Rate the last movie you saw

[Hurl Bruce]

Marvel needs to get some real aliens and robots to fight? That's who the Avengers basically fight. It requires CGI.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Marvel needs to get some real aliens and robots to fight? That's who the Avengers basically fight. It requires CGI.

Agreed. I really don't see how you do The Avengers without a ton of CGI. It's just the nature of a franchise like that where the fate of the world is at stake in every movie. Man of Steel had a ton of CGI too, as it was pretty much the same movie as The Avengers (minus the humor).

 

[gourimoko]

Couple things...

1) It doesn't require "tons" of CGI. Movies like Interstellar and Gravity used photography, scale models, as well as CGI, to get a much more realistic effect.

2) It's more expensive to use scale models, but it looks a million times better.

3) Marvel's CGI seems poorly done, as others have said in this thread. It's very cartoonish. And yes, of course it's based on a comic book, but it's also on the big screen. It looks bad.

4) Frankly, the action scenes rely too much on CGI. There's usually way too much going on, way too many CGI actors on the screen, and it looks bad.

Maybe some of us see it differently? But I remember in the last Avengers movie there were some really bad, lazily done shots where the human actors just stood out like cutouts from the CGI background/foreground.

This goes back to the second Star Wars trilogy that just didn't look that great compared to the Special Edition originals due to being done entirely in front of a green screen.

Chris Nolan even made mention of this overuse of CGI when he made Interstellar.

 

[spydy13]

Couple things...

1) It doesn't require "tons" of CGI. Movies like Interstellar and Gravity used photography, scale models, as well as CGI, to get a much more realistic effect.

2) It's more expensive to use scale models, but it looks a million times better.

3) Marvel's CGI seems poorly done, as others have said in this thread. It's very cartoonish. And yes, of course it's based on a comic book, but it's also on the big screen. It looks bad.

4) Frankly, the action scenes rely too much on CGI. There's usually way too much going on, way too many CGI actors on the screen, and it looks bad.

Maybe some of us see it differently? But I remember in the last Avengers movie there were some really bad, lazily done shots where the human actors just stood out like cutouts from the CGI background/foreground.

This goes back to the second Star Wars trilogy that just didn't look that great compared to the Special Edition originals due to being done entirely in front of a green screen.

Chris Nolan even made mention of this overuse of CGI when he made Interstellar.

Nolan is definitely not a fan of pure CGI. He likes to shoot something real and build CGI elements into it. But he also chooses projects that don't require tons of CGI either.

His realistic, gritty Batman movie didn't have much of a need for that stuff (the stadium explosion in TDKR is one of the few, but even that had real shit built into it), and in Interstellar they had to create space but the ships and robots and shit were all real.

I agree that too much CGI is definitely a bad thing though, but I don't know if I've gotten to that point with Marvel yet. I kind of expect it going in, so maybe that's why I'm okay with it? And I agree with what @Jack Brickman was saying that it would kind of be impossible for them to not use CGI, not only with the enemies but also with the Hulk. I sure as shit don't want some roided out guy trying to play him like back in the day. It looks equally as bad, and if you compare what the Hulk looked like in the first Hulk movie or even the second one they did, I think they have come a long way.

 

[brownindian]

Couple things...

1) It doesn't require "tons" of CGI. Movies like Interstellar and Gravity used photography, scale models, as well as CGI, to get a much more realistic effect.

2) It's more expensive to use scale models, but it looks a million times better.

3) Marvel's CGI seems poorly done, as others have said in this thread. It's very cartoonish. And yes, of course it's based on a comic book, but it's also on the big screen. It looks bad.

4) Frankly, the action scenes rely too much on CGI. There's usually way too much going on, way too many CGI actors on the screen, and it looks bad.

Maybe some of us see it differently? But I remember in the last Avengers movie there were some really bad, lazily done shots where the human actors just stood out like cutouts from the CGI background/foreground.

This goes back to the second Star Wars trilogy that just didn't look that great compared to the Special Edition originals due to being done entirely in front of a green screen.

Chris Nolan even made mention of this overuse of CGI when he made Interstellar.

This. CGI when not done right stands out even when the other things fall into place. And in those situations it is best to minimize them.

 

[gourimoko]

Nolan is definitely not a fan of pure CGI. He likes to shoot something real and build CGI elements into it. But he also chooses projects that don't require tons of CGI either.

His realistic, gritty Batman movie didn't have much of a need for that stuff (the stadium explosion in TDKR is one of the few, but even that had real shit built into it), and in Interstellar they had to create space but the ships and robots and shit were all real.

Agreed.. I think this type of blending is what makes the effect look real.

I agree that too much CGI is definitely a bad thing though, but I don't know if I've gotten to that point with Marvel yet. I kind of expect it going in, so maybe that's why I'm okay with it? And I agree with what @Jack Brickman was saying that it would kind of be impossible for them to not use CGI, not only with the enemies but also with the Hulk. I sure as shit don't want some roided out guy trying to play him like back in the day. It looks equally as bad, and if you compare what the Hulk looked like in the first Hulk movie or even the second one they did, I think they have come a long way.

My concern isn't with them not using CGI, but using bad, poorly done, cheaply done CGI.

These were posted as examples of how shoddy the Avengers work was at certain points of the film, and this was likely due to time/budget constraints:

It's like.. you quickly realize something is not right about the Black Widow and Hawkeye; then you realize, oh, that's because they're real and everything else in frame is fake.

Again, it doesn't ruin the movie completely, and sure these movies are about the story, but when the story takes a back seat to poor CGI then it really hurts the film in my opinion.

 

[spydy13]

Agreed.. I think this type of blending is what makes the effect look real.



My concern isn't with them not using CGI, but using bad, poorly done, cheaply done CGI.

These were posted as examples of how shoddy the Avengers work was at certain points of the film, and this was likely due to time/budget constraints:

It's like.. you quickly realize something is not right about the Black Widow and Hawkeye; then you realize, oh, that's because they're real and everything else in frame is fake.

Again, it doesn't ruin the movie completely, and sure these movies are about the story, but when the story takes a back seat to poor CGI then it really hurts the film in my opinion.

Yeah, those are pretty brutal. I've seen that movie 3-4 times though and never noticed that stuff. I think the hope of these heavy CGI movies is that at full speed your brain won't notice how unreal (in a bad way) some of these shots are, which is basically the whole premise of motion pictures anyways.

 

[spydy13]

Garfield was a great Spider-Man.

In fact to address @blommen 's and @Andrew 's / @Jack Brickman 's points, I think Garfield was a better Spider-Man than Bale was at being Batman. In fact, he was as close to perfect at being Peter Parker / Spider-Man that I think any actor could reasonably be.

Makes no sense to replace him, at all, unless they feel he's too young to play an adult Parker (Parker who was a bit older, engaged/married, etc). If that's the direction they want to go, I'm fine with it.

But regarding Batman, I never liked Bale's rendition of Batman. I thought it was forced. His voice was simply, annoying; almost laughable. He did a good job as Wayne, but as Batman?? Nah... Those movies were good not because of Bale as Batman, but because of Nolan being this generations Kubrick. And Dark Knight was what it was because of the supporting cast, not necessarily because of Bale.

I also don't think Begins or TDKR were all that great. I prefer Amazing Spider-Man 1 to Begins. AS2 was an abomination.

Lastly, I'll say that I prefer DC's approach to the Batman / Superman franchises than I do of Marvel's with Ironman / Avengers. Nolan and Snyder's movies, I think, are just better all around action films than anything Marvel has produced so far, and I'm a huge Marvel fan.

Those Avengers movies, are frankly boring CGI fests. Same goes for Ironman. Just, boring... lots of CGI. Age of Ultron looks to be the same thing. Too much imaginary CGI - like I'm watching Toy Story or something.

/rant

I've always like Garfield as an actor, and I agree that I think he made a good spidey.

I think they want to just distance themselves from those movies though so that they can start fresh, which I think is a smart idea. I really hope that they quickly knock out the origin story in Cap 3 (teenager gets bitten, realizes he's a super hero, gets involved in Ironman and Cap's fight over what super heroes should be/do) and then move on to just telling stories in the Sony movies (I also hope they realize that there is more to the spidey universe than just love stories).

As far as the two cinematic universes, I don't know if I prefer one over the other, but I'm definitely glad that each has taken their own course thematically.

I obviously loved the Nolan movies and I'm one of the few that really enjoyed Man of Steel even though I don't really like Super man at all because they talk about society, and I hope they continue to bring that different angle to the table when they fully launch their plans.

Marvel's movies are definitely more popcorn fun (which is a nice change of pace from the usual drama films I watch), but they have tried to mix in more social commentary with the second Cap movie and it seems like they plan to keep going in that direction.

 

[gourimoko]

I've always like Garfield as an actor, and I agree that I think he made a good spidey.

I think they want to just distance themselves from those movies though so that they can start fresh, which I think is a smart idea. I really hope that they quickly knock out the origin story in Cap 3 (teenager gets bitten, realizes he's a super hero, gets involved in Ironman and Cap's fight over what super heroes should be/do) and then move on to just telling stories in the Sony movies (I also hope they realize that there is more to the spidey universe than just love stories).

As far as the two cinematic universes, I don't know if I prefer one over the other, but I'm definitely glad that each has taken their own course thematically.

I obviously loved the Nolan movies and I'm one of the few that really enjoyed Man of Steel even though I don't really like Super man at all because they talk about society, and I hope they continue to bring that different angle to the table when they fully launch their plans.

Marvel's movies are definitely more popcorn fun (which is a nice change of pace from the usual drama films I watch), but they have tried to mix in more social commentary with the second Cap movie and it seems like they plan to keep going in that direction.

Agreed!

From what I've read, there will be no origin story in Cap 3. Spider-Man will just be, and Marvel expects people to already know his origin. I actually like this, it's not necessary to delve into his origin for a 3rd time in such a short period of time.

I've also read that Spider-Man will not be Peter Parker but instead Morales, the Black-Latino Spider-Man. I think that'd be.... interesting.

Peter Parker AND Spider-Man (not the same character really), are my favorite comic book characters of All-Time. I think using Morales would be a bold move, but I dunno.. They keep saying they want to go back to high school Spider-Man, but then it was reported that there was a 95% likelihood that Parker wasn't going to be White (meaning, it likely wouldn't be the Parker's but the Morales).

I think by using Morales, they could go back to the high school setting without the fatigue and boredom we'd get by seeing this same rehashed story over and over again. It'd also allow the director's to kind of do their own thing as they wouldn't be locked into nearly 60 years of Spider-Man cannon.

 

[spydy13]

Agreed!

From what I've read, there will be no origin story in Cap 3. Spider-Man will just be, and Marvel expects people to already know his origin. I actually like this, it's not necessary to delve into his origin for a 3rd time in such a short period of time.

I've also read that Spider-Man will not be Peter Parker but instead Morales, the Black-Latino Spider-Man. I think that'd be.... interesting.

Peter Parker AND Spider-Man (not the same character really), are my favorite comic book characters of All-Time. I think using Morales would be a bold move, but I dunno.. They keep saying they want to go back to high school Spider-Man, but then it was reported that there was a 95% likelihood that Parker wasn't going to be White (meaning, it likely wouldn't be the Parker's but the Morales).

I think by using Morales, they could go back to the high school setting without the fatigue and boredom we'd get by seeing this same rehashed story over and over again. It'd also allow the director's to kind of do their own thing as they wouldn't be locked into nearly 60 years of Spider-Man cannon.

Yeah, I don't know much about Miles, but it seems like it would be a convenient way to deal with the general public's Spider-man fatigue and as you said be free from the constraints of cannon (although I think the vast majority of movie-goers are mostly unaware of the comic canon). It also helps Marvel's diversity problem.

I'm surprised they wouldn't want to keep that bullet for later though because it would be a nice way to keep that character going after an older actor played the role for 6 or so movies, since I think Marvel doesn't plan to recast characters over time.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I like the decision to not delve into the origin story since, like Batman, everyone already fucking knows it and we don't need to see it again. I like the idea of going with Morales less, but only because I've never read any of the comics where he was Spider-Man, so Peter Parker just is Spider-Man to me. I also generally dislike when another character takes over a previous character's costume and identity.

 

[gourimoko]

I like the decision to not delve into the origin story since, like Batman, everyone already fucking knows it and we don't need to see it again. I like the idea of going with Morales less, but only because I've never read any of the comics where he was Spider-Man, so Peter Parker just is Spider-Man to me. I also generally dislike when another character takes over a previous character's costume and identity.

This can work work out though.

To me, my preference would be to have a Peter Parker based story with him as an adult - no origin.

But if the idea is that we have to, once again, see him in high school; then I'd prefer the Morales character. Yes, Parker exists, yes he is the original Spider-Man, but Morales is now Spider-Man.

I prefer it because it shows these characters are still mortal men, with lives, that age, run into issues, etc. It also gives the writers and directors more leeway.

Hell, I wouldn't even mind if they did a Carson/Scarlet Spider character if they wanted new storylines.

There's lots of directions they can go that wouldn't rehash the same old first 5-10 Amazing Spider-Man comics.

 

[Jack Brickman]

This can work work out though.

To me, my preference would be to have a Peter Parker based story with him as an adult - no origin.

But if the idea is that we have to, once again, see him in high school; then I'd prefer the Morales character. Yes, Parker exists, yes he is the original Spider-Man, but Morales is now Spider-Man.

I prefer it because it shows these characters are still mortal men, with lives, that age, run into issues, etc. It also gives the writers and directors more leeway.

Hell, I wouldn't even mind if they did a Carson/Scarlet Spider character if they wanted new storylines.

There's lots of directions they can go that wouldn't rehash the same old first 5-10 Amazing Spider-Man comics.

I agree that it can work, but it's used so much in superhero comics that it just becomes a cliche. The problem is that you know that the original person is always going to come back and reclaim their mask, so having someone else take over is usually just a lazy way to not end a comic series while the main character is temporarily dead.

It can work, like when Batman had his back broken by Bane and he had Azrael take over his mantel to keep the symbol alive, then had to take Azrael down himself when he was out of control. I just generally think it's a lazy way for writers to temporarily kill off a key character while still publishing his monthly book.

I also think that, if they do the Civil War arc for the third Captain America, Peter Parker revealing his identity is that much more powerful because of how long he's managed to keep it a secret and how long we've been associated with the character of Peter Parker. It wouldn't be the same with Morales, who would just be a random guy only a portion of the audience would even recognize.

 

[Scholar]

Well, all of this is going to be affected by the upcoming Secret Wars event that changes the Marvel multi-verse to a uni-verse. No idea what that will have on their resident backgrounds and history. Also seems likely that Marvel Studios does Miles as Spider-Man, and Sony does Peter as theirs. Would allow both studios to run a Spider-Man series.

Mr Morales has different powers then Peter. In addition to most of the things that Mr Parker can do, he also has a camouflage ability to blend in and be rather difficult to find. Plus, has a venom sting that can temporarily paralyze opponents. He is also teenage throughout his entire run so far. But, doesn't attend a regular high school.

I have read pretty much everything that has come out. Like Jack, I consider Peter Benjamin Parker to be the one true Spider-Man. But, I have to admit that I have enjoyed the Ultimate Spider-Man issues with Morales in them. I just consider him to be some other hero. Jack, I suspect you'd have absolutely hated the concept they recently ran with for over two years with Otto Octavius's brain patterns imprinted over Peter's. Two years of Doc Ock in the body of Peter Parker as the "Superior Spider-Man."

Anyways, I really hope they retain some of the Ultimate characters that are attached to Miles. Not sure where they end up with their scrambling of things. But, some of these characters are bright spots to me. Oh well, just have to see what happens.

 

[gourimoko]

I also think that, if they do the Civil War arc for the third Captain America, Peter Parker revealing his identity is that much more powerful because of how long he's managed to keep it a secret and how long we've been associated with the character of Peter Parker. It wouldn't be the same with Morales, who would just be a random guy only a portion of the audience would even recognize.

I honestly think that was one of the worst moments of the Civil War.

Parker - more than anyone else - should have been:

1) Smart enough to realize what was going on.
2) Saavy enough to see that he was being manipulated.
3) Wise enough to realize that his family would end up paying the price.
4) Empathetic enough to the other superheroes as to not step out and do something so foolish.

I understand that Marvel wanted Parker to be the everyman, even though he is the flagship character, to demonstrate how insidious the Registration Act really was. I get it. But Parker was the wrong character to use.... In so, so many ways.

I really hope they don't revisit that point in Civil War, it was terrible.