No, he was voted down from making it an NC-17 with full frontal close-up.
No artist is truly appreciated in their own time.
I hope he saved the receipt on all the green body paint he bought.
Just back from this, and I did not like it. Not awful, but not very good at all, and very disappointing after Wonder Woman.
The performances are mostly good, and there’s a few fun moments, but it felt like a mess.
There were a few groups of young (under 12) boys in my screening, and they were all super-excited before the movie started, but clearly got bored and started talking amongst themselves and walking around by the halfway point.
A whole bunch of kids got up and left halfway through, which I’ve definitely never seen in a superhero movie before.
Well, this assumes I’m only interested in superhero movies, which I’m not. I’ve seen this kind of myopic result across the board.
re: “dodgy” CGI
At this point, for me, the comment itself is a lazy cliche.
On the one hand, due to disc extras, we know more about the process of film-making than ever, but people still only see what they want to. The belief is some SFX tech just presses a button and whammo! Instant effects. Total bullshit but that’s people for you.
If CGI didn’t exist the various 80s films we look back on fondly would get this kind of reaction:
- Models were shit
- You could see the wires
- Those matte composites were lazy
And so on. You get the idea. Going to a big, multi-million dollar budget blockbuster that spins an impossible story of total fantasy and then whinging about the effects just seems the height of idiocy to me. You want realism? Batman jumps off a building, shoots the Bat-rope, misses, smashes himself into a car from over 100 feet up, killing himself and many others in the pile-up his corpse creates. The response? “That pile-up effects were crap.”
Must… resist going into spoiler thread. Going to see movie in three and a half hours. Must… be… good.
I don’t have a problem when there are small bits in a film that you can definitely tell are CGI but don’t distract from the movie as a whole.
I think the issue is when the effects are overtly incongruous with everything else in the scene and it takes you out of the film. It gets especially irksome when it happens in a huge, climactic set piece.
Mileage varies from person to person, though. What bothers someone a lot may not matter to another.
ha! I caved in because I figured there weren’t many spoilers to be had (that is big ones) that we already don’t know thanks to the barrage of articles about the movie… but I just skimmed it, probably better to stay away until I watch it at some point over the next days… My hype has been damped by what seems to be a case of too much Whedon in the movie and an obvious cut-down of what needed to be a longer movie (which reminds me of what happened with BvS)… we’ll see =/
Point is the same type of criticism would be done on just about every single movie with effects work.
Jason and Argonauts’ skeletons? They could have been better, those effects guys were hacks!
It’s basically looking for stuff to break the spell and no film magic is going to survive that.
I think part of the common CGI complaint is that we have special effects nowadays that are used to create convincing, photo-real illusions that the rational part of our brain still knows can’t be real. So there is a part of us that actively looks for the faults, to see where the giveaway is, because we know there must be one.
The Hulk, for example, is an amazing CGI creation, but I’ve still heard people criticise the effects work used to bring him to life. I can only assume that it’s due to their mind shouting at them that he can’t be real - but I don’t think that’s down to any fault with the effects themselves. Just a natural result of the mind rationalising something that it knows can’t be as it seems.
I think a lot of it comes on how CG is deployed and what it’s used to achieve. You’ve got to have a good plan for what you want to do with CG, and how you’re going to integrate it into your live action footage. If your world is too realistic, then the impossible will stick out like a sore thumb. Sometimes, CG with less time or money spent on it looks more in place than the really expensive movie stuff, because it’s less flashy
I don’t think people are actively looking for bad effects. CGI effects create an illusion within the movie or TV show. It tricks the brain into thinking its real. The problem crops up when something destroys the illusion, whether its an obvious green screen or an effect wasn’t rendered to the same level as the rest of the scene.
I don’t know - maybe we’re just in an age where people are just so very picky.
I can quite easily buy that someone might watch an extra that shows how much work went into it all, like say the resurrection of Tarkin in Rogue One, but they then still slip back into their old habits.
I do like Lorcan and Dave’s posts, as that’s probably a large part of it, but I also think the audience has to want the magic to work, which in turn means glossing over the imperfections - a perception filter.
I think that Tom Savini quote applies well here too, at least in terms of whether CG can create discord in a scene - you know, the quote about seeing that a knife works so that we accept that it can work when the killer uses it.
I think CG really needs to lend to the atmosphere in the movie that it is being played with. A sillier movie…the strictness of CG doesn’t matter - but something like Social Network? Imagine weird CG on that Twin’s face.
A lot of it is about willful suspension of disbelief - the amount of unreality you’re willing to put up with. If the story is engaging, you’ll forgive more. Same with plot and script and every other element of a story.