>>698645>all that time and money wasted CG'ing a costume on Hawkeye, when they could have just fucking made one.Yes, I realize the implications and costs of making a few costumes, but damn it can't be worth more than it costs to CG that shit onto him. That's fucking gratuitous and decadent as fuck. It's a spandex fucking suit, with some raised bits. You could make that shit easy enough, and I bet a bunch of cosplayers have done just that already.
Ahh haha lol im not gonna lie I didn't think the space suits were cgi.In endgame, I thought hulk was done great.Your right about the cost 1:1, maybe it's cheaper to do a nice suit once than have it all up and CGI'd, bit you gotta remember these things all go through iterations and changes.They had a huge cast too all in different armors. Imagine the wasted time and money if they finished making the suits properly then needed to change them instead of just altering some polygons.It's sad. I think having actual suits would be cooler but at the same time runs the risk of looking really cheap if you know what I'm talking about.
>>698646>>698656Marlel couldn't decide on the costume designs until the last second, after the shoot was already done.They did shoot some scenes with costumes, but they scrapped them for the CG ones.Why should they care about costs, anyway, you fuckers gave them $3 billions for that trainweck of a movie. More money for me.
The technologies mainly developed by the movie industry kind of ruined the 3d world altogether, depending on who you ask. Artistry is vanishing and being taken over by 3d scans, photographic textures and full mocap animations. What's even left to do for wagies? Mocap cleaning? As far as movie goes, they all suck regardless of CGI. Hollywood is dry out of ideas and has been for a while. Greenscreen/mocap acting is impressive when you consider how unnatural it is to fake interactions.
Muh shitty Marvel movies
>>698673>Greenscreen/mocap acting is impressive when you consider how unnatural it is to fake interactions.It also shows the difference between A tier actors and the rest of them. And between good set planners vs terrible ones(i.e all the spider fights in Maze Runner)CG doesn't ruin movies. Small vision and poor planning do.
Bring back 35mm film and practical effects. And inspired directors. All movies made after the year 2000 are shit.
>>701967I was coming in hot with a rebuttal >but Braveheart!>but Patriot!1995 and 2000. Well done.
>>701967I don't know how unpopular an opinion this is, but I enjoyed Fury Road on a visual level. Watching the behind the scenes and seeing all those cars as actual vehicles and how they made them was pretty cool. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of that movie was shot using practical effects, though obviously some shots are CG.To be fair though, my favorite movies are The Thing and T2, so I enjoy the presence of practical effects more than the average viewer. That being said, CG does have a place in certain situations, but most directors use it more of an easy button to halfway get the shot they want, rather than actually working towards it. On the one hand, it's cheaper overall and less work which I can respect (work smarter, not harder), but on the other hand it's cheaper overall and less work, which I cant't respect (many great directors are held in high regard exactly for their clinical attention to detail and unwavering attitude to get the perfect shot). It just so happens that many of those directors are dead.
>>698645Grow up manchild.