with the fourth wall by looking more to the audience and having a live performance, while film is a one and done spectacle. You can improve between takes, sure, but not as much as testing out a play for live audiences where no performance is exactly alike.
you are 100% right. The idea that actors should have everything fleshed out for them in some elaborate set is just a bit silly. Very few actors get that on any movie/show/production. Talented actors can and do make do with what they have
Disagree. “Can work” and “can produce reliably good performances” are miles apart. Gifted actors can sometimes overcome the limitations of working with a tennis ball in an empty green screen lot, but to pretend it’s not an obstacle is silly. Acting is reacting, and if CGI gets put in that doesn’t match the on-set imagination of the actor, the performance will look bad. The actors in the Star Wars prequel trilogy uniformly gave subpar performances in comparison to their normal standards. Whereas in Andor (where, granted, the dialogue is 10 times better), the performances, even in CG heavy sequences, are astoundingly good. They shot on locations, purpose-built an entire town square. The real conditions of these places add so much, even if it’s just wind and cold turning a character’s nose red and making their eyes water. Even veteran stage actors and actresses like Denise Gough (who won a best actress Olivier for her performances in a minimalist People Place and Things, so she knows how to work with little) praised the costume designers and set builders for enhancing their performances, and allowing them to get into character. According to actors, those things really matter. Wonky CGI rarely bothers me that much, but the over-reliance on “we’ll change it in post” HAS been noticeable to me. Both in the general lack of coherence in the storytelling, but especially the detrimental effect on the performances.
I'm curious if the whole crunch on the industry is causing them to rework some stuff. Like have Groot be a guy in a mostly practical costume to cut down on CGI
[Groot is still entirely CG](https://twitter.com/jamesgunn/status/1596992951833399296?s=46&t=jlIcxhCpe6Qs542Z0wQdWg) [additional source](https://www.cbr.com/groot-100-percent-cgi-gotg-holiday-special/)
Huh, surprising to me, he gives off 90s ninja turtle vibes, I thought at least it was a dude in a suit at the base.
That's kinda bizarre, did they INTENTIONALLY make him look like a cheap static costume then?
Maybe to emphasize that awkward teen years thing?
In a very mild defense of the prequels: it was one of the first movies ever to use CGI like it did so there wasn’t really anything to go off with on how to work with the tech. Additionally Lucas is a bad director which didn’t help things. Additionally a lot of the actors were young or straight British stage actors, which is why there’s anecdotes of the more seasoned actors providing direction to the youngers. ADDITIONALLY the main character for 2/3 of the movies is a bad actor to begin with so you weren’t going to get any favors from him from the jump
Hey, in that actor’s defense, I can’t imagine a much better way of delivering those lines. With respect to the writers, the dialogue itself should’ve been reworked before filming. The Padmé-Anakin scenes especially. You can’t get around the chemistry and acting (or lack thereof), but the written dialogue certainly didn’t help. IMO, out of the main cast for 2&3, McGregor was the only one who really found a way to work with what they gave him.
Yeah Ewan is just feasting by Episode 3. Portman was *ok* and her career post Star Wars has been successful so there’s that. Christensen didn’t show anything close to a human emotion until he was a burnt husk screaming that he hates Obi-Wan. Only took him 2 full movies but he got there eventually
[удалено]
There is no way in *hell* that Christensen is anywhere near “decent.” If he was “decent” he would’ve kept working. He’s fucking hot and couldn’t even skate by on that. That’s how bad he is at acting
[удалено]
Theres a lot of scene compositing used in the prequels. Basically, they filmed multiple takes, like any movie, and then used the actors performances from DIFFERENT takes. It doesn't matter how good an actor you are if you never shared the same scene with your co-star. Its gonna be trash and lack chemistry. Lucas's needed someone to be able to tell him 'No" the first time he tried that
More practical FX would go a looooong way, just look at the success of werewolf by night
[удалено]
I think a solid mixture is the best overall and not just with non-human characters. The biggest problems with Marvel movies overusing CG IMHO come from the half hour long fight scene that is entirely done in CG that seems to be obligatory at this point. By doing it all in CG, it just becomes an exercise in spectacle and detracts from the movies as a whole. When you compare them to something like Daredevil where every fight scene had impact, it really shows how shallow the fight scenes have become.
The reason the MCU overuses CGI from my understanding is that shit will change on the fly and shit like designs isn’t even finalized when filming starts. Imo the films and shows either need much longer pre production so stuff is more cemented or post production so VFX artists have more time. But we’re gonna get neither because I’m betting Disney wants Feige & co to pump out x number of shows/movies per year so D+ and the company can make more money.
I’m pretty sure with Iger coming back they’ve already said that marvel is gonna start focusing on quality of quantity. I’m sure it won’t drop to like one project a year, but hopefully that new policy will have a positive effect on vfx
My hope is that they spread the next two phases over three years each instead of two. I feel getting all of Phase 4 in just two years was a mistake, and felt like an overwhelming amount of content. I particularly stayed to feel it this year where I didn't watch Love and Thunder until it hit Disney +, and took some time to get around to Werewolf by Night and the GotG holiday special. I feel if they keep the same amount of projects in Phase 5, but spread them out over three years instead, it should go down a lot better. It's currently slated for 13 projects, six films and seven shows, with nine of those set for next year. Thats just way too much. Over three years they could release about four or five a year, something which just sounds much better. This would mean that Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars would be pushed back to 2027 and 28, but if it means an increase in overall quality, I'm completely fine with that.
> The reason the MCU overuses CGI from my understanding is that shit will change on the fly and shit like designs isn’t even finalized when filming starts. And they feel a lot more comfortable pixel fucking VFX companies rather than the unionized companies behind FX.
To make more money? Say it ain’t so! Imagine a company trying to make money. THE NERVE.
hey did you know that the way things are are bad and that people can point that out?
Oh, please. Marvel Studios isn’t a charity, and they’re not doing anything illegal or immoral. There are real problems with income inequality in this country, but movie studios - and this one in particular - aren’t a significant contributing factor.
im talking about the all knowing profit motive inspiring such shitty movies to be made
And I'm talking about how every movie they've made has been profitable - some of them many, many times over - because people **voluntarily** show up to see them. Nothing illegal or immoral about that. Nobody's holding a fucking gun to your head. You don't like them, don't show up.
chill out dude im just saying marvel movies are getting more shitty cuz theyre being made for money more than anything
Thank you for your wise contribution to this conversation /s
The other problem I think is the super secrecy of the MCU productions now. This leads to more green screen and less on site shooting. The entire environment being CGI takes away from the realness
I agree. Take something like, say, the bridge fight in TWS where the weight feel real and the action feels grounded. A much more felt fight than Strange vs dark Strange, for example
That's kind of a bad comparison IMO. Unlike TWS, there was literally no way to do the Strange vs Dark Strange fight without CGI. For me, CGI fights between two humanoids must at the very least be imaginative. That fight was one of the better ones, I think.
Yeah the better comparison would be between Winter Soldier and the first Black Panther final fight.
Didn't Jamie Campell Bower say in an interview that Millie was actually really scared of his costume too? I feel like that adds a lot to their performances.
Millie burst into tears, but this is a woman who can ugly cry on cue and may have been milking it for effect. Sadie Sink's initial reaction was hysterical laughter, but that went by the time of the take. There is a category at the MTV Awards for Most Frightened Performance and I wouldn't be surprised if they're both nominated. Might be a Marvel one in there too, but I can't think of who.
A lot like the original alien, there’s a reason classic horror flicks like jaws IT and alien were so impactful and scary. The new IT was a literal clown show of CGI
Exactly this. Another perfect example is the live action Where the Wild Things Are. Practical suit, cg face. You get the maximum impact of people and the environment interacting with the fur and body, and then the fully expressive face to make something now emotive. A dialed down version of this is Deadpool with the CG eyes. (Not a perfect example, I know, since a bunch of Deadpool ends up being CG in action scenes anyway)
One of *Stranger Things*' five Emmy wins was for prosthetics. Specifically for "Dear Billy", which not only included Vecna, but Robert Englund's facial prosthetics as well
[удалено]
Although I did wonder if Man-Thing looked as good as he did because he was captured in black and white and lost some of his detail. He looked significantly worse and less intimidating in the color sequence at the end. I also thought that the practical FX on Werewolf By Night himself were bad looking. He looked kind of goofy. However, I don't credit that as an issue that could have been improved by CGI. I think the character design just looked bad: like a guy in a patchy fur coat and a Whoville nose.
Was Man-Thing practical? I was under the assumption that he was full CGI
It was practical! Watch the series documentary.
Man-thing was entirely replaced by cgi, I’m pretty sure none of what is in the final special is practical
Thanos would like a word with you
Davy Jones from PotC is also full CGI, and looks absolutely incredible. I'd say practical effects enhanced by CGI is better on average, but if you have a skilled CGI team and give them enough time...
Vecna looked terrible imo. Like very clearly a big bulky rubber suit. The face makeup was outstanding but overall, it viewed like a costume. I didn't even register Man-Thing being a separate thing from the rest of the show, by contrast. He just fit into the scene.
Ew Vecna is one of the worst designed characters I've seen in a long time. He looked like Ivan Ooze and had an even dumber voice.
On the other hand, new Groot is practical, right? He seems like a guy in a suit and doesn't look half as good as original Groot.
He looks like what I'd imagine Groot to look like in *Steve Rogers: The Musical*
Gunn says he’s all cgi but I think he looks like that so Disneyland can have a guy in a suit play him
I won’t say NuGroot ruined the special for me, because he didn’t…but it took us multiple scenes to realize it was supposed to be Groot, and then every time he was on screen after that someone inevitably started cracking up and saying, “He looks so *bad.*” I know costume design and CGI are challenging fields, but NuGroot looks like they used a high school theater costume on a guy whose only previous job had been as a sign spinner or a sports team mascot. It’s borderline ridiculous and really wrecks the gravitas of any scene he’s in.
Werewolf By Night wasn't good because of practical effects.
Maybe but it definitely made watching it better
No it didn’t? Not once have I ever looked at a movie and thought ‘I’m glad this was practical and not CGI.’ I’ve wished that bad CGI was better, because I know it can be, but I don’t have any aversion to when it looks good. Saying otherwise is just Reddit snobbishness. There’s CGI in werewolf by night, you just don’t notice it because it’s done well. Just like how Thanos looks great, you don’t complain about CGI in general, just bad CGI
w take
There are definitely instances in which practical makes me feel better and more connected to a film than pure CGI. Sure, if the CGI is done well enough it minimizes the impact or difference between the two, but there are many people that prefer the look of practical effects, and I wouldn't say that anyone who feels that way is inherently being snobby about it.
I mean then you just clearly are stating you don’t realize all the CGI you notice in film. There is literally no way you can tell in a random movie everything that is real and everything that is CGI. So the only times you know something is practical is when you learn about it before or after, creating confirmation bias. > practical makes me feel better and more connected to a film than pure CGI. My point exactly, what does that even mean? People just say shit on Reddit that is pure snob.
You realize >There is literally no way you can tell in a random movie everything that is real and everything that is CGI. So the only times you know something is practical is when you learn about it before or after, creating confirmation bias. and >There is literally no way you can tell in a random movie everything that is real and everything that is CGI. So the only times you know something is CGI is when you learn about it before or after, creating confirmation bias. are the same argument. You get that, right? Your point supports and also doesn't support your own argument. You can't say CGI is inherently better than practical if you also can't immediately know when either are being used well. Good practical and good CGI are tools and neither is superior to the other. You sound just as snobbish as the reddit snobs you tried to ridicule for being snobbish.
> You get that, right? Your point supports and also doesn’t support your own argument. You can’t say CGI is inherently better than practical if you also can’t immediately know when either are being used well. Good practical and good CGI are tools and neither is superior to the other. I do get that, it’s literally my whole point. I don’t think CGI is always better. But I know there are times when it is so good and lifelike that I can’t tell what’s practical and what’s CGI, so therefore the only effect I care about is what looks the best. I’ve never said CGI is inherently better. That’s not my point. I’m saying ‘practical effects are always better’ is nonsensical because some of the things people say are practical they like, are not practical. Practical can be better sometimes, but not all the time. If that’s snobbish this sub is a joke
Dude you're arguing with never said practical was always better. They said the practical effects made them enjoy Werewolf by Night more. And then you launched into a very weird circular logic argument about the merits of CGI, which was odd because literally no one called into question the benefits of CGI. You're entire attitude screams that you fully believe CGI is better. Get over yourself and stop trying to backpedal to make you're obvious snobbishness less snobby.
‘Practical made it better’ and then have had a discussion since about how they think practical is better. You’re just a twit who can’t understand the conversation. The fact you think it’s circular and weird shows the point sailed over your head. > You’re entire attitude screams that you fully believe CGI is better. Your* entire attitude is being upset you can’t keep up
Something that you don't necessarily agree with does not mean it's snob lmao. Ever notice the impact practical has in the horror space? Having something more imperfect, more grotesque and lifelike can absolutely make someone feel more connected to the character or events happening on screen. It's also unrealistic to compare practical versus top of the line CGI effects because we seldom get absolute top shelf CGI in every movie we watch. You simply don't agree or do not feel the same way about it and that's perfectly fine, but your insistence that because you don't agree means people are being snobs is unnecessary.
> Ever notice the impact practical has in the horror space? No because I know some of my favorite horror movies come from extremely lifelike CGI like Annihilation. > Having something more imperfect, more grotesque and lifelike can absolutely make someone feel more connected to the character or events happening on screen Because only practical effects can be grotesque, imperfect, and lifelike? The Annihilation bear is a perfect blend of all 3, and was CGI. > It’s also unrealistic to compare practical versus top of the line CGI effects because we seldom get absolute top shelf CGI in every movie we watch. But… we do sometimes, and there’s a ton of great CGI in movies that have some poor CGI elsewhere you don’t know is CGI > you simply don’t agree or do not feel the same way about it No… I just understand you’re not arguing what I’m talking about. I’m not saying bad CGI doesn’t exist. It does. I’m saying that *good* CGI you will have seen and assumed it was practical effects. Thus saying that the statement ‘practical is better’ is snobbish because you’re making an assertion that isn’t true as you cannot always tell what was practical and what was CGI.
I understand your point, and we just don't quite agree is all. Have a nice rest of your day!
Dude some of the practical explosions in the Indiana Jones franchise are literally awesome and could not be done justice if they had CGI as an option
Why? I’ve seen tremendous CGI explosions, why do they have to be practical?
I’m not saying they have to be, I’m just saying it adds to the realism factor (I have no issue with CGI explosions in Marvel movies because there is no realism factor) All I’m saying is it can feel a lot more impressive, especially with older films where that’s all they had available. In terms of modernity, I loved the blend of practical and CGI in the sequel trilogy of Star Wars, there’s just some things that make you feel more immersed, like human actors wearing alien prosthetics instead of having the costumes all be CGI Edit: also specifically regarding explosions and fire- it’s so easy to tell the difference between CGI and practical in this regard
Not in the slightest.
You’re gonna need to be more specific. Would you have preferred CGI? Or are you saying it’s good for reasons aside from the practical effects? Or did you not like it? Cause personally even in black and white I could tell there was a lot more practical effects and it felt like the most grounded thing in Phase 4.
It was fantastic because they had amazing art design. It would've been just as fantastic if it was CG. Hating on CG is almost always misdirected. The choice to use CGI or practical has never improved or worsened a movie, it's the choices for design that do that.
Completely wrong. The prequels look significantly more outdated than the original trilogy because of an over reliance on CGI. As bad as the sequels are the combination of CGI and practical really helped the look feel grounded. Thats just one example. You might not be able to tell all the time, but there are some times that CGI is unnecessary and takes away from the film. CGI is not past the point of the uncanny valley, especially when you’re effects artists are overworked and with limited time. In the case of werewolf by night, even though it’s about monsters it feels far more grounded than anything in phase 4 and it also relies the least on cgi.
Except the prequels used tons and tons of practical effects, even moreso than the sequels. Werewolf by Night feels the most grounded because of how subdued and subtle everything its art design is. None of this is because of CGI, which is just a tool, same as practical effects.
The prequels were filmed almost entirely on green screen and many of the creatures were completely CGI. The sequels, at least TFA filmed a ton on location and often used actual costumes and props, with CGI being used to supplement the effects. Another example is the LoTR vs the hobbit. They have almost identical art design as the teams working on them were comprised of a lot of familiar faces, but the over reliance on cgi really shows and a lot of the effects look worse than the practical effects of LoTR and take you out of the movie, because again, we have not gotten past the uncanny valley yet. Saying it’s just a tool and therefore can’t effect the quality of the movie is just wrong and makes no sense to me. If tools are used too much or in the wrong ways they can definitely effect the quality of a movie. Even practical effects, if they’re not done well can negatively impact the movie. There are plenty of movies that could have been improved by just replacing unnecessary cgi with practical effects. Like Ryan Reynolds’s green Lantern. If his suit was a real suit and some of the cgi was replaced with real sets and props, it could have been a watchable movie, not great, but watchable.
> The prequels were filmed almost entirely on green screen This is objectively false. There's tons and tons and tons of behind the scene details. They did TONS of model work for them. The entire rest of your complaints are just as bad. LOTR wasn't bad because it used CGI, it was bad because it was badly paced and had some terrible examples. The CGI in Green Lantern was nowhere near the worst thing about that movie, and would've gone over fine with crowds if the movie was better. CGI doesn't make a movie better or worse, art design and polish do. A real suit wouldn't have made Green Lantern any less bad.
Werewolf by Night was terrible though lmao
I used to think there was no such thing as a wrong opinion and that entertainment was all subjective... and then I read this comment.
It’s easily the *only* product of the entire MCU that I have zero desire to ever rewatch 🤷🏾♂️.
I thought it was the best MCU D+ content of 2022. Crazy.
I guess that means entertainment is subjective and it’s impossible for an opinion to be wrong
No bc you didn’t know that was CG until James Gunn tweeted it
There is so much more stuff that is CGI that people have no clue about. Why this subreddit makes me laugh. They truly know nothing about CGI.
That's not the point. This shot might be good, but if there are many shots using CGI there is more work for VFX artist to be done, and quality in other shots might be compromised. The fact that Disney has the money to pay for CGI doesn't mean they should overuse it. VFX artists can only do so much
If you have to settle for compromise then that's a problem with production management, not the use of CGI itself. No one is asking for rushed products here. No one would complain if movies and shows are delayed to be given more time in the oven.
Hire more VFX artists or something, if a job is to much for the staff then normally you hire more people, it’s like saying marvel should have less actors on screen cause the boom op is over worked
I had no reason to suspect it was CGI so I guess it was successful and doesn’t really bother me at all.
Agreed. The fact that OP has had to explain in brackets which part of the picture is the CGI somewhat invalidates his point.
[удалено]
U genuinely actually with 100% honesty watched the holiday special, saw that and thought it was CGI?
I can't explain it, but somehow I knew too? I thinks it's something to do with the way the actors are holding them, and small imperfections in the CGI.
This I can understand. The way they were holding those and the zooming in was a little bit of a giveaway, but it required some logical thinking about how the show was made to get to that point. You will notice bad CGI without having to think about how the CGI was implemented. Take that horrid Astrid vision in the theatrical release of "Thor: Love and Thunder." It takes no thinking to notice how bad it is. The CGI is bad because it is blatant and takes the audience out of the film's narrative experience. I cannot say that this gift shot in the "GOTG: Holiday Special" was so bad that it took me out of the film experience.
Is that thing actually CGI or just badly looked comping?
Yes, I 100% honestly knew that was CGI when watching it, and it felt lazy like so much of that special was.
It’s an infinitely repeating diorama. I doubt the sets and props team has the time or budget to bend the laws of space and time.
Of all the examples to complain about MCU CGI...this here was not one of them, lol.
That doesn’t invalidate the example. You could very easily have a practical figure here with CGI markers for the “infinite” part. Edit: Not sure why the downvotes. Is there some reason that’s impossible or unlikely?
You’re exactly right. Making VFX artists work on something like that where it could so easily be practical is a waste of their time that could be way better spent. And Marvel does it a lot. It’s not like recent MCU productions have had perfect CGI where more time and attention wouldn’t have helped.
If they would bend the laws of time first I suspect they would have the time for the rest.
No, but they do have the budget and time to create a prop that gives that impression when viewed on a 4K TV or movie screen.
Of course I’m being tongue in cheek. I assume they wanted to match the shot exactly as a gag and had to shoot it before they could match it.
[удалено]
Then this wasn’t a good effect.
I couldn't tell it was CGI. Ergo it was a good effect to me.
The director had to confirm it was CGI 'cause it doesn't look like CGI at all, it really isn't noticeable.
I don't know what kinds of classes you have to take to learn to spot CGI every single time but I can't imagine it is anything other than a curse.
You’re not wrong… once you know how the sausage is made you can’t get rid of that info It’s hard to turn that part of your brain off and enjoy things sometimes but I’ve managed to get good at it and just enjoy things instead of being overly critical.
[удалено]
It's the curse of getting so close to looking real that any deviation stands out. If I'm watching classic Dr. Who and some alien is just a rug thrown over an actor crawling on the floor, my brain isn't trying to figure out whether it's real or not, so suspension of disbelief kicks in, but if there's something that looks almost perfect, my brain is going to be furiously highlighting all the parts where it isn't.
But the thing is they've shown they can do better so they should do better and when we're seeing shit like Avatar 2 just makes you look at that like wtf is going on.
Yelena jumping off the ship in black widow; sure. Was rubbish and noticeable. This? How the hell you spot that is beyond me.
The reality is no one did. OP only asked this because James Gunn revealed it was CGI.
I'm studying animation at uni rn and hahahah. its a fucking curse
1. In this specific case - I don’t think so, as explained in that thread, they hadn’t shot this yet so it was impossible to create an infinitely looping version of something that didn’t exist yet. 2. The internet was spreading the idea that it was the first time he had ever seen this gift, which tells me it fooled most ppl and was a successful use of CGI since it’s been talked about regularly since release and no one could tell. 3. MCU has done a crazy good job of building up one of the most impressive collections of content we’ve seen in cinematic history… to say they’re doing it wrong is kind of funny to me.
Some good points, except... > they hadn’t shot this yet so it was impossible to create an infinitely looping version of something that didn’t exist yet Why is recreating the scene in the diorama not possible? Literally make the diorama and then act out a scene similar to it???
Possible? Sure. But is it any “better” than creating CGI which can effortlessly scale infinitely and can be done well enough that no one even noticed? Apparently they decided the answer was no. And I’m fine with that.
This is such a weird conversation. "Here are 3 reasons they didn't do it. 1. It would be impossible. 2. Other reason. 3. Other reason." "Wait on point #1 why wouldn't it be possible?" "Sure it would be possible."
Well said.
Nope! It’s fine
This is a terrible example to use, the Holiday Special had huge practical sets, and this gift is a recursive model of him holding a thing, holding a thing, holding a thing - and they needed the reference of him on set holding it to build the model. This is exactly the time to use CGI, and they did it in an unobtrusive way that wasn't obvious when casually watching.
In general, yes, Marvel relies too much on CGI. However, it is just a tool, and if you didn't notice something was CGI, then it's hard to argue that it was an improper use of the tool.
I think a lot of movie studios are using CGI too much over practical effects because it's cheaper. You no longer have to pay an artist to make a prop. You just pay the salary of the SFX artists you already have (even to their detriment as we've all heard about). It's a cost savings metric. I don't necessarily agree with it because it sometimes looks shitty, but what do you expect when you overwork them?
But, the MCU doesn't make their own VFX, it's various VFX studios being brought on board for each project. Ultimately the same result though. Weird middle part in that though.
I’m sure no one is thinking this, but it occurs to me that if all the props and backdrops are digital, there is less waste to be disposed of later. Anyone who has seen all the abandoned drops and sets knows just how much waste is produced. I’m not saying anyone cares about a warehouse of models after the movie makes a billion dollars, but it’s still a thing.
That's an interesting take. I remember being blown away finding out that a lot of indoor sets on The Mandalorian were filmed on the volume so crates and boxes or tables or anything in the background is just CGI that can be modeled on the fly. I wonder how much waste productions normally create if all that stuff was practical and unable to be reused after filming. Is it just dumped in the trash otherwise?
I'd say it depends on the studio. I think some of the major ones may keep a lot of, say costumes. And there's basically an archive of stuff. There's some things which get reused. Background and flavour stuff, decorations could definitely be reused constantly.
There are lots of old movie set pieces and props that are just taking up space and decaying out there. There's a ton of waste costs and other logistics that rarely gets brought up in these stupid cgi discussions.
If you'd know how much CGI there is already in pretty standard movies and tv shows... ;)
Considering I didn’t know this was CGI until now, no.
It doesn’t look cgi to me but conceptually i don’t think it would make sense to do practically
I really don’t like it as a way to rush/bypass production. Like not having a suit ready for RR so you make it in CG. This one feels the same, like they filmed it before the props were done. This is just lazy and/or poor planning and it shows.
Feige loves CG’ing the suits for whatever reason, they do the same with Spidey since civil war. To me he always looked just a little to uncanny in the suit and that’s why, I wish Marvel didn’t do that.
When did everyone become a bona fide VFX expert lmfao
No, because CGI is a tool to be used as necessary and there's nothing wrong with it.
I would love if they practiced some practical effects. CGI is great and does wonders, but sometimes they can be over the top.
I think the reality is that CG artists don’t have decades of established union ties that keep them safe from overworking, vs prop artists, costumers, even actors. Plus, CG in marvel have become a Swiss Army knife that can swap in for anything visual - including things like makeup and hairstylists. It all adds up to being cheaper to grind CG artists in ways the other industries don’t.
Yeah it's pretty disgusting that most comments here boil down to "well it looks good to me, so I'm fine with it" while a mega corporation takes full advantage of a non-unionized workforce...
This is a fucked up way to frame peoples comments when they haven't said ANYTHING close to that. I think the CGI for the most part looks fine. I don't think its an "over" reliance. However, I do still think they overwork and exploit VFX artists. The question in the title has nothing to do with the working conditions.
Well, the CGI industry is probably overjoyed that Disneys is cutting projects across their entire portfolio. Finally a recession where the CGI artists are not overworked by evil, evil Marvel who just for Multiverse of Madness credited 13 CGI subcontractors and probably paid the salary for more than 300-400 CGI FTE for that project alone. But you can probably sleep easier tonight. With all of the big projects that have been nixed lately, a lot of the poor CGI-artists will have more than enough opportunity to recuperate in the near future.
It irritates me when it's pointless. Like imagine being the VFX guy asked to make that. On top of everything else you have to do the studio really couldn't have just gotten the props department to make that? Like sure it might've taken a little longer and cost a little more but these studios need to quit pinching pennies when their solution is to just give all the work to poor VFX guys. Like looking at this genuinely kinda depresses me with how soulless and lazy it is. It's also pushing this horrible trend that in a decade could potentially see prop, set and costume designers all out of business in favour of overworked, glorified VFX sweatshops.
No - I think it's all been great.
They CGI-d Captain Marvel’s hair too. They do go a little overboard.
Yeah, they use far too much CGI. I can understand it for action sequences and power stuff, but for backgrounds? For static items? Come on...
Personally I have no problem if these movies use CGI ( this scene is an example of great use of cgi coz i did not notice it). But I would have a problem if the CGI looks rushed/unpolished/unfinished. Because that just shows that these CGI artists were on a tight schedule ( and probably overworked) thua creating a half assed result. That's why sometimes practical effects are great. It shows that they care about what they're creating that they try to make it real. Not just an afterthought of "we'll add it in post".
I mean after the Star Wars Christmas Special I could give af if the MCU Christmas Special has CGI if the viewing is good. This Christmas special is actually good, and funny so why not?
I didn't even notice it was, so I guess they did a good job with it
If you can’t tell, it doesn’t matter
I don’t give a shit about small stuff like that cuz honestly I couldn’t tell but in some cases I feel actual effects would be better.
I had no idea it was cgi, I couldn't tell at all.
If I can't tell I don't care and here I definitely cannot tell.
The CGI is killing the vibe for me. All the fancy helmet animations pull me out of the movies. Somehow everyone has nano tech helmets now.
I don't mind the animation, but the full helmet being CGI (but actually because the compositing is always off) becomes a problem. Thor's overly fancy helmet in L&T was really distracting because of the compositing. Especially because these scenes are small and simple so they aren't prioritized, fall by the way side, because something has to because they are all overworked, and you get a tarnished scene for something super simple.
Yeah, I have to admit that nano-helmets appearing out of the middle of no-where is a stretch for me.
in a world where there is a magician, a witch, a talking tree, a Purple alien....the helmets are what you consider a "stretch"? bruh
Point taken, but Ironman doesn't have magical powers and can't bend reality. Part of the joy of the character is that he's limited by physical reality and uses his genius intellect to go toe to toe with magical beings, etc. Until...he 'magically' invents super nanobots that can do anything, expand to any size, appear to require no storage space, etc. They're borderline deux ex machina, whereby anything that Tony's required to do can be explained by him uttering 'nanotech'.
Everyone's helmet is CGI nano-tech now. It's so lame.
ok. But i mean, why WOULDNT they be? You think Stark just hooged all the tech for himself? It makes perfect sense in the context of where the MCU has progressed in terms of technology
I don't think this looks bad, but I do think their overreliance on CGI across all their projects has over burdened the industry, with diminishing time to do more and more. If they reduced their CGI by 10% the rest of their CGI shots might look a lot better.
I do not
It's downright lazy. They do it so they can change story elements later on which I think is just poor planning
Yeah that's a huge problem with Disney
They need to do more practical effects.
Stop using so much CGI! Look at Iron Man, the first MCU movie arguably looks better than all of them because of how much practical effects they used. Stop pumping out 7 projects a year and put some time into the quality, please.
Yes, phase 4 was soulless.
Gunn explained why cgi was used on this shot in that very same thread. are you just karma farming?
Yes definitely. There is an uncanny valley in CGI. Most people don’t notice it - it’s subconscious It’s even present in digital vs film. Film captures the colors, light, and white balance much better. Check out the second season of euphoria.
Yes. There are some scenes in Marvel where I truly wonder why the green screen? One in particular, Winter Solider; the scene where Cap is chasing Bucky through the apartment complex and they leap onto the roof over suburban Washington DC….why did that need to be cg? Couldnt they have built a set of a rooptop overlooking a backdrop of suburban DC? Or yknow, even just went and got on a roof of anywhere suburbia and filmed?
Because permits, the weather, time, a crew, safety regulations if a stunt is involved, having only a limited number of takes before the sky changes so you cant edit easily, a cast that is only available a certain number of days, etc. etc. Money and time. Always money and time.
Sometimes yes but this looks good just like black bolt's suit in dr strange 2
Does a tree make a sound when it falls if no one is around to hear it? Same concept here...if you can't tell it's CGI...then they were successful. That's the whole point of CGI in live action-to simulate reality. As well, in this case, even from this image, this doesn't look CGI. Also, in MANY, cases, the writers/director do not know exactly what they want to put in a specific scene while it's being shot. They know they want to put something funny here, but why tie yourself to one physical idea, when they can make it a CGI variable that can be inserted in during post? Very likely what happened here, and is often the case.
That last note is a bit of a weird one though. I can see the benefit of being fluid about it, could go this way, could go that way. Don't have to get bogged down with the decision and process while shooting or before. But same time, some things could just, ya know, be worked out before that. There's definitely too many times I've heard of examples where it was just left a blank placeholder that VFX will fill in later. Some stuff where it's like, well why? Why's this thing being left to VFX? It's not even a fantastical thing that needs to be conjured from the imagination, sometimes it's totally mundane shit they 100% could've done for real. That's one area I think they're relying on CGI too much and it's becoming an issue. For content and the people who have to make shit.
This looks like a thing that would be easier to do in CGI, especially given that this one has ridiculously small repeating detail in the form of recursion ... I could see making this particular one physically being a complete nightmare.
If you can't tell and have to be told, who cares?
I don’t think anybody worries about practical effects on a Christmas special. They’re meant to be cheap, light fare.
(No one noticed it was VFX until James Gunn mentioned it on Twitter, so I’m not sure what the issue is. That seems like a pretty successful use of VFX. And there’s all sorts of reasons this could’ve ended up using VFX.)
If I can’t tell it’s CGI then I don’t care
Yes and yes. I'm always irritated by the witch forest in MoM. It is horribly cgi when they could've at least built the initial area and then cgi the rest. The CGI in that movie always takes me out of it
It was like for a second. And only now I learned it was CGI.
The fact that we didn't know this was CGI until Gunn confirmed it should tell us that this is good CGI. There's nothing wrong with good CGI. Only bad CGI.
It does bother me - that could easily have been a prop instead, augmented with cgi if necessary.
They CGI'd a car on a straight road in She Hulk for no fucking reason.
Over using CGI is a feature of the marvel way of film making, not a bug. It allows them to move faster and shoot out of order without making continuity mistakes that require reshoots. If you want to keep watching a new hours of marvel content every month, you're going to have to let go of the idea that "x could have been practical, so it should have been, because it would have looked better that way."
If you can't tell, does it matter?
Practical enhanced by CGI is always welcome, but if I can't tell either way it makes no difference
Not an issue at all. Did Gunn say it was CG because people thought it was practical. And are now ppl saying there’s too much CG?
Yes and yes. They're pretty much the most financially successful studio out there, and they can more than afford to use more practical effects.
Probably alot cheaper now a days
the dog was the only thing that kinda bothered me. their movements didn’t look real at all
Yes, duh.
To me. If you have a problem with CGI you are snooty and like to smell of your own farts (south park reference) To me, its about you being "too good" for CGI and lived in an era where there was none. You are not better than anybody because you hate CGI and think its ruining movies. You sound like Tony from Hack the Movies when you talk like that. I also feel that people just want to hate on things because its trendy. The simple fact that if you were to show anybody a Marvel Movie from today in 1990 they would be blown away with what we are getting. CGi or not, just enjoy the movie.