It’s recently been told that CGI companies don’t want to work with Marvel due to the amount of last minute requests on projects and too many projects all at once with tight deadlines.
From what I have heard, underpaying CGI artists is the case with smaller studios as well. The difference is that Marvel has enough money to stand on its own and not go bankrupt from 1 bad project, other smaller studios that rely on CGI don't have that privilege so they have to be more penny pinching
I can guarantee the teams working on the CGI are very skilled, but as you said, unfortunate circumstances and unrealistic deadlines cause a drastic quality drop.
This has always been the case. For example, Marvel moved the release date for Endgame 1 month earlier (from May to April) and didn't notify the VFX artists (who found out via press release). The thing is, now Marvel is releasing 3 times the content they used to, so the exploitation is more evident and the drop in quality more noticeable
I’ve read that one of the reasons why Marvel has been moving from practical effects and focused more on CGI is because practical effect workers are usually unionized, which makes it harder to push unreasonable deadlines and make workers work under a time crunch. CGI/VFX aren’t unionized, so it’s easier for Marvel to cut costs.
With practical effects, well once you've gone through the steps of constructing an object, there is little wiggle room to change it. With computer effects, the issue is that they can be changed at multiple steps of production. In animation, a completed shot can go back lots of time to add various details, and the script can change a lot. As an associate producer manager I see that practically everyday on the movie I'm working on. It can be tiresome. The thing is though, a big reason it's not easy to unionize, is quite simply that Marvel can hire any studio in the world they want. So the unions would really only have a real power only on the VFX company employed by marvel. Hence, I feel the issue is mostly that Marvel is using compagnies, instead of having a proper in house vfx studio. If they had, well, giving retakes and delays would be much more straightforward. When you're a studio that's hired by a big company like marvel, it's really hard to renegotiate when there's too many retakes. A client will always be greedy. So, when there is no client / contractor relationship and it's your inhouse studios, consequences are a lot easier to take into account.
@@emilegalli9549 the problem with cutting practical is that it becomes hard to introduce anyone knew to acting on a set built for VFX- especially if they’re knew to acting in Hollywood. They aren’t as genuine as anyone whose done it for a while, and even then people who have done it won’t give off as good of a performance in a green/blue room holding almost nothing vs on location holding real props, interacting with real people. A good balance of VFX and Practical keeps costs at a good place and if Marvel could slow up for even a second, they could sit on that cash and make things worth producing. And they can even have time to write good scripts and put thought into the stories they tell. But they’ve factory lined this crap, they tell basically the same story with little variation, they give everyone the exact same personality, they all quip and joke and can’t take anything seriously. They’re all copies of some base model and we all know what happens with a copy of a copy, that gets further copied (so on and so forth)
@@vobsvids It's not really a question of cutting costs, but of pipeline. The reason those movies are done this way is because they want to be able to see result quickly and make lots of changes based on what they see. They bring whole sequences much farther they it used to be before cutting sometimes. And this is not as doable as it would be with more practical effects. Do you wanna know why there are more reshoots than usual nowadays ? This is the reason : the production method has changed. It allows for much more malleable changes in the course of production, it's less set in as movies tended to be previously. We call it "iterative production", though I am not quite sure the term is official, it's how this method has been presented to me. As far as quality goes, well, in my opinion this method of movie making is not adapted to complex storytelling, it works much better with gag based comedies, basically movies that can branch out in many sub plots and various little stories. It can make fun movies, but it's really not the thing for character studies. Because this method means your character can change a lot at practically any stage of production.
@@emilegalli9549 and Marvel built themselves on complex characters and their personal stories, The Avengers movies balanced comedy and tragedy- by making each character feel realistic, not everyone popped a quip at the end of every sentence, characters were allowed to have emotional scenes that weren’t immediately undercut by jokes- good Marvel content isn’t made to be streamlined like this. And that’s not saying they can’t make comedies, but they keep adding more and more impossibly huge stakes, and then never paying them off or using them for anything more than a gag. Infinite Universes???? And the first movie to actually explore that was completely nonsensical and didn’t even try to present its message very well. And the movie that introduced the topic was incredible, honestly Spider-Man NWH was great and proved that MCU Peter Parker was going to be more than a “quirky teenager” he was going to be a real character. The CGI was good, the story was decent, and it properly utilized fan service. But that’s the issue MoM followed the pipeline mold while NWH broke it a bit. Once more, Marvel isn’t built for the pipeline model.
Go watch a clip from District 9. Then watch a clip from modern Marvel movie. It's hilarious how a fraction of Marvel budget, over a decade old movie with a metric fuck ton of CGI looks 100x better.
The CGI in Iron holds up well for it;s age and look "realistic" in as much as a flying armor suit powered by a power supply the size of my hand can. :)
So jon favreau said he believed in the cgi for iron man bc the suit is a smooth surface. Organic and so on is a lot harder, he used Jurassic Park as an example. He said it during an hour long sit down with Kevin Feige at a film academy for reference😇
Practical effects + Computer Generated effects is still the best combo. Fusion of those is so realistic and awesome that it traumatized my childhood when alien/ body horror films is the shit.
Yes that is true. Close-ups and shots where you don't see a creature in full (like the T-Rex in Jurrassic Park) always look better with puppets and animatronics. CGI should be used for wide angle shots and when creatares run, jump, fly and so on, i.e. when animatronics are pushed to their limits. This combination looks great.
💯. Hellraiser 2 when Julia came out of the mattress… ICONIC. It looked terrifyingly REAL. A skinless monster from hell, with painstaking detail of veins, muscle, and tendons while simultaneously making her look “ juicy” as if her skin really was ripped off her body. You don’t see that happening anymore. That new Hellraiser movie was such TRASH. You can’t replicate something like that if you’re not going to use practical effects.
Same thing with a nightmare on elm street. That movie was all practical. The infamous scene of Glenn being sucked into the bed and the blood shooting up to the ceiling, the bed was actually on the ceiling they nailed it to the ceiling and poured the blood down and turned the camera in the opposite direction to make it look like the blood was going up but like it was reported that when they did this the crew almost got injured because the blood was going all over the floor on electrical equipment. When Nancy was running up the stairs and her feet were in that mush, that was glue and oatmeal and the actress really did struggle going up the stairs giving it a realistic feel. I miss this stuff
Sorry I keep replying Lmfaoooo. Also in Texas Chainsaw massacre, fun film fact: only less than one ounce of blood was used in the film. The part in the movie where she’s at the table with the family and they’re cutting her finger so the grandpa could suck the blood, she was holding a blood pump in her hand and it wouldn’t go off they did about 20 takes and it wasn’t working. So the guy playing leather face was getting frustrated and ACTUALLY cut Marilyn burns hand FOR REAL for that scene. So when she screams in that scene she’s screaming for real. And the part where he trips and falls with the chainsaw still going, that was an accident and the Chainsaw was real, he said he almost got seriously injured but they kept it in the film.
I'm glad you mentioned the Amazing Spider-Man 2. I've always loved the way Peter's suit looked in the film. It actually has wrinkles and looks like it's actual cloth being worn by a real person. Most of Tom's suits don't look bad per se, but they don't feel like genuine SUITS, more like perfectly skin-tight costumes.
Tom hollands movies make me cringe because of this… I wish we gave Andrew Garfield the respect his movies deserved.. these new Spider-Man films are just not it.. even worse with venom in the mix
Did you watch the bts for The Batman, they used some pretty innovative tech for CG backgrounds, including many parts of the car chase. It's actually a credit to them because I could've sworn it was 100% practical. You really need to watch the behind the scenes of The Batmanz which just further illustrates the difference between the VFX teams.
@@SignalFlowers I know its real, but they didn't literally made Pattinson drive highspeed through the traffic to finally dump a truck and make the perfect ramp in order to Pattinson to jump and crash a car with Farrel inside expecting none of them die. It was all "real" but didnt literraly happened that way, it was all practical effects (and The Mandalorian tec, The Volume)
@@rickbrees3297 Yes, i did. Its called The Volume and its neat, better than any greenscreen out there. I liked how they did the flying scene, the landing was real too.
There is something special about a creative non-CGI effects team that cares about the movie. Just like what you said about Lion King, I remember how appalling and ugly the CGI was in Cats and comparing that to behind the scenes footage of the team who worked on the theatre stage show in the 90s is crazy. It’s hard to believe we went backwards, and on top of that everything has to have stupid celebrity appearances.
I agree. The Cats movie had, I believe, around a $75 million dollar budget, and yet the stageplay (that, after seeing both, I doubt the directors even watched) looked so much better. Not even just costume-wise either, though that was definitely the most notable aspect. It's sad that companies don't seem to respect the art as much. The way CGI artists, animators, and other workers behind shows and movies are treated is horrible.
Not that it has to do with CG, but Disney’s first venture into using big names to sell more tickets started with Aladdin. Robin Williams’ performance of the genie was supposed to be a run of the mill voice acting job, but Disney went against his wishes in using his name as publicity for the movie.
I've also noticed the cgi getting worse, or atleast more inconsistent. Like that one scene in the doctor strange 2 trailer where Wong jumps threw the portal the perspective looked off or that one scene in black widow with the explosions, it literally looked like a school project. I honestly didn't want to beleive marvel was getting worse but this She Hulk trailer really cemented it. Great video btw, keep it up
You shouldn't pay to much attention on bad cgi on trailers. They often have to do the effects very fast to put them into the trailer, and often it looks different than the final version which is in the movie.
Honestly same with the amount of cgi marvel have been using u definitely start to see it it's ok to have cgi used in ur movies but u always have to have a balance between the 2 it's ok to use practical effects once awhile in ur movie🙏🏿
Meanwhile, over at FOX, Deadpool, a character that is known for going on unrealistic, absurd, weird and wacky adventures actually had a good amount of practical effects in his movies.
@@TheGgamer96 i think because fox is auto sustainable and the marvel studios owned by disney are a very little part of marvel and to make certain things they need money or they want to make things the most quickly as possible. (i don't know if i wrote it right, if not, sorry, i don't write and speak very good in english, but i understand it)
"Disney owns Marvel" Yes, but Marvel controls their movies almost entirely. Disney just owns the rights but part of the agreement is to not interfere with the MCU. So Disney isn't the problem (for once), it's really just Marvel overworking their VFX artists and trying to get things out as quick as possible, and NOT in a timely manner. By the time some people have read this comment, I bet Marvel's CGI will look worse than Cavill's removed mustache
Exactly. I'm not in the business of sucking Disney's dick, but they truly don't give much of a fuck about what Marvel does. People just don't wanna blame Kevin Feige for this stuff, and it shows. The MCU is Feige's baby.
Why don't they take their time anymore. Like Avatar the CGI looked great because they took time. Some people wondered where it went but when part 2 finally appeared it looked great
Being a huuuge fan of MCU, I agree. They are overusing CGI nowadays. They are using 3d models for basic stunts like jumping from 2 ft to the ground. And because there's sooo much CGI to be implemented, CGI companies are getting under huge pressure of completing a lot of work in under a tight timeline, which in turn hurts a lot of cg artists. Please Marvel, use some practical atleast.
My guess is that it's cost saving not to have a specialty department for practical effects when they can just load down another job on the creaking desk of the VFX artists. Same reason they're blue screening everything. It eliminates transportation and setup costs, not to mention negotiating to use public streets or private buildings, to simply have a single permanent soundstage where they can composite in the actors.
Facts. When I saw they actually used CGI on She-Hulk, I was asking myself, “Why not just have her wear green makeup and use a tiny bit of CGI for her muscles and physical appearance?” They’re using CGI for things you can do with practical effects and that’s just lazy.
@@cameramike2515Are you serious? This gotta be sarcasm, aint no way you just said they should have painted Tatiana green and suddenly she’s a 9 foot She Hulk with cgi muscle 😂😂😂.
A problem I have is that marvel movies are getting less and less cinematographic each time, they look like a SNL skit with famous actors telling jokes with a still frame and no actual cinematography, all the same shots, and ocationally a cameo to the next movie. And although building a life size t rex must be expensive, who else to do it but marvel, probably the top 1 multi million dollar company that clearly could do better
@@remcrimson2750 That God Rapu. He could have dressed the same, but make him look like he is made of bronze with cgi, so he appears more god-like. Would help the humor because he appears all great and holy, only to start mocking Gorr.
Fukcing this. I can't believe people just realized this recently though. I've felt that its been like that since the first Guardians of the Galaxy. Just the most boring still shots.
I’ve always thought the final fight between T’Challa and Killmonger should’ve been in the throne room and relied on minimal cgi and good old fashioned stunt work and dynamic fight choreography. It would’ve told a better story and saved the production a lot of money instead of the garish and rushed mess we got.
Yeah I agree. It could have been symbolic too like T'Challa is trying to avoid destroying artifacts and the throne while Killmonger is specifically using them as weapons, throwing T'Challa into the throne and destroying it, picking up sacred weapons on the walls and vases and throwing them at him, etc.
They’re cheaping out because of the amount of content in my opinion. Phase 4 has been probably the worst cgi (probably due to the amount) but at the same time you can still make do without so much of it
Yeah, with all the new Marvel movies and Disney+ shows coming out at the same time, it's probably difficult to keep the CGI consistently good while keeping on schedule
Bingo! There's your answer. Marvel wants to churn out a bunch of Disney+ shows AND films. That means less bandwidth for each film to ensure that they are produced of the highest quality.
@@StephanieKimPascaru Or maybe due to covid all the cgi moved to working from home and with off on lockdowns and current lockdowns for their Chinese artists, plus increased projects it could be breaking their bandwidth. Same reason why so many DC films have been delayed and why mcu films were also delayed. Maybe not until 2023 will we be able to get back to cgi more consistent with pre covid.
Crazy how Daredevil had better hand-to-hand combat scenes than the films on a budget of about $60 million, which was mostly spent filming in New York. Why I bring this up is because Shang Chi even used CGI assisted Martial Arts on a budget of $200 million and other Marvel films just use shaky cam and quick cuts.
It's a shame the MCU basically treated SHIELD as non-canon. Criminally underrated if you ask me. The first half of the first season is kinda meh, but once you get to the fall of SHIELD arc it's a great show all the way to the last episode of the last season. Plus you get some watchable Inhumans content.
@@FuckYTHandles I think first few episodes had to be slow to establish characters (and the style of the whole show) properly. And if you pay close attention, most of what they dealt with in season 1 were the key cases they were always mentioning when going further. Without those first episodes, we wouldn't get this masterpiece, but something very different. It was a necessary build-up. To be honest, season 1 is the best season to watch randomly when you feel like it. :) Not too heavy and still entertaining. Plus now that we know everything they've been through, it's extremely nostalgic as well XD It reminds me of Fringe way too much. Season 1 was the one season we weren't trusting anyone and were constantly asking questions we couldn't get answers to (ever, really). Other seasons lacked the magic, but connected the story on a bigger level. Especially with that one Observer chasing butterflies in the end XD Lovely day, fellow human being!
The best usage of CGI in movies will be Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest. He still holds up more than 16 years ago from the movie's release.
Nice video, it says exactly the problem: Marvel doesn't balance practical with CGI, for God's sake they are using CGI on normal scenes where there is NO NEED AT ALL for it
That's it, bang on. CGI can be a great compliment to a movie, but using it as an excuse to be lazy is causing a loss of actual love for crafting a shot, or scene or moment, and then blending it with practical effects where appropriate. That's where all the impact comes from a movie; the craft. That's why people remember lingering shots from movies made 30+ years ago with such clarity. It didn't just flash by in a noisy CGI mess or get lost in a flat shot with nothing interesting going on between the characters. Imagine if restaurants, collectively, decided to get rid of their ovens, cooking utensils, preparation, and artistry in cooking because microwaves exist. And then they just buy everything in from a shop because it's cheaper and easier. In fact, we don't need to imagine this, it already happens, and those restaurants are terrible and get shouted at by Gordon Ramsay. And eventually, they close down and people lose their jobs. I understand why the studios do it, though, it's less risky and more instantly rewarding. And I respect the human safety aspect of stunts and set-pieces also has to be considered. But without some risk, you cannot develop or grow; everything just becomes stagnant. I know I am just echoing the video, but yeah, I agree fully with it/Stephanie, and with your comment.
@@diegotm4365 normally yes, but the point of the comment is that Marvel overuses cgi to unnecessary things that's way easier and cheaper to do practically. Look at 2:31
I'd disagree, in Iron Man 1 for most shots the suit was entirely cgi, especially in spiderman nwh the use of cgi seems excessive but with movies this ambitious its needed, you can't spend months filming on a highway or busy street and cgi characters for hulk, spiderman, Iron man are the only way. It's just marvel is not allocating enough time and or budget. Honestly just look at the amazing spiderman, the spidey suit cgi is flawless same as the Iron Iron suit in Iron Man 1, the technology isn't the issue it's the way marvel goes about it
Honestly practical effects are one of the reasons why the lotr trilogy and jurassic Park are some of my favourite movies of all time. For lotr, they had around 20,000 orc masks made up, they never used or needed all those but it shows that even in scenes where orcs are in the background for a second, they still look like unique orcs
@@yesyes-om1po I don't think you realize just how expensive large-scale CGI is, especially on a tight time frame. According to Christopher Nolan, "I planned to do it using miniatures and set-piece builds and a combination of visual effects and all the rest. We started to run the numbers... It became apparent that it would actually be more efficient to buy a real plane of the real size, and perform this sequence for real in camera, rather than build miniatures or go the CG route."
A few reasons why Marvel is abusing CG 1. It’s more expensive to film big name actors on location especially if it’s a short scene because it simply takes longer. Instead I would be much faster to shoot them in front of a green screen, therefore not having to pay the actors as much, and then they would just leave the problem to underpaid VFX artists. 2. Their films are made under extremely tight schedules so they often don’t even have everything figured out until after shooting, and they have fully accepted this issue as part of their pipeline 3. Most important point, VFX artists are non unionized and can be paid less than most people who have to show up and work on set, so by pushing all the problems and responsibilities onto the VFX artists, they actually save money. Not great for the VFX artists, great for Marvel’s bottom line. Overall it’s because Marvel realized that VFX artists can be made to work more for less money than other people in the film pipeline that they decided to simply use VFX everywhere. And now having pushed VFX artists to their absolute limit, they have no choice but to half ass their shots in order to stay sane and meet the impossible deadlines set by Marvel
When they make as much money as they do considering pretry much ever film they put out grosses a billion dollars these days and the fact they’re literally owned by Disney, I don’t think cost of shooting scenes where big name actors is that big of a deal, if they genuinely cared about the film they were making they would film it anyway despite the costs, so many directors like nolan, villenuive he’ll even Scorsese would do the same especially since it took Scorsese years to finance the irishman. Marvel have no excuse they just bad now.
"They're sacrificing the quality of their movies, because they know people will come to see them anyways." Yup, but more and more people are noticing, and there may just come a point where they face a gradual decline in popularity if they don't do any better.
@@ahuman32478 Yeah, pre-Endgame, there are a lot of movies that were I'd call really really great and would love to sit down and watch again. Post-Endgame, the only movie that I've felt was actually consistently good and would sit down for a rewatch was Shangi-Chi. They've done like five movies now. That's... not good.
The point on iron man was a fantastic example. With the suit-up scenes, you see each and every part being put together, and the combination of the sound effects, the sound of the gears clicking and churning as he rotates or twists his body. Even Robert does a fantastic expression on the weight that tony carries when wearing it, as when parts are missing you get to see the actual thickness and size of it in comparison to the average human. It felt completely real.
While I agree that Marvel CGI has been rather lackluster lately, it's not the only factor that explains why their recent movies look so lackluster. There are other elements such as Marvel constantly amping the contrast and image sharpening between the actors and background so even if they film on the live set the film will still look fake, there is barely any "realistic" lighting casted upon the actors' face (except for some key scenes), lack of dust, dirt and wind effect (again except for some key scenes). Compared that to 2021 Dune where most of these major issues are "fixed" and the film looks amazing
So true! The background blurring for Doctor Strange MOM was such a pet peeve of mine, it makes every background look like a green screen even when it isn't
Not only that, we also have continuity problems now, it's like the writers didn't even watch the past mcu films. Hulk the guy that punched a leviathan to death in the latest episode of she hulk got knocked back by a jeep?? Loki who survived and was still conscious after getting his @ss beat by hulk gets knocked out by an electric stick and so many more writing problems. It's like the only thing making the movies and series actually be in the same universe are the easy cameos, they don't have enough time to plan things out anymore because they make dozens of movies and series in a year.
It's a simple matter of Marvel/Disney wanting to churn out more product with a shorter turnaround. These artists are worked to the bone and given impossible deadlines. Therefore, the quality is sacrificed. Quality is directly related to the time given.
Totally agree, plus Marvel doesn't do their own CGI and outsources to a bunch of different companies instead, which probably leads to inconsistencies and doesn't help when they push their movies/shows to release on schedule, leading to lots of rushed, unfinished scenes
Disney choose to destroy a legacy like Star Wars, so it is not even a surprise that Disney/Marvel choose to make a shortcut to make lots of money from cheap CGI and rushed product that sacrifise the story. It is not even funny how bad Disney become these days from their early days..
The same goes for the scriptwriters I think. Disney is focused on transforming Marvel and Lucasfilms into factories, just like they did with their core movies.
I think that the biggest problem is the issue with the roadmap. They announce the release date of the movies long before some are even in pre-production, so they have to make movies in fictional cg worlds instead of doing the more difficult planning, asking for permissions from the local government to shoot some scenes in a limited time, making practical props or effects, shooting in-site, etc.
It sucks that even when they do delay films to give the movie more time, they use that extra time to add random content and more effects, rather than polishing what’s already there. Doctor Strange 2 had its entire movie rewritten right before filming started yet the movie only had a few months delay. When they finished filming, it was delayed once again, but instead of editing and polishing their footage they used that time to shoot fanservice cameos and completely new fight scenes requiring heavy CGI… and the movie was barely even half a year away by then. Disney and Marvel really wanted the movie out by the summer season and what we got was a hot mess in all aspects, both screenwriting and CGI.
I think this movie is the worst contender because by the time the last camera stopped rolling they had about 3 months to finish the entire movie, it’s unacceptable and unbelievable
CG artist here. One thing to consider is location scouting and scheduling. Its much easier and cheaper to blue screen these complex scenes and set them up with equipment and all if you have a dedicated space where all production members can get to easily. You dont have to fight with cities like nyc to set up times to block traffic for a shoot expecially mid day. Also with marvel continually wanting massive interconnected stuff they need to be able to easily shoot and reshoot shots to fit in the the over arching plan. They (executives not the artist) are not making a movie they making a multi year scheme to get you to consume everything from the movies to the toys to your plans. Cgi needs time and proper set up to archive the right look. Most of the big production houses that work on the films bounce between each other different teams across a globalized network each handling small specialized task. Asia for example has alot of roto artist that do the green screen grunt work and than gets kicked back to the western companies for compositing. Hell some software such as something called yeti ( used to create cg hair and fur) for a long time was not legal to use in the US so they would outsource to europe to work with yeti and kick it back to us here. Work gets split up with teams that have very little team coordination let alone the time allowed to work on them. With the scale marvel uses its inconceivable to dedicate the work to it. cgi is everywhere but most times we don't notice it if done right. And it sucks cause we are using some of the most advanced software ive ever had my hands on and theres so much that goes into it. With the most expensive being any kind of simulation (fabrics, muscles, fluids, explosions) leaving little room for the stuff that makes them look good which is the material and lighting work. Its sad to continually see the medium ive spent over a decade learning get more and more dragged through the dirt. And the problem is the the money people not the artist who have been dreaming on working on these things since they were kids, are thrown on these insane workloads and we do it cause we love what we do. Theres alot more I could say but yea hopefully that rant/passion dump was coherent enough to make sense 😄 Edit: for those who are interested i am on the cg side primarily in modeling textures and materials and rigging some of the more under noticed aspects of the production process as most time its not the final product and people don't tend to notice the amount of work without context of the final shot. Even tho litterly no aspects of the final product can be made without those core foundational assets. This industry is filled with some of the most passionate intelligent and creative people due to all the random aspects of reality we gotta break down and understand to recreate reality using essentially math on a fundamental level. This is definitely a transitional phase of the industry from games to movies theres so much new shit coming out that we won't see the full implementation of till a few years and its exciting as hell. And theres a general growth in interest so hopefully things will work out for the better and we get over this stagnation in creative imaginative works soon
Thanks for your insightful reply. I've noticed a lot of content on UA-cam lately just ragging on CGI. Having worked in the industry (though not at all in VFX--couldn't do it, hats off to you) it's disheartening to read repeated comments like "the CGI could be so much better but they were just lazy" etc, not understanding all of the moving components of a production, why certain decisions are made, or that sometimes audience expectations are just plain unreasonable despite best efforts. VFX are some of the hardest working and most OVERworked people on the planet and I hate to see your work just turned into armchair critique fodder from people who don't understand what goes into creating visual effects.
I agree. I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Iron Man’s best suits were the old bulky ones from Iron Man 1 to Avengers 2. They felt more real. Great video.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the bad CGI in Marvel movies these days. The first time I noticed was in Black Panther, and it really pulled me out of the film. I think the CGI is only going to get worse from here on. They have so many projects in the works that there is no way for the FX teams to properly create good and believable CGI for all those shows and movies. I noticed the writing for Marvel has taken a sharp nose dive too. I don't think there is anything in Phase 4 that can pass as even ok in terms of writting, and it makes sense because the writters don't have time to redraft the script. They begin filming even before the scripts are finished, or the script is hugely rushed. Like how the script of Balck Widow was made in only 11 days, which is terribly little time (for example LotR trilogy took 14 months to write), and it shows. But all of Phase 4 is like this. Rushed in every department. The death of the MCU will be slow and painful.
I bet it will not even slowly at this rate..if Disney still has this mentality, it will going free falling to the earth faster than they would think. The consumer nowdays is not dumb. We still have a few brain cells to make our decision to choose better product. I hope that will teach Disney some lesson.
Just clearing this up this is mostly writing from the comics but marvel putting a spin on it as phase 1 was setting up the avengers phase 2 setting up the infinity stones and phase 3 the battle of the infinite stones marvel is taking the same approach but faster actually as in phase 4 is setting up 2 things the multiverse war and the new avengers. Phase 5 will most likely be the climax to the new avengers and the beginning of the multiverse war all we know of phase 6 is that 2 movies will be the kang dynasty’s and Secret wars so when you say it’s bad writing or ok writing I ask what saga that’s still popular and thriving winning nominees that have over 15+ movies. When you say bad writing that’s like saying the new Star Wars movies is great writing. The only bad writing in my opinion that has been done is the new me marvel series I hate how they completely stripped her original ark from her. Have a good day.
@@akuhappy3246 depend what you say quality is if your talking about there writing no and if your talking about the vfx no in my opinion it’s going up I’m more hyped for every marvel movie to come. The only thing that looks awful is the ms marvel show I will always dunk in how bad that show looks. 1 guy made a entire movie with 99percent vfx and 1 box as a prop and spent no money and most of it was in person and it looks really good but he was the only person I’ve not like he is paying actors and is in a time schedule cut marvel some slack there still in the #1 spot when it comes to any series
I actually thought that Iron Man's suit in Infinity War visually made sense as far as the nanotechnology aspect of it, but compared to his suits from the Iron Man trilogy and The Avengers . . . I mean there really isn't a lot to say. Those suits looked badass, grounded in reality. Phases I and II of the MCU were where everything seemed to be at its peak, but now with Phase IV it's . . . unfortunately underwhelming.
A great legacy has to be either left alone or carried on to be preserved. Once you make a hit, you gotta make a better hit, next time around. If you make a flop, you gotta redeem yourself and prove you're still just as good and better. The nanotech suits looked kinda cool and they made sense for the universe, sure, but imagine all the amazing things you can do with nanotech. Somehow, you'd think someone would be able to come up with a more captivating way to use the nenotech that is more than just things appearing really quick. People loved those suit-up sequences. They felt real, they felt possible, they looked badass. Yes, nanotech techinally seems "cooler" than metal plates, but it seems like such a distant thought that its cooler to think about having a suit of metal plates, because the nanotech just seems so far out. If they're gonna use really high tech, they gotta find a way to make it look cooler.
I remember me and my dad had an absolutely awful experience with Eternals in theatres. The CGI was obviously bad, the story is so bad and confusing to the point you have to keep track of a million important plot points, and to add to that, the speakers were slightly broken, causing partially static audio, it was so bad my dad was disoriented for the rest of the day
You made him and/or yourself waste time and money to watch that crappy Eternals movie nobody asked for? 🤦♂️ OMFG. Stop supporting bad movies! What made you think that movie was going to be any good? You’re part of the reason why they keep making sequels to shitty movies that do not deserve sequels!
I agree with all of these points, though I will point out that WandaVision did a good job balancing CGI and live effects. The first episode of the series was filmed like a play with a live studio audience (the way a 70s show would be filmed), and after watching the BTS I think they didn’t use CGI unless it was necessary. I still think some of the scenes with CGI were weak compared to the original avengers film or Iron Man 2008, but it was MUCH better than the other phase 4 shows/movies.
The first half of WandaVision series was such a breath of fresh air ... I was so disapointed by the ending. The first like 3 or 4 episodes were amazing a great character study of loss and pain afflicting someone with godlike powers and then it turned into a CGI slug fest in the end ... we dcouldn;t simply have Wanda come to grips with her loss and pain and come to the realization of what a monster she had become because of it. I was disapointed, the series had such promise.
@@yooooo8600 thank god I'm not the only one who feels like this!! I've been saying this for years. I feel like everything turned to shit after Civil War. I appreciate the idea and how it culturally affected how we view superheroes, but it was horribly executed and things just turned from bad to worse from then on [imo]
I agree on the over usage, it’s also that they build these scenes with no real weight to them, yes it’s a superhero universe and CGI is needed to express some of the storytelling but a lot of their scenes look and feel so empty and that’s part of the problem tbh
Ah yes, overusing CGI is almost like that thing every artist goes through where you're doing some shading, but you just don't know when to stop and that masterpiece of an artwork turns into a hot mess.
I agree. I love movies that take time to make. One could really appreciate the art that goes through it. An example is Mad Max Fury Road, it was a long time in the making but it was so great and worth every moment they spent on it. They also heavily used practical effects and for stunts. They also used CGI but to an extent that is only needed.
I am actually a CG Artist and would like to quickly comment on a few things. There are some common misunderstandings here that I also see in the comments. Unnecessary CGI isn't really the problem, and regarding some of your examples: 2:31: This effect is chroma-keying and is used much more than people realise. Look at VFX reels/breakdowns involving compositing and you would be surprised at how much it is used. But why do movies use them when it isn't necessary?: 1) Moving cast, the crew, and extras across locations is a pain in the ass and expensive - just moving and setting up equipment alone can take hours, often just to get a few minutes of screen time. Having everything in one place saves a lot of time and money. 2) Shooting in a studio also enables complete control over the camera, lighting and, importantly, sound. Shooting on an actual NYC street means there's no control over background noise during takes which makes continuity a huge issue when cutting them together. 2:56: Doing the gun digitally was most likely due to having no prop. This can be because the actual concept for the gun was still a work in progress, not fully fleshed out, hadn't been constructed, etc. 7:32: Another reason a director might opt for greenscreen is artistic control. In this shot, a director might want the rowboat in the background, travelling with the actors - but if you do it practically and want to redo a take, the boat must be pushed back, everything reset in place, and done again. This would be done for every take, so the director instead opts to do it in post. Another reason might be because behind the actors, there might not be a picturesque bridge and background but just a brick wall or a visible crowd watching the shoot. 7:43: The movie does look cloudy and ugly, but that's not due to VFX but rather bad art direction. I won't get super technical, but marvel movies are purposefully shot with very flat, even lighting, making it very easy to change things in post-production, e.g. certain elements of the lighting. This is the result of poor planning and lacklustre art direction - the scene shouldn't be lit from every angle since the final look hasn't been decided on. The VFX in Marvel Movies has been so bad recently because Marvel is pushing out a mind-boggling amount of movies and Disney+ shows - their resources are spread thin. In post-production, they change the brief with little notice, give unreasonable timeframes and demand such speed and output that leads to bad results. Directors can also be inexperienced with VFX and not have enough time to plan things out or learn how to smooth out the process. I was told that the directors of Captain Marvel were so inexperienced that they would generally make the worst decisions, negatively impacting the VFX.
Speaking of Iron Man, I love the suit up sequences in 1 and 2, the details of each nuts and bolt, the animation of each parts attached and move together are just amazing and its shows how much time and efforts its take to made a very short scenes, but its made the movie unique. I personally not a fan of the Infinity War suit not only because the design looks weird, but also the suit up animation is a straight downgrade (now it just NANOMACHINE SON!!!!!).
Off topic: To me, Micheal Bay's Transformers franchise is the easiest place to nitpick on CGI. And that franchise has the greatest effects. How I do it is just depend on the transformations. If that transformation shows parts moving side to side, back to front, or some instances where that moving part is hiding back for the new moving part to cover for it, that's good CGI, but if they just let characters flip their body and just make it up by moving parts here on there, that's lazy CGI.
only the first trilogy, because the newest bumblebee movie didnt have the best cgi. In the first movies, the transformers looked so real, like if they were actually real giant robots walking around, and i could touch them and feel real metal.
@@htht1241 the human interactions also look real, they achieved that with the heads of the bots on sticks, so the actors have something to look at while saying the lines
Yeah the transformations in the Michael Bay movies are overly complicated and messy just to make sure the viewer lose track of where the parts are moving so that cheating can be done. I'd prefer the basic rough part of the transformation to be done first so that you can clearly follow whats going on and then some fine tuning of smaller body parts in the end of transformation.
This is why Terminator 2 is still my favourite sci-fi movie of all time. They really used cgi when certain scene or effects seemed impossible to get, and when they do it comes out clean and amazing for its time (even until now), notice how sleek T1000 looked there. Also for the nuclear explosion scene, they even recreate a miniature town with everything else in it, just for them to destroy it later. Now, here we see a multibillion company used said technology to recreate a dimly lit bar.
To me, the real problem is that they don't have any consistency. Like you said at the end, "sometimes it's getting better, sometimes it's getting worse".
You said it best, it needs to be a balancing act. A movie should have both practical and CGI put together in such a way you can’t tell which is which. That’s how it should always be, really keeps the viewer immersed, and like you said the effects will hold up for years to come.
This was one simple and smart video. Stephanie, you said a lot of what we already thought but presented and narrated it with class while adding new angels or perspectives most overlook. Thank you for making my UA-cam time worth ever second.
3:08 they edited out his moustache because he was filming another movie at the same time and was legally obligated by contract to keep it. Not because they could, but because they had to. 3:35 the t-rex wasn’t just practical it was also cgi, and it was easier to animate because there was only one source of light and rain. They didn’t have to add a lot of detail on the t-Rex for the cgi because the shadows could be pitch black. It’s harder to make cgi look good when you have to take into consideration light scattering and reflection.
But even the outdoor scenes of the T-Rex were amazing... And the footage in the rotunda! I think one of the main contributors to the success is that they retained the stop motion animators, and adapted their approach with physcial models... Making more of a hybrid technique.
I dont understand your point? They really didn't need to re shoot henry cavills face for justice league that was embarrassing to watch, If the lighting is bad for cgi then write the scene to account for the lighting you need to have it look believable. As an example of beautiful light scattering in film the first avatar film from 10 years ago had incredible cgi rainforest environments
It's definitely a combination of the effects getting worse AND the effects being overused, for example, spider-man's suit in Far From Home was actual made for the production of the movie and looks great, but for the movie they completely CGI'd his suit and it sticks out so much, they should have used the actual suit and used CG for touch ups, like his eyes and mouth moving, like the scene from Homecoming when he was interrogating Aaron Davis
This was such an easy video to watch and understand, it never goes too in-depth with the technical side of the VFX and it's actually nice to not have background music for once. Loved it.
I'm seeing a lot of positive feedback to this video, but having talked to a lot of people in the industry and knowing about vfx, this is a bit misguided in my opinion. As an example, when you talk about the original Iron Man looking better, at 6:37, all of the shots we see are the CG suit The real suit was mainly used for lighting reference. The difference is art direction, not vfx itself. But no one criticizes art direction or the designs, just the cgi. This is why I think this is a bit misguided. Also, vfx is amazing these days, but people only focus on the bad cg. The opposite happens for practical effects. Only the best of the best practical effects are remembered, while the lackluster ones are forgotten. And there is amazing vfx nowadays, just look at Tanos for example, or the whole Dune movie. One of the reasons why the Black panther's vfx look so bad, is that most of the vfx people were already working on Endgame or Infinity war, I don't remember which one. There is a big sortage of VFX artists, that's another thing to consider. Anyway, not sure what my point was, these are just some thoughts. And thanks for reading the comment!
Thank you! I've seen so many posts on Instagram praising the CGI for No Way Home, Shang Chi, Eternals, etc. and I was so confused why everyone thought it looked good 😅😅 Glad to know I'm not the only one either
@@StephanieKimPascaru I think it's because in certain moments it did deliver (take the de-aging CGI on the villains of No Way Home as an example), but in other moments of the same movie, it felt just... Off. Example of this is the suits from the two past Spide-Man's.
The editor in me feels like some background music would have made this even better of a video, but at the same time you explained yourself and explain everything so well that while watching the video I didn't even think about that.
Thank you Stephanie. Top Gun: Maverick speaks volume!!! It's the solid prove for your argument. A middle-aged man (Maverick) single-handedly beat 10+ years of Marvel Universe up to Infinity War in the box office ($681 million > $678 million).
I didn’t even find out that Zod’s suit was entirely CGI until recently. That’s really saying something. Man of Steel definitely has some of the best CGI and action in any superhero movie if you ask me. And it’s only carried further by its story.
the best thing about tasm 2 cgi is the lighting and the weight you can feel in a lot of the shots , they actually filmed in new york entirely therefore it had the new york feel and the physics during spiderman swinging through buildings looked really convincing.
yea lately i´ve started seeing the cgi getting worse, black widows yelena explosion, spider mans no way home portals and andrews save, doctor strange MOM had quite a few bad scenes, and now she hulk looks awful, completly awful
I agree with you the Jurassic park animatronics were so much better than just cgi for unnecessary stuff like there was a part were marvel paid over 13,000$ to add eye effects for 12 minutes which just sounds ridiculous same things for some terrible scripts anyways Thank you for your opinion and documentary!
can I just make a note on the video editing? I wish the sound of your voice wasn't so low compared to the sound of the scenes. I kept having to change it because it was either too high or too low. but the video is great and I 100% agree! I wish someone from the MCU production sees this
They are too relient on cgi Cgi is great and i hate when people say it is bad... BUT it shouldnt be used for everything. This is not an animated movie Pratical effects should be used more frequentely not only does it save money but it also looks more natual on some cases
I've noticed the same things, and the worst part is this is not the artists fault, but the company with your limited (deshuman) time for work, resulting in something half done. It was more visible in NWH not just in the silly things like the party at Flash's or the Spidermen masks, but with the actors of Lizard and Sandman too.
The problem is the examples you showed are all from a time when making good films was more important than making money because the only way to make money was by making good films. Now we have this mass produced Disney+ and the rest streaming world full of garbage that would never get past test screening but nowadays gets 8 seasons of reboots. It feels like CGI like in LoTR used to be SO much more expensive and difficult to get right so they used it well. Now it's somehow become the cheaper option when that should never be the case and it should only be used for the impossible such as showing spaceships or giant battles etc but it's used for everything as you demonstrated making it less of a rare but justified resource and more of a given to overwork people to animate instead of flying to italy or something.
3:02 theory: they had a model of the gun made, probably for 3D printing or machining, then some genius executive thought thought they could save money by skipping a step and directly using it in the film. Afterall, after a model's been made, CGI is free and plastic cents a gram... ignoring how the former is only because VFX artists are underpaid, and keeping an animated scene consistent even after you have a model can still be a chore. Maybe they played too many videogames with in-engine cutscenes, not realising there's a difference between "stunning videogame graphics and clipping models kept to a minimum" and "photorealistic digital effects without janky physics".
Finally, someone said it! I've been thinking about the CGI overload in modern movies, and totally agree with your point. That was a great video, btw, congrats!
For things like Nick Fury's gun, it had to be a situation where they didn't know what they wanted the gun to look like at the time... "we'll fix it in post"
The Iron Man point though. I decided to jump into the MCU this past week. I already watched some of it, but nothing really past Captain America: Civil War. When it came out. So starting back at Iron Man, which I hadn't seen since 2012, was a TRIP. I met up with my family and expressed how impressed I was with the first Iron Man and how I couldn't believe it was released in 2008 because "the computer graphics looked so real, I thought they would be so dated!" I was especially worried because I had seen the coming attractions for their new projects. But was surprised that my memory held up well, even though I hadn't seen the movie in 10 years. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. The first set of movies were great, because they knew what they were doing. They got too big though. I mean you can express your anger about the story and how they suck now and everything, but even the graphics have gone to shit. This is just depressing.
Fun fact . The truck flip in dark Knight used cgi to remove a piston that was situated at the back of the truck that when activated by the driver caused the truck to flip. This is a great example of cgi being used sparingly to complement practical effects not replace them. And while I whole heartedly agree with you about practical effects, the reality is that as long as it is cheaper it will be used. Especially by studios such as Disney and Warner bros who's main goal is making money. With dark knight being the exception I guess.
Marvel is becoming too complacent with their success, not only is CGI becoming poor, the scripts for the movies are becoming just as bad and every hero and their posse are comedians all of a sudden. Iron man - End game was an amazing run of movies, i really dont want the next run of movies to not even meet the quality a quarter of the success the first one had.
Marvels cgi has gotten pretty lazy, in the newest dr strange movie, i could easily tell there were green screens in the scene when bolt kills strange.Titans moon/planet looked so fake,like if the characters dont blend in with the planet(yes ik green screens are used alot, but isnt the point to not be able to tell they are there). Also the monsters in not just marvel but also other movies (fantastic beasts) look so "rubberish" like if i am watching a videogame trailer.
Totally agree, video game graphics are great for video games, but CGI monsters/creatures should look more believable in live action movies, especially when 10+ old movies could pull it off decades ago.
@@StephanieKimPascaru yes, in videogames it looks great bc videogames are completely computer animated. In a live action movie, you are using real people so at least make the cgi look realistic.
Just imagine, every year releasing 4-5 big budgeted superhero movies, the VFX companies must have had so much pressure on them that they have to deliver so much work so quickly that too with consistency because it's a Marvel movie!
So true, especially considering how big scale the Marvel movies have gotten over the years, there's so much more effects that need to be done in such little time :(
Remember when everyone lambasted the Star Wars prequels for using so much CGI and Green Screen but stayed silent when Marvel does the same? I remember. What a double standard. At least Jar Jar had the dignity to never twerk on screen, looking at you She-Hulk.
Dude wtf are you taking about, just saying : "Visual effects for Endgame were created by ILM, Weta Digital, DNEG, Framestore, Cinesite, Digital Domain, Rise, Lola VFX, Cantina Creative, Capital T, Technicolor VFX, and Territory Studio."
I think as someone who's not a marvel fan this is a bit more obvious to me. I got a new display and I thought what better way to test it out with a marvel movie... because they have good visuals right? After not having watched any of their movies for a few years I chose Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and it was truly truly disappointing. Specially the first half/third of the movie. The rest seemed to get a bit better but the scene where America takes them to the rooftop.. the Dr's corpse looking like ps3 games and the whole rooftop looking like a blender hobbyist put it together in a few hours really ruined it for me. Dr's third eye didn't help either....
I’m glad you have constructive criticism than some other people it refreshing. It’s honestly sad that I liked the first Iron Man suit more than the newer ones. The newer ones are fine but I prefer the older ones.
I think it's gotten much worse, we're even at the point where Tom Holland doesn't even have to wear the costume anymore, he can just wear a mocap suit and pose.
Yeah, I read that there was an actual suit made for Tom Holland's spider man but they use full-on CGI anyway, which is such a shame because the CGI makes his suit looks less tangible/real and way more cartoony than it should :(
@@colliric ohh, the one I read was about homecoming, but I'm glad they used the real one for no way home (especially since Andrew and Tobey had real suits, I'm assuming)
An other big problem is that they release so many movies and shows in such a sort time, that the entire project doesn't have enought time to be made. Visual Effects artists that worked on Marvel movies said that Marvel has the worse Visual Effects pipeline cos they have never really sedeled on how things are supposed to look like or what is gonna be there. the VFX Artists then have to replace so many stupid things or have to creat CGi background for scenes that could've been shot practicly. Yes there are always seperate teams working on each mocie, but when the ''finished'' script is delivered the pre-production ''finished'' and production starts all the way to the post-production, then there is not that much time. All of these thing and the things you said make the Visual Effects and a all of the CGi terrible.
Awesome video, you deserve more subscribers. great reaserch great examples clips of everything youre talking, very well worded and nice to hear, great points. really really good for a channel this small. only knitpick is the audios cuts could be smother but it is just a knitpick
She actually DIDNT do great research on the video. Many examples she used have been explained as to why they HAD to use CGI. Some of her examples were not supposed to be CGI but the studio was basically forced to do it in CGI for various reasons. (Covid, scheduling conflicts, reshoots etc.)
To be honest, effects from the 1980s-2010s were way better then the current ones, for example: the practical effects and the computer effects for the movie “Killer Klowns from outer space” were a little bad and weird looking, but it was the 80s when this movie came out and was worked on, and the animictronic heads for that movie were really well made for a movie made around 30 years ago, nowadays, MARVEL has to use CGI for the most simple things, they could have filmed the scene of Peter Parker at New York, but no they have to put him in a blue screen, this generation is screwed.
The thing about practical effects, Marvel is so focused on churning out as many movies in the shortest amount of time possible that I assume they don’t care enough to put in effort
While I agree the the recent cgi have been lackluster and overused, I feel like some of the clips you showed were fine or there’s a reason. For the clips like Flash and Fury, I heard that was due to scheduling conflicts and while maybe they could of not used a blue screen, I don’t really mind cause i would have never noticed it cgi. (That last part goes for the black widow clip too) For Venice it’s hard to shoot everything there because of the shots they were doing. They would have to clear out very populated areas for shooting, while it has been done before, idk if we know the full story like maybe they tried but weren’t given the permission. And they had scenes where the used real effects like water pushing Peter and that might not be possible to setup in the actual Venice area. Ok it’s late for me, Im tired and I’m changed the wording of this a ton of times so Idk if I said everything right but my point is basically that for some of these I can give a pass to because either I didn’t notice or they did what they could That being said, I almost completely agree with the general points you made and that CGI is clearly a problem that needs to be worked on in Marvel. I’m sure tons of fans would rather have a scene changed to be more grounded if it meant it they didn’t have to see a clearly obvious CGI
It seems like all these big companies have forgotten that makeup art is a thing. I remember when I was younger I would have nightmares of the Orcs from Lord of The Rings. They looked so real because they were real in a sense. CGI was created to enhance the experience, NOT to carry it.
I can confirm that people who don't care don't always notice. Im not a huge marvel fan but when my ex and I watched Black Widdow and I pointed out how bad the effects are, he said that I didnt know what i was talking about and that they were great. -_-
I've just rewatched the guardians of the galaxy. It looks so incredibely good. So much CGI but it looked real and amazing ! Every single detail on the ships could move and interact. They really went above and beyond necessary for a 2014 movie. Definitively a lot better than now
I honestly thought I was the only one that noticed the quality getting worse, but this video shows that I'm not, I fully agree with what you had said in this video. I love the new movies not for the cgi but simply for the story, although, they should 100% take more time on their movies, and not rush, as of the moment, I feel as though they are more about the money rather than the quality
I'm praying that someday directors and/or companies use CGI in the exact same way as David Fincher. I assume you people have watched kaptainkristian's video on David Fincher, if not, please do, it's a good companion piece to this video. Also, enjoyed your video, Stephanie. Good job!
So sad that Marvel is now goes more to the quantify instead of the quality. I read an article how stressfull it is working at the MCU as a cgi worker, because of the lack of time they get.
It’s recently been told that CGI companies don’t want to work with Marvel due to the amount of last minute requests on projects and too many projects all at once with tight deadlines.
From what I have heard, underpaying CGI artists is the case with smaller studios as well. The difference is that Marvel has enough money to stand on its own and not go bankrupt from 1 bad project, other smaller studios that rely on CGI don't have that privilege so they have to be more penny pinching
I came here to comment this, and saw that you had. (:
I can guarantee the teams working on the CGI are very skilled, but as you said, unfortunate circumstances and unrealistic deadlines cause a drastic quality drop.
I heard they were outsourching to india vfx artist
This has always been the case. For example, Marvel moved the release date for Endgame 1 month earlier (from May to April) and didn't notify the VFX artists (who found out via press release).
The thing is, now Marvel is releasing 3 times the content they used to, so the exploitation is more evident and the drop in quality more noticeable
I’ve read that one of the reasons why Marvel has been moving from practical effects and focused more on CGI is because practical effect workers are usually unionized, which makes it harder to push unreasonable deadlines and make workers work under a time crunch. CGI/VFX aren’t unionized, so it’s easier for Marvel to cut costs.
With practical effects, well once you've gone through the steps of constructing an object, there is little wiggle room to change it. With computer effects, the issue is that they can be changed at multiple steps of production. In animation, a completed shot can go back lots of time to add various details, and the script can change a lot. As an associate producer manager I see that practically everyday on the movie I'm working on. It can be tiresome.
The thing is though, a big reason it's not easy to unionize, is quite simply that Marvel can hire any studio in the world they want. So the unions would really only have a real power only on the VFX company employed by marvel.
Hence, I feel the issue is mostly that Marvel is using compagnies, instead of having a proper in house vfx studio. If they had, well, giving retakes and delays would be much more straightforward. When you're a studio that's hired by a big company like marvel, it's really hard to renegotiate when there's too many retakes. A client will always be greedy. So, when there is no client / contractor relationship and it's your inhouse studios, consequences are a lot easier to take into account.
@@emilegalli9549 the problem with cutting practical is that it becomes hard to introduce anyone knew to acting on a set built for VFX- especially if they’re knew to acting in Hollywood. They aren’t as genuine as anyone whose done it for a while, and even then people who have done it won’t give off as good of a performance in a green/blue room holding almost nothing vs on location holding real props, interacting with real people.
A good balance of VFX and Practical keeps costs at a good place and if Marvel could slow up for even a second, they could sit on that cash and make things worth producing.
And they can even have time to write good scripts and put thought into the stories they tell.
But they’ve factory lined this crap, they tell basically the same story with little variation, they give everyone the exact same personality, they all quip and joke and can’t take anything seriously. They’re all copies of some base model and we all know what happens with a copy of a copy, that gets further copied (so on and so forth)
@@vobsvids It's not really a question of cutting costs, but of pipeline. The reason those movies are done this way is because they want to be able to see result quickly and make lots of changes based on what they see. They bring whole sequences much farther they it used to be before cutting sometimes. And this is not as doable as it would be with more practical effects. Do you wanna know why there are more reshoots than usual nowadays ? This is the reason : the production method has changed. It allows for much more malleable changes in the course of production, it's less set in as movies tended to be previously. We call it "iterative production", though I am not quite sure the term is official, it's how this method has been presented to me.
As far as quality goes, well, in my opinion this method of movie making is not adapted to complex storytelling, it works much better with gag based comedies, basically movies that can branch out in many sub plots and various little stories. It can make fun movies, but it's really not the thing for character studies. Because this method means your character can change a lot at practically any stage of production.
@@emilegalli9549 and Marvel built themselves on complex characters and their personal stories, The Avengers movies balanced comedy and tragedy- by making each character feel realistic, not everyone popped a quip at the end of every sentence, characters were allowed to have emotional scenes that weren’t immediately undercut by jokes- good Marvel content isn’t made to be streamlined like this.
And that’s not saying they can’t make comedies, but they keep adding more and more impossibly huge stakes, and then never paying them off or using them for anything more than a gag.
Infinite Universes????
And the first movie to actually explore that was completely nonsensical and didn’t even try to present its message very well.
And the movie that introduced the topic was incredible, honestly Spider-Man NWH was great and proved that MCU Peter Parker was going to be more than a “quirky teenager” he was going to be a real character. The CGI was good, the story was decent, and it properly utilized fan service.
But that’s the issue MoM followed the pipeline mold while NWH broke it a bit.
Once more, Marvel isn’t built for the pipeline model.
So Disney is just being an asshole huh? I'm glad i haven't gave them any of my money after End Game
One of the biggest problems with CGI is the weightlessness of objects and people. Completely takes you out of a movie.
The physics of it always takes me out of the movie, or a PC game, too.
I really want a company to make a superhero film with 90% practicality and based in reality.
Go watch a clip from District 9. Then watch a clip from modern Marvel movie. It's hilarious how a fraction of Marvel budget, over a decade old movie with a metric fuck ton of CGI looks 100x better.
@Chandller Burse that movie will never be topped
Not every movie with cgi is like that, just the bad ones. Just watch Pacific Rim, and you'll see.
Strange's 3rd eye literally looks like it was edited on in a high school premiere class.
I said this and people thought i was overreacting
Film Riot did it better in 2018 LOL
ua-cam.com/video/w9cOr8t96w4/v-deo.html
He looked like he borrowed an eye from the Annoying Orange
lmfao so true it bothered me the entire film
fr lmao
The fact that iron man look so beautiful and it was the first MCU movie compared to modern MCU movies baffles me
The CGI in Iron holds up well for it;s age and look "realistic" in as much as a flying armor suit powered by a power supply the size of my hand can. :)
It was also one of the most grounded MCU movies, which I loved. It looked in the realm of possibility
It's because it wasn't contaminated by Disney
So jon favreau said he believed in the cgi for iron man bc the suit is a smooth surface. Organic and so on is a lot harder, he used Jurassic Park as an example. He said it during an hour long sit down with Kevin Feige at a film academy for reference😇
Don't forget that Iron Man was made before Disney bought the company.
Practical effects + Computer Generated effects is still the best combo. Fusion of those is so realistic and awesome that it traumatized my childhood when alien/ body horror films is the shit.
Yes that is true. Close-ups and shots where you don't see a creature in full (like the T-Rex in Jurrassic Park) always look better with puppets and animatronics. CGI should be used for wide angle shots and when creatares run, jump, fly and so on, i.e. when animatronics are pushed to their limits. This combination looks great.
💯. Hellraiser 2 when Julia came out of the mattress… ICONIC. It looked terrifyingly REAL. A skinless monster from hell, with painstaking detail of veins, muscle, and tendons while simultaneously making her look “ juicy” as if her skin really was ripped off her body. You don’t see that happening anymore. That new Hellraiser movie was such TRASH. You can’t replicate something like that if you’re not going to use practical effects.
Same thing with a nightmare on elm street. That movie was all practical. The infamous scene of Glenn being sucked into the bed and the blood shooting up to the ceiling, the bed was actually on the ceiling they nailed it to the ceiling and poured the blood down and turned the camera in the opposite direction to make it look like the blood was going up but like it was reported that when they did this the crew almost got injured because the blood was going all over the floor on electrical equipment. When Nancy was running up the stairs and her feet were in that mush, that was glue and oatmeal and the actress really did struggle going up the stairs giving it a realistic feel. I miss this stuff
Sorry I keep replying Lmfaoooo. Also in Texas Chainsaw massacre, fun film fact: only less than one ounce of blood was used in the film. The part in the movie where she’s at the table with the family and they’re cutting her finger so the grandpa could suck the blood, she was holding a blood pump in her hand and it wouldn’t go off they did about 20 takes and it wasn’t working. So the guy playing leather face was getting frustrated and ACTUALLY cut Marilyn burns hand FOR REAL for that scene. So when she screams in that scene she’s screaming for real. And the part where he trips and falls with the chainsaw still going, that was an accident and the Chainsaw was real, he said he almost got seriously injured but they kept it in the film.
Basically what Dune did last year, and it won lots of Oscars. Indeed nothing can beat practical + cgi combo
I'm glad you mentioned the Amazing Spider-Man 2. I've always loved the way Peter's suit looked in the film. It actually has wrinkles and looks like it's actual cloth being worn by a real person. Most of Tom's suits don't look bad per se, but they don't feel like genuine SUITS, more like perfectly skin-tight costumes.
the cgi in that movie is so good!
OMG THIS ,and their excuse is that its more accurate to the comic,but like its supposed to be reality not a comic🤦🏼♀️
So does Tobey’s…
Tom hollands movies make me cringe because of this… I wish we gave Andrew Garfield the respect his movies deserved.. these new Spider-Man films are just not it.. even worse with venom in the mix
@@thps3ps2 bro didn’t even watch the video
The Batman practical effects made the highway chase scene a mindblowing piece of art. It looks so real and with CGI it wouldn't feel the same.
Looks real ? Dude, it IS real.
Did you watch the bts for The Batman, they used some pretty innovative tech for CG backgrounds, including many parts of the car chase. It's actually a credit to them because I could've sworn it was 100% practical. You really need to watch the behind the scenes of The Batmanz which just further illustrates the difference between the VFX teams.
@@SignalFlowers I know its real, but they didn't literally made Pattinson drive highspeed through the traffic to finally dump a truck and make the perfect ramp in order to Pattinson to jump and crash a car with Farrel inside expecting none of them die. It was all "real" but didnt literraly happened that way, it was all practical effects (and The Mandalorian tec, The Volume)
@@rickbrees3297 Yes, i did. Its called The Volume and its neat, better than any greenscreen out there. I liked how they did the flying scene, the landing was real too.
@@luismaldonado3968 Super new wave, I think they implied they used the same tech in Dune. Sick bro
There is something special about a creative non-CGI effects team that cares about the movie. Just like what you said about Lion King, I remember how appalling and ugly the CGI was in Cats and comparing that to behind the scenes footage of the team who worked on the theatre stage show in the 90s is crazy. It’s hard to believe we went backwards, and on top of that everything has to have stupid celebrity appearances.
And don't forget the consumers keeps eating the crap out of these cashgrab companies and defend their life for them
@@laei6391 people either didn’t care for film in the first place, left behind their standards, or are young people who have grown up on this garbage
I agree. The Cats movie had, I believe, around a $75 million dollar budget, and yet the stageplay (that, after seeing both, I doubt the directors even watched) looked so much better. Not even just costume-wise either, though that was definitely the most notable aspect. It's sad that companies don't seem to respect the art as much. The way CGI artists, animators, and other workers behind shows and movies are treated is horrible.
Dude balrog form lord of the rings cgi is soooo frikin awesome
Not that it has to do with CG, but Disney’s first venture into using big names to sell more tickets started with Aladdin. Robin Williams’ performance of the genie was supposed to be a run of the mill voice acting job, but Disney went against his wishes in using his name as publicity for the movie.
I've also noticed the cgi getting worse, or atleast more inconsistent. Like that one scene in the doctor strange 2 trailer where Wong jumps threw the portal the perspective looked off or that one scene in black widow with the explosions, it literally looked like a school project. I honestly didn't want to beleive marvel was getting worse but this She Hulk trailer really cemented it. Great video btw, keep it up
Thank you!!
And yeah I saw the She Hulk trailer too...yikes (I know it's just a tv show but the bad cgi is really distracting lol)
You shouldn't pay to much attention on bad cgi on trailers. They often have to do the effects very fast to put them into the trailer, and often it looks different than the final version which is in the movie.
Honestly same with the amount of cgi marvel have been using u definitely start to see it it's ok to have cgi used in ur movies but u always have to have a balance between the 2 it's ok to use practical effects once awhile in ur movie🙏🏿
But some of the weakest have been black widow, black panther, Spider-Man, and a sprinkle here and there from the rest.
Meanwhile, over at FOX, Deadpool, a character that is known for going on unrealistic, absurd, weird and wacky adventures actually had a good amount of practical effects in his movies.
Yh n FOX is owned by Disney
@@TheGgamer96 i think because fox is auto sustainable and the marvel studios owned by disney are a very little part of marvel and to make certain things they need money or they want to make things the most quickly as possible. (i don't know if i wrote it right, if not, sorry, i don't write and speak very good in english, but i understand it)
Idk the cg for juggernaut was shoddy. On par with MCU stuff though but still not mind blowing.
@@grosebud4554 I think they mean the first Deadpool that film has low budget
wasn‘t the leaked teaser completely cgi?
"Disney owns Marvel"
Yes, but Marvel controls their movies almost entirely. Disney just owns the rights but part of the agreement is to not interfere with the MCU. So Disney isn't the problem (for once), it's really just Marvel overworking their VFX artists and trying to get things out as quick as possible, and NOT in a timely manner.
By the time some people have read this comment, I bet Marvel's CGI will look worse than Cavill's removed mustache
Exactly. I'm not in the business of sucking Disney's dick, but they truly don't give much of a fuck about what Marvel does. People just don't wanna blame Kevin Feige for this stuff, and it shows. The MCU is Feige's baby.
wish that was the same for Star Wars
Why don't they take their time anymore. Like Avatar the CGI looked great because they took time. Some people wondered where it went but when part 2 finally appeared it looked great
they literally do own Marvel
You’re right. Just watched the latest episode of She Hulk 😖
Being a huuuge fan of MCU, I agree. They are overusing CGI nowadays. They are using 3d models for basic stunts like jumping from 2 ft to the ground. And because there's sooo much CGI to be implemented, CGI companies are getting under huge pressure of completing a lot of work in under a tight timeline, which in turn hurts a lot of cg artists. Please Marvel, use some practical atleast.
My guess is that it's cost saving not to have a specialty department for practical effects when they can just load down another job on the creaking desk of the VFX artists.
Same reason they're blue screening everything. It eliminates transportation and setup costs, not to mention negotiating to use public streets or private buildings, to simply have a single permanent soundstage where they can composite in the actors.
Facts. When I saw they actually used CGI on She-Hulk, I was asking myself, “Why not just have her wear green makeup and use a tiny bit of CGI for her muscles and physical appearance?” They’re using CGI for things you can do with practical effects and that’s just lazy.
@@cameramike2515Are you serious? This gotta be sarcasm, aint no way you just said they should have painted Tatiana green and suddenly she’s a 9 foot She Hulk with cgi muscle 😂😂😂.
A problem I have is that marvel movies are getting less and less cinematographic each time, they look like a SNL skit with famous actors telling jokes with a still frame and no actual cinematography, all the same shots, and ocationally a cameo to the next movie. And although building a life size t rex must be expensive, who else to do it but marvel, probably the top 1 multi million dollar company that clearly could do better
You mean mutli billion dollar monopoly literally check out how much of the marlet they own.
That statement about how they look like an SNL skit has aged like fine wine after now witnessing Thor: Love and Thunder
@@remcrimson2750 That God Rapu. He could have dressed the same, but make him look like he is made of bronze with cgi, so he appears more god-like. Would help the humor because he appears all great and holy, only to start mocking Gorr.
Fukcing this. I can't believe people just realized this recently though. I've felt that its been like that since the first Guardians of the Galaxy. Just the most boring still shots.
I've noticed that too. Like, the shot of Iron Man walking away from that explosion. Would modern marvel have done that?
I’ve always thought the final fight between T’Challa and Killmonger should’ve been in the throne room and relied on minimal cgi and good old fashioned stunt work and dynamic fight choreography. It would’ve told a better story and saved the production a lot of money instead of the garish and rushed mess we got.
Yeah I agree. It could have been symbolic too like T'Challa is trying to avoid destroying artifacts and the throne while Killmonger is specifically using them as weapons, throwing T'Challa into the throne and destroying it, picking up sacred weapons on the walls and vases and throwing them at him, etc.
They’re cheaping out because of the amount of content in my opinion. Phase 4 has been probably the worst cgi (probably due to the amount) but at the same time you can still make do without so much of it
Yeah, with all the new Marvel movies and Disney+ shows coming out at the same time, it's probably difficult to keep the CGI consistently good while keeping on schedule
Bingo! There's your answer. Marvel wants to churn out a bunch of Disney+ shows AND films. That means less bandwidth for each film to ensure that they are produced of the highest quality.
Eternals best CGI of all marvel films
@@StephanieKimPascaru Or maybe due to covid all the cgi moved to working from home and with off on lockdowns and current lockdowns for their Chinese artists, plus increased projects it could be breaking their bandwidth. Same reason why so many DC films have been delayed and why mcu films were also delayed. Maybe not until 2023 will we be able to get back to cgi more consistent with pre covid.
tell that to the rami spider man movies which everyone seems to ignore
Disney is the definition of quantity over quality
Netflix says hi
Gamefreak also says hi
BINGO! Right on the money
ubisoft says
Both storywise and effectwise lately.
Wow great video. I am surprised you didnt show the original spider man films too, the CG in that was great. Mix of practical and CG.
I like bread
I agree, that Doc Ock scene in the hospital is still amazing.
Because that's not marvel, it was sony this video is talking about the recent marvel problem.
@@ikj2673 i get that, but i think they meant use the Spider-Man movies as an example.
Minus 3
Crazy how Daredevil had better hand-to-hand combat scenes than the films on a budget of about $60 million, which was mostly spent filming in New York. Why I bring this up is because Shang Chi even used CGI assisted Martial Arts on a budget of $200 million and other Marvel films just use shaky cam and quick cuts.
And Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. :)
Trailer if necessary: ua-cam.com/video/DiVvCnPia_E/v-deo.html
agents of shield is underrated
It's a shame the MCU basically treated SHIELD as non-canon. Criminally underrated if you ask me. The first half of the first season is kinda meh, but once you get to the fall of SHIELD arc it's a great show all the way to the last episode of the last season. Plus you get some watchable Inhumans content.
@@FuckYTHandles I think first few episodes had to be slow to establish characters (and the style of the whole show) properly. And if you pay close attention, most of what they dealt with in season 1 were the key cases they were always mentioning when going further. Without those first episodes, we wouldn't get this masterpiece, but something very different. It was a necessary build-up. To be honest, season 1 is the best season to watch randomly when you feel like it. :) Not too heavy and still entertaining. Plus now that we know everything they've been through, it's extremely nostalgic as well XD
It reminds me of Fringe way too much. Season 1 was the one season we weren't trusting anyone and were constantly asking questions we couldn't get answers to (ever, really). Other seasons lacked the magic, but connected the story on a bigger level. Especially with that one Observer chasing butterflies in the end XD
Lovely day, fellow human being!
Actually Shang Chi had a lot of practical Stunts…but the CGI was superior in every way….the fluid movement was 1st rate.
The best usage of CGI in movies will be Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest. He still holds up more than 16 years ago from the movie's release.
Also Matrix trilogy
Davy Jones was so good that the Academy tried to nominate them for the Oscar for best make up and prosthetics
And as a side fun fact: The CGI was so realistic some critics at the time mistook it for makeup.
@@SpectrumRenBM don't blame them really, when I was 4 I thought they were real
Don’t forget Gollum
James Cameron saying "fine I'll shoot it myself" is the kind of madlad, get things done attitude Hollywood needs a lot more of.
That's my mindset animating my series 🤣
He's lucky he didn't get Vic Morrowed.
Damn Thanos would be proud of that line.
Ironically the Avatar movies are almost 100% CGI. Although they def look better than the MCU crap
Are you kidding me? The amount of people that could have died. He was lucky, that's all.
Nice video, it says exactly the problem: Marvel doesn't balance practical with CGI, for God's sake they are using CGI on normal scenes where there is NO NEED AT ALL for it
That's it, bang on. CGI can be a great compliment to a movie, but using it as an excuse to be lazy is causing a loss of actual love for crafting a shot, or scene or moment, and then blending it with practical effects where appropriate. That's where all the impact comes from a movie; the craft. That's why people remember lingering shots from movies made 30+ years ago with such clarity. It didn't just flash by in a noisy CGI mess or get lost in a flat shot with nothing interesting going on between the characters.
Imagine if restaurants, collectively, decided to get rid of their ovens, cooking utensils, preparation, and artistry in cooking because microwaves exist. And then they just buy everything in from a shop because it's cheaper and easier.
In fact, we don't need to imagine this, it already happens, and those restaurants are terrible and get shouted at by Gordon Ramsay. And eventually, they close down and people lose their jobs.
I understand why the studios do it, though, it's less risky and more instantly rewarding. And I respect the human safety aspect of stunts and set-pieces also has to be considered. But without some risk, you cannot develop or grow; everything just becomes stagnant.
I know I am just echoing the video, but yeah, I agree fully with it/Stephanie, and with your comment.
Its less expansive
@@diegotm4365 normally yes, but the point of the comment is that Marvel overuses cgi to unnecessary things that's way easier and cheaper to do practically. Look at 2:31
Which takes time away from actual shots that require their attention instead.
I'd disagree, in Iron Man 1 for most shots the suit was entirely cgi, especially in spiderman nwh the use of cgi seems excessive but with movies this ambitious its needed, you can't spend months filming on a highway or busy street and cgi characters for hulk, spiderman, Iron man are the only way. It's just marvel is not allocating enough time and or budget. Honestly just look at the amazing spiderman, the spidey suit cgi is flawless same as the Iron Iron suit in Iron Man 1, the technology isn't the issue it's the way marvel goes about it
Honestly practical effects are one of the reasons why the lotr trilogy and jurassic Park are some of my favourite movies of all time.
For lotr, they had around 20,000 orc masks made up, they never used or needed all those but it shows that even in scenes where orcs are in the background for a second, they still look like unique orcs
Apparently in Tenet they actually drove a real plane into a building and blew it up.
Meanwhile Marvel can't do a bar scene...
Yea, blow up a real jet for half your movie's entire budget, great idea, not saying it didn't work, but god is that expensive.
@@yesyes-om1po I don't think you realize just how expensive large-scale CGI is, especially on a tight time frame. According to Christopher Nolan, "I planned to do it using miniatures and set-piece builds and a combination of visual effects and all the rest. We started to run the numbers... It became apparent that it would actually be more efficient to buy a real plane of the real size, and perform this sequence for real in camera, rather than build miniatures or go the CG route."
@@jmancoder I don't think a gutted shell of a decomissioned plane is that expensive for a movie with 200 million budget.
@@yesyes-om1poHey, if you have enough budget and time to do it, do it
A few reasons why Marvel is abusing CG
1. It’s more expensive to film big name actors on location especially if it’s a short scene because it simply takes longer. Instead I would be much faster to shoot them in front of a green screen, therefore not having to pay the actors as much, and then they would just leave the problem to underpaid VFX artists.
2. Their films are made under extremely tight schedules so they often don’t even have everything figured out until after shooting, and they have fully accepted this issue as part of their pipeline
3. Most important point, VFX artists are non unionized and can be paid less than most people who have to show up and work on set, so by pushing all the problems and responsibilities onto the VFX artists, they actually save money. Not great for the VFX artists, great for Marvel’s bottom line.
Overall it’s because Marvel realized that VFX artists can be made to work more for less money than other people in the film pipeline that they decided to simply use VFX everywhere. And now having pushed VFX artists to their absolute limit, they have no choice but to half ass their shots in order to stay sane and meet the impossible deadlines set by Marvel
You couldn't have said it better man, VFX arists are simply the cheaper and less recognized parts that are now being pushed to the limit
4. They don't really care about the movie's quality anymore, they are just cashgrabs now
ah, so they became arrogant. i wonder how they would be rn if CGI didn't exist
@@galaxysky6243 I mean it’s an old tale at this point that cooperation get blinded by money and producing shitty material.
When they make as much money as they do considering pretry much ever film they put out grosses a billion dollars these days and the fact they’re literally owned by Disney, I don’t think cost of shooting scenes where big name actors is that big of a deal, if they genuinely cared about the film they were making they would film it anyway despite the costs, so many directors like nolan, villenuive he’ll even Scorsese would do the same especially since it took Scorsese years to finance the irishman. Marvel have no excuse they just bad now.
"They're sacrificing the quality of their movies, because they know people will come to see them anyways."
Yup, but more and more people are noticing, and there may just come a point where they face a gradual decline in popularity if they don't do any better.
@@ahuman32478 Thor ragnarok is great tho, anything pre-endgame was at least entertaining but post-endgame it's just a hot mess rn
The latest Thor was the last straw for me.
Yeah, the constant stream of low quality drivel is even starting to turn off the legions of slack jawed normies.
I hope they realize that no. I wont come anymore. After End Game,, everything is going down hill, not just the CGI bit also the storyline
@@ahuman32478 Yeah, pre-Endgame, there are a lot of movies that were I'd call really really great and would love to sit down and watch again. Post-Endgame, the only movie that I've felt was actually consistently good and would sit down for a rewatch was Shangi-Chi. They've done like five movies now. That's... not good.
The point on iron man was a fantastic example. With the suit-up scenes, you see each and every part being put together, and the combination of the sound effects, the sound of the gears clicking and churning as he rotates or twists his body. Even Robert does a fantastic expression on the weight that tony carries when wearing it, as when parts are missing you get to see the actual thickness and size of it in comparison to the average human. It felt completely real.
Cut to the branching nanotech and how it feels nothing like marvel.
@@WitchKing-Of-Angmartbf nanotech for tony feels earned but for rest, it looks fucking janku
While I agree that Marvel CGI has been rather lackluster lately, it's not the only factor that explains why their recent movies look so lackluster. There are other elements such as Marvel constantly amping the contrast and image sharpening between the actors and background so even if they film on the live set the film will still look fake, there is barely any "realistic" lighting casted upon the actors' face (except for some key scenes), lack of dust, dirt and wind effect (again except for some key scenes). Compared that to 2021 Dune where most of these major issues are "fixed" and the film looks amazing
So true! The background blurring for Doctor Strange MOM was such a pet peeve of mine, it makes every background look like a green screen even when it isn't
Not only that, we also have continuity problems now, it's like the writers didn't even watch the past mcu films. Hulk the guy that punched a leviathan to death in the latest episode of she hulk got knocked back by a jeep?? Loki who survived and was still conscious after getting his @ss beat by hulk gets knocked out by an electric stick and so many more writing problems. It's like the only thing making the movies and series actually be in the same universe are the easy cameos, they don't have enough time to plan things out anymore because they make dozens of movies and series in a year.
What people don't understand is that the MCU mooved from a photorealistic artistic direction to a pure fantasy artistic direction, it is a choice.
@@ParlonsAstronomie A bad choice
It's a simple matter of Marvel/Disney wanting to churn out more product with a shorter turnaround. These artists are worked to the bone and given impossible deadlines. Therefore, the quality is sacrificed. Quality is directly related to the time given.
Totally agree, plus Marvel doesn't do their own CGI and outsources to a bunch of different companies instead, which probably leads to inconsistencies and doesn't help when they push their movies/shows to release on schedule, leading to lots of rushed, unfinished scenes
Disney choose to destroy a legacy like Star Wars, so it is not even a surprise that Disney/Marvel choose to make a shortcut to make lots of money from cheap CGI and rushed product that sacrifise the story. It is not even funny how bad Disney become these days from their early days..
The same goes for the scriptwriters I think. Disney is focused on transforming Marvel and Lucasfilms into factories, just like they did with their core movies.
I think that the biggest problem is the issue with the roadmap. They announce the release date of the movies long before some are even in pre-production, so they have to make movies in fictional cg worlds instead of doing the more difficult planning, asking for permissions from the local government to shoot some scenes in a limited time, making practical props or effects, shooting in-site, etc.
It sucks that even when they do delay films to give the movie more time, they use that extra time to add random content and more effects, rather than polishing what’s already there. Doctor Strange 2 had its entire movie rewritten right before filming started yet the movie only had a few months delay. When they finished filming, it was delayed once again, but instead of editing and polishing their footage they used that time to shoot fanservice cameos and completely new fight scenes requiring heavy CGI… and the movie was barely even half a year away by then. Disney and Marvel really wanted the movie out by the summer season and what we got was a hot mess in all aspects, both screenwriting and CGI.
I think this movie is the worst contender because by the time the last camera stopped rolling they had about 3 months to finish the entire movie, it’s unacceptable and unbelievable
This reminds me how G** DAMN GOOD the first Jurasic Park film is. Wow.
Try not to say GD please😉🙂
GAHDAMN
@@thandomathanda3201 AAH AMN
@@YummyCracker o amn
@@thandomathanda3201 😉
CG artist here. One thing to consider is location scouting and scheduling. Its much easier and cheaper to blue screen these complex scenes and set them up with equipment and all if you have a dedicated space where all production members can get to easily. You dont have to fight with cities like nyc to set up times to block traffic for a shoot expecially mid day. Also with marvel continually wanting massive interconnected stuff they need to be able to easily shoot and reshoot shots to fit in the the over arching plan. They (executives not the artist) are not making a movie they making a multi year scheme to get you to consume everything from the movies to the toys to your plans.
Cgi needs time and proper set up to archive the right look. Most of the big production houses that work on the films bounce between each other different teams across a globalized network each handling small specialized task. Asia for example has alot of roto artist that do the green screen grunt work and than gets kicked back to the western companies for compositing. Hell some software such as something called yeti ( used to create cg hair and fur) for a long time was not legal to use in the US so they would outsource to europe to work with yeti and kick it back to us here. Work gets split up with teams that have very little team coordination let alone the time allowed to work on them. With the scale marvel uses its inconceivable to dedicate the work to it. cgi is everywhere but most times we don't notice it if done right. And it sucks cause we are using some of the most advanced software ive ever had my hands on and theres so much that goes into it. With the most expensive being any kind of simulation (fabrics, muscles, fluids, explosions) leaving little room for the stuff that makes them look good which is the material and lighting work.
Its sad to continually see the medium ive spent over a decade learning get more and more dragged through the dirt. And the problem is the the money people not the artist who have been dreaming on working on these things since they were kids, are thrown on these insane workloads and we do it cause we love what we do.
Theres alot more I could say but yea hopefully that rant/passion dump was coherent enough to make sense 😄
Edit: for those who are interested i am on the cg side primarily in modeling textures and materials and rigging some of the more under noticed aspects of the production process as most time its not the final product and people don't tend to notice the amount of work without context of the final shot. Even tho litterly no aspects of the final product can be made without those core foundational assets.
This industry is filled with some of the most passionate intelligent and creative people due to all the random aspects of reality we gotta break down and understand to recreate reality using essentially math on a fundamental level.
This is definitely a transitional phase of the industry from games to movies theres so much new shit coming out that we won't see the full implementation of till a few years and its exciting as hell. And theres a general growth in interest so hopefully things will work out for the better and we get over this stagnation in creative imaginative works soon
Why was yeti illegal?
?
It was several years ago it became legal to use here. It was more like copyright law that the creators set if I recall correctly
@@AVeraFluidProject oh I see
Thanks for your insightful reply. I've noticed a lot of content on UA-cam lately just ragging on CGI. Having worked in the industry (though not at all in VFX--couldn't do it, hats off to you) it's disheartening to read repeated comments like "the CGI could be so much better but they were just lazy" etc, not understanding all of the moving components of a production, why certain decisions are made, or that sometimes audience expectations are just plain unreasonable despite best efforts. VFX are some of the hardest working and most OVERworked people on the planet and I hate to see your work just turned into armchair critique fodder from people who don't understand what goes into creating visual effects.
I agree. I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Iron Man’s best suits were the old bulky ones from Iron Man 1 to Avengers 2. They felt more real. Great video.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the bad CGI in Marvel movies these days. The first time I noticed was in Black Panther, and it really pulled me out of the film.
I think the CGI is only going to get worse from here on. They have so many projects in the works that there is no way for the FX teams to properly create good and believable CGI for all those shows and movies.
I noticed the writing for Marvel has taken a sharp nose dive too. I don't think there is anything in Phase 4 that can pass as even ok in terms of writting, and it makes sense because the writters don't have time to redraft the script.
They begin filming even before the scripts are finished, or the script is hugely rushed. Like how the script of Balck Widow was made in only 11 days, which is terribly little time (for example LotR trilogy took 14 months to write), and it shows. But all of Phase 4 is like this. Rushed in every department. The death of the MCU will be slow and painful.
I bet it will not even slowly at this rate..if Disney still has this mentality, it will going free falling to the earth faster than they would think. The consumer nowdays is not dumb. We still have a few brain cells to make our decision to choose better product. I hope that will teach Disney some lesson.
Just clearing this up this is mostly writing from the comics but marvel putting a spin on it as phase 1 was setting up the avengers phase 2 setting up the infinity stones and phase 3 the battle of the infinite stones marvel is taking the same approach but faster actually as in phase 4 is setting up 2 things the multiverse war and the new avengers. Phase 5 will most likely be the climax to the new avengers and the beginning of the multiverse war all we know of phase 6 is that 2 movies will be the kang dynasty’s and Secret wars so when you say it’s bad writing or ok writing I ask what saga that’s still popular and thriving winning nominees that have over 15+ movies. When you say bad writing that’s like saying the new Star Wars movies is great writing. The only bad writing in my opinion that has been done is the new me marvel series I hate how they completely stripped her original ark from her. Have a good day.
Ms marvel dumb spell check
@@F0X1207 their quality is indeed going downhill. that is not the only one
@@akuhappy3246 depend what you say quality is if your talking about there writing no and if your talking about the vfx no in my opinion it’s going up I’m more hyped for every marvel movie to come. The only thing that looks awful is the ms marvel show I will always dunk in how bad that show looks. 1 guy made a entire movie with 99percent vfx and 1 box as a prop and spent no money and most of it was in person and it looks really good but he was the only person I’ve not like he is paying actors and is in a time schedule cut marvel some slack there still in the #1 spot when it comes to any series
I actually thought that Iron Man's suit in Infinity War visually made sense as far as the nanotechnology aspect of it, but compared to his suits from the Iron Man trilogy and The Avengers . . . I mean there really isn't a lot to say. Those suits looked badass, grounded in reality. Phases I and II of the MCU were where everything seemed to be at its peak, but now with Phase IV it's . . . unfortunately underwhelming.
A great legacy has to be either left alone or carried on to be preserved. Once you make a hit, you gotta make a better hit, next time around. If you make a flop, you gotta redeem yourself and prove you're still just as good and better. The nanotech suits looked kinda cool and they made sense for the universe, sure, but imagine all the amazing things you can do with nanotech. Somehow, you'd think someone would be able to come up with a more captivating way to use the nenotech that is more than just things appearing really quick. People loved those suit-up sequences. They felt real, they felt possible, they looked badass. Yes, nanotech techinally seems "cooler" than metal plates, but it seems like such a distant thought that its cooler to think about having a suit of metal plates, because the nanotech just seems so far out. If they're gonna use really high tech, they gotta find a way to make it look cooler.
phase 2 peak? with thor 2? iron man 3? lol what?
@@anirudhgupta2570 Iron Man 3 you mean. Iron Man 2 was part of Phase 1. Iron Man 3 was part of Phase 2.
@@thedestroyer2alltrolls411 ok yea, but still point stands, iron man 3 sucked too
@@anirudhgupta2570 True. XD.
I remember me and my dad had an absolutely awful experience with Eternals in theatres. The CGI was obviously bad, the story is so bad and confusing to the point you have to keep track of a million important plot points, and to add to that, the speakers were slightly broken, causing partially static audio, it was so bad my dad was disoriented for the rest of the day
You made him and/or yourself waste time and money to watch that crappy Eternals movie nobody asked for? 🤦♂️ OMFG. Stop supporting bad movies! What made you think that movie was going to be any good? You’re part of the reason why they keep making sequels to shitty movies that do not deserve sequels!
@@thedestroyer2alltrolls411 I agree.
@@thedestroyer2alltrolls411 lol dude chill its not that big of a deal. If the movie sucks then just dont watch it lmao
I agree with all of these points, though I will point out that WandaVision did a good job balancing CGI and live effects. The first episode of the series was filmed like a play with a live studio audience (the way a 70s show would be filmed), and after watching the BTS I think they didn’t use CGI unless it was necessary. I still think some of the scenes with CGI were weak compared to the original avengers film or Iron Man 2008, but it was MUCH better than the other phase 4 shows/movies.
The first half of WandaVision series was such a breath of fresh air ... I was so disapointed by the ending. The first like 3 or 4 episodes were amazing a great character study of loss and pain afflicting someone with godlike powers and then it turned into a CGI slug fest in the end ... we dcouldn;t simply have Wanda come to grips with her loss and pain and come to the realization of what a monster she had become because of it.
I was disapointed, the series had such promise.
Too bad that show was fucking obliterated in the second half. Disney has been incapable of good writing and storytelling for years
@@yooooo8600 thank god I'm not the only one who feels like this!! I've been saying this for years. I feel like everything turned to shit after Civil War. I appreciate the idea and how it culturally affected how we view superheroes, but it was horribly executed and things just turned from bad to worse from then on [imo]
@@yooooo8600 and then they killed of Wanda after all that character development she had on that show
I agree on the over usage, it’s also that they build these scenes with no real weight to them, yes it’s a superhero universe and CGI is needed to express some of the storytelling but a lot of their scenes look and feel so empty and that’s part of the problem tbh
Ah yes, overusing CGI is almost like that thing every artist goes through where you're doing some shading, but you just don't know when to stop and that masterpiece of an artwork turns into a hot mess.
I agree. I love movies that take time to make. One could really appreciate the art that goes through it. An example is Mad Max Fury Road, it was a long time in the making but it was so great and worth every moment they spent on it. They also heavily used practical effects and for stunts. They also used CGI but to an extent that is only needed.
Mad Max looks great, I can't believe it didn't win visual effects at the Oscars that year
unrelated, but I love your username and pfp. It's so cutee🥹💗
I am actually a CG Artist and would like to quickly comment on a few things. There are some common misunderstandings here that I also see in the comments.
Unnecessary CGI isn't really the problem, and regarding some of your examples:
2:31: This effect is chroma-keying and is used much more than people realise. Look at VFX reels/breakdowns involving compositing and you would be surprised at how much it is used. But why do movies use them when it isn't necessary?:
1) Moving cast, the crew, and extras across locations is a pain in the ass and expensive - just moving and setting up equipment alone can take hours, often just to get a few minutes of screen time. Having everything in one place saves a lot of time and money.
2) Shooting in a studio also enables complete control over the camera, lighting and, importantly, sound. Shooting on an actual NYC street means there's no control over background noise during takes which makes continuity a huge issue when cutting them together.
2:56: Doing the gun digitally was most likely due to having no prop. This can be because the actual concept for the gun was still a work in progress, not fully fleshed out, hadn't been constructed, etc.
7:32: Another reason a director might opt for greenscreen is artistic control. In this shot, a director might want the rowboat in the background, travelling with the actors - but if you do it practically and want to redo a take, the boat must be pushed back, everything reset in place, and done again. This would be done for every take, so the director instead opts to do it in post. Another reason might be because behind the actors, there might not be a picturesque bridge and background but just a brick wall or a visible crowd watching the shoot.
7:43: The movie does look cloudy and ugly, but that's not due to VFX but rather bad art direction. I won't get super technical, but marvel movies are purposefully shot with very flat, even lighting, making it very easy to change things in post-production, e.g. certain elements of the lighting. This is the result of poor planning and lacklustre art direction - the scene shouldn't be lit from every angle since the final look hasn't been decided on.
The VFX in Marvel Movies has been so bad recently because Marvel is pushing out a mind-boggling amount of movies and Disney+ shows - their resources are spread thin. In post-production, they change the brief with little notice, give unreasonable timeframes and demand such speed and output that leads to bad results. Directors can also be inexperienced with VFX and not have enough time to plan things out or learn how to smooth out the process. I was told that the directors of Captain Marvel were so inexperienced that they would generally make the worst decisions, negatively impacting the VFX.
Speaking of Iron Man, I love the suit up sequences in 1 and 2, the details of each nuts and bolt, the animation of each parts attached and move together are just amazing and its shows how much time and efforts its take to made a very short scenes, but its made the movie unique. I personally not a fan of the Infinity War suit not only because the design looks weird, but also the suit up animation is a straight downgrade (now it just NANOMACHINE SON!!!!!).
Off topic:
To me, Micheal Bay's Transformers franchise is the easiest place to nitpick on CGI. And that franchise has the greatest effects. How I do it is just depend on the transformations. If that transformation shows parts moving side to side, back to front, or some instances where that moving part is hiding back for the new moving part to cover for it, that's good CGI, but if they just let characters flip their body and just make it up by moving parts here on there, that's lazy CGI.
I agree! It's been a while since I watched Transformers though, but I remember the newer movies having some pretty cool CGI
only the first trilogy, because the newest bumblebee movie didnt have the best cgi. In the first movies, the transformers looked so real, like if they were actually real giant robots walking around, and i could touch them and feel real metal.
@@htht1241 the human interactions also look real, they achieved that with the heads of the bots on sticks, so the actors have something to look at while saying the lines
Yeah the transformations in the Michael Bay movies are overly complicated and messy just to make sure the viewer lose track of where the parts are moving so that cheating can be done. I'd prefer the basic rough part of the transformation to be done first so that you can clearly follow whats going on and then some fine tuning of smaller body parts in the end of transformation.
@@danfors1333 Overly complicated would be an understatement, especially if you compare Bayverse to G1
That Thor CGI be hitting different 💀
This is why Terminator 2 is still my favourite sci-fi movie of all time. They really used cgi when certain scene or effects seemed impossible to get, and when they do it comes out clean and amazing for its time (even until now), notice how sleek T1000 looked there.
Also for the nuclear explosion scene, they even recreate a miniature town with everything else in it, just for them to destroy it later. Now, here we see a multibillion company used said technology to recreate a dimly lit bar.
To me, the real problem is that they don't have any consistency. Like you said at the end, "sometimes it's getting better, sometimes it's getting worse".
You said it best, it needs to be a balancing act. A movie should have both practical and CGI put together in such a way you can’t tell which is which. That’s how it should always be, really keeps the viewer immersed, and like you said the effects will hold up for years to come.
This was one simple and smart video. Stephanie, you said a lot of what we already thought but presented and narrated it with class while adding new angels or perspectives most overlook.
Thank you for making my UA-cam time worth ever second.
3:08 they edited out his moustache because he was filming another movie at the same time and was legally obligated by contract to keep it. Not because they could, but because they had to. 3:35 the t-rex wasn’t just practical it was also cgi, and it was easier to animate because there was only one source of light and rain. They didn’t have to add a lot of detail on the t-Rex for the cgi because the shadows could be pitch black. It’s harder to make cgi look good when you have to take into consideration light scattering and reflection.
But even the outdoor scenes of the T-Rex were amazing... And the footage in the rotunda! I think one of the main contributors to the success is that they retained the stop motion animators, and adapted their approach with physcial models... Making more of a hybrid technique.
The clips she showed were entirely the Stan Winston crew’s model, that’s what she was saying.
I dont understand your point? They really didn't need to re shoot henry cavills face for justice league that was embarrassing to watch, If the lighting is bad for cgi then write the scene to account for the lighting you need to have it look believable. As an example of beautiful light scattering in film the first avatar film from 10 years ago had incredible cgi rainforest environments
It's definitely a combination of the effects getting worse AND the effects being overused, for example, spider-man's suit in Far From Home was actual made for the production of the movie and looks great, but for the movie they completely CGI'd his suit and it sticks out so much, they should have used the actual suit and used CG for touch ups, like his eyes and mouth moving, like the scene from Homecoming when he was interrogating Aaron Davis
This was such an easy video to watch and understand, it never goes too in-depth with the technical side of the VFX and it's actually nice to not have background music for once. Loved it.
I'm seeing a lot of positive feedback to this video, but having talked to a lot of people in the industry and knowing about vfx, this is a bit misguided in my opinion. As an example, when you talk about the original Iron Man looking better, at 6:37, all of the shots we see are the CG suit The real suit was mainly used for lighting reference. The difference is art direction, not vfx itself. But no one criticizes art direction or the designs, just the cgi. This is why I think this is a bit misguided. Also, vfx is amazing these days, but people only focus on the bad cg. The opposite happens for practical effects. Only the best of the best practical effects are remembered, while the lackluster ones are forgotten. And there is amazing vfx nowadays, just look at Tanos for example, or the whole Dune movie. One of the reasons why the Black panther's vfx look so bad, is that most of the vfx people were already working on Endgame or Infinity war, I don't remember which one. There is a big sortage of VFX artists, that's another thing to consider. Anyway, not sure what my point was, these are just some thoughts. And thanks for reading the comment!
That's last part about forgetting your own point make me bust out laughing 🤣 Thanks, it was very informative 👍
@@tranngockha6562 glad I could make you laugh! :)
it doesnt change the fact that new cgi/vfx looks much off, it still lacks lighting and looks awfully fake and plastic
@@lold6d2 you're comparing the best old cgi against the worst current cgi, if you compare them fairly they're better now
@@sotomonte_ How much did you pay for all those likes
Great video, its nice to know I’m not the only one who feels that the mcu’s cgi has gradually been on the decline as far as it’s believability
Thank you! I've seen so many posts on Instagram praising the CGI for No Way Home, Shang Chi, Eternals, etc. and I was so confused why everyone thought it looked good 😅😅 Glad to know I'm not the only one either
@@StephanieKimPascaru I think it's because in certain moments it did deliver (take the de-aging CGI on the villains of No Way Home as an example), but in other moments of the same movie, it felt just... Off. Example of this is the suits from the two past Spide-Man's.
@@StephanieKimPascaru IKR xD
@@StephanieKimPascaru its a known secret that marvel hire influencers and bots to advertise their movies no matter how bad it is.
The editor in me feels like some background music would have made this even better of a video, but at the same time you explained yourself and explain everything so well that while watching the video I didn't even think about that.
Thank you Stephanie. Top Gun: Maverick speaks volume!!! It's the solid prove for your argument. A middle-aged man (Maverick) single-handedly beat 10+ years of Marvel Universe up to Infinity War in the box office ($681 million > $678 million).
Man of steel still holds up in the CGI department. Zod's suit is completely CGI and yet it looks like its practical effect.
Man of steel is a top tier superhero movie
Tasm spider-man suit tho
I will always love Man of Steel's fight scenes and effects/costumes. It was like a live action DBZ.
I’ll be honest when I first heard zods suit was cgi I was in disbelief, I thought that was real
I didn’t even find out that Zod’s suit was entirely CGI until recently. That’s really saying something. Man of Steel definitely has some of the best CGI and action in any superhero movie if you ask me. And it’s only carried further by its story.
the best thing about tasm 2 cgi is the lighting and the weight you can feel in a lot of the shots , they actually filmed in new york entirely therefore it had the new york feel and the physics during spiderman swinging through buildings looked really convincing.
yea lately i´ve started seeing the cgi getting worse, black widows yelena explosion, spider mans no way home portals and andrews save, doctor strange MOM had quite a few bad scenes, and now she hulk looks awful, completly awful
I agree with you the Jurassic park animatronics were so much better than just cgi for unnecessary stuff like there was a part were marvel paid over 13,000$ to add eye effects for 12 minutes which just sounds ridiculous same things for some terrible scripts anyways Thank you for your opinion and documentary!
can I just make a note on the video editing? I wish the sound of your voice wasn't so low compared to the sound of the scenes. I kept having to change it because it was either too high or too low. but the video is great and I 100% agree! I wish someone from the MCU production sees this
I still remember the iron man suit ups in ironman 1,2 and Infinity war(endgame too).It's a damn shame how the cg of mcu films fell off hard
They are too relient on cgi
Cgi is great and i hate when people say it is bad... BUT it shouldnt be used for everything. This is not an animated movie
Pratical effects should be used more frequentely not only does it save money but it also looks more natual on some cases
The CGI in Justice League Snyder cut was amazing
I've noticed the same things, and the worst part is this is not the artists fault, but the company with your limited (deshuman) time for work, resulting in something half done.
It was more visible in NWH not just in the silly things like the party at Flash's or the Spidermen masks, but with the actors of Lizard and Sandman too.
The problem is the examples you showed are all from a time when making good films was more important than making money because the only way to make money was by making good films. Now we have this mass produced Disney+ and the rest streaming world full of garbage that would never get past test screening but nowadays gets 8 seasons of reboots.
It feels like CGI like in LoTR used to be SO much more expensive and difficult to get right so they used it well. Now it's somehow become the cheaper option when that should never be the case and it should only be used for the impossible such as showing spaceships or giant battles etc but it's used for everything as you demonstrated making it less of a rare but justified resource and more of a given to overwork people to animate instead of flying to italy or something.
3:02 theory: they had a model of the gun made, probably for 3D printing or machining, then some genius executive thought thought they could save money by skipping a step and directly using it in the film. Afterall, after a model's been made, CGI is free and plastic cents a gram... ignoring how the former is only because VFX artists are underpaid, and keeping an animated scene consistent even after you have a model can still be a chore. Maybe they played too many videogames with in-engine cutscenes, not realising there's a difference between "stunning videogame graphics and clipping models kept to a minimum" and "photorealistic digital effects without janky physics".
iirc, they use fake gun models because of safety. A real gun can be disguised as a fake one and make a lot of trouble
You two are really overlooking at this
Finally, someone said it!
I've been thinking about the CGI overload in modern movies, and totally agree with your point.
That was a great video, btw, congrats!
For things like Nick Fury's gun, it had to be a situation where they didn't know what they wanted the gun to look like at the time... "we'll fix it in post"
I've seen so many videos like this but nobody talks about Pan's Labyrinth. Some of the greatest practical effects in film ever.
I love how Marvel's CGI isn't getting any better it's getting worse
Till this day, out of all Marvel's superhero line-up films, the 2008 Iron Man still has the best CGI and it still holds to this day.
The Iron Man point though. I decided to jump into the MCU this past week. I already watched some of it, but nothing really past Captain America: Civil War. When it came out. So starting back at Iron Man, which I hadn't seen since 2012, was a TRIP. I met up with my family and expressed how impressed I was with the first Iron Man and how I couldn't believe it was released in 2008 because "the computer graphics looked so real, I thought they would be so dated!" I was especially worried because I had seen the coming attractions for their new projects. But was surprised that my memory held up well, even though I hadn't seen the movie in 10 years.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. The first set of movies were great, because they knew what they were doing. They got too big though. I mean you can express your anger about the story and how they suck now and everything, but even the graphics have gone to shit. This is just depressing.
Fun fact . The truck flip in dark Knight used cgi to remove a piston that was situated at the back of the truck that when activated by the driver caused the truck to flip. This is a great example of cgi being used sparingly to complement practical effects not replace them. And while I whole heartedly agree with you about practical effects, the reality is that as long as it is cheaper it will be used. Especially by studios such as Disney and Warner bros who's main goal is making money. With dark knight being the exception I guess.
Fun fact the shark in jaws was fake
@@somersfamily if your trying to say I'm stating the obvious I don't think it really applies.
Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004 and still has better CGI than any of Marvels Films post Phase 2
Poopie aaaaaeeksudu
nah, i watched it months ago and i could tell it was a 00s old movie
no need to glorify and overrate everything, dumb toxic fanboys on flames
Marvel is becoming too complacent with their success, not only is CGI becoming poor, the scripts for the movies are becoming just as bad and every hero and their posse are comedians all of a sudden. Iron man - End game was an amazing run of movies, i really dont want the next run of movies to not even meet the quality a quarter of the success the first one had.
Marvels cgi has gotten pretty lazy, in the newest dr strange movie, i could easily tell there were green screens in the scene when bolt kills strange.Titans moon/planet looked so fake,like if the characters dont blend in with the planet(yes ik green screens are used alot, but isnt the point to not be able to tell they are there). Also the monsters in not just marvel but also other movies (fantastic beasts) look so "rubberish" like if i am watching a videogame trailer.
Totally agree, video game graphics are great for video games, but CGI monsters/creatures should look more believable in live action movies, especially when 10+ old movies could pull it off decades ago.
@@StephanieKimPascaru yes, in videogames it looks great bc videogames are completely computer animated. In a live action movie, you are using real people so at least make the cgi look realistic.
Its not lazy CGI, its Marvel giving the CGI workers a (too) small amount of time.
Just imagine, every year releasing 4-5 big budgeted superhero movies, the VFX companies must have had so much pressure on them that they have to deliver so much work so quickly that too with consistency because it's a Marvel movie!
So true, especially considering how big scale the Marvel movies have gotten over the years, there's so much more effects that need to be done in such little time :(
Not to mention they have tens of TV shows now too!
Remember when everyone lambasted the Star Wars prequels for using so much CGI and Green Screen but stayed silent when Marvel does the same? I remember. What a double standard. At least Jar Jar had the dignity to never twerk on screen, looking at you She-Hulk.
This is what happens when you hire ONE cgi production team to make 25 movies and shows in a year
Dude wtf are you taking about, just saying : "Visual effects for Endgame were created by ILM, Weta Digital, DNEG, Framestore, Cinesite, Digital Domain, Rise, Lola VFX, Cantina Creative, Capital T, Technicolor VFX, and Territory Studio."
I think as someone who's not a marvel fan this is a bit more obvious to me.
I got a new display and I thought what better way to test it out with a marvel movie... because they have good visuals right?
After not having watched any of their movies for a few years I chose Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and it was truly truly disappointing. Specially the first half/third of the movie. The rest seemed to get a bit better but the scene where America takes them to the rooftop.. the Dr's corpse looking like ps3 games and the whole rooftop looking like a blender hobbyist put it together in a few hours really ruined it for me. Dr's third eye didn't help either....
Jurassic Park, 1993, "back when most CG looked like this":
Shows Harry Potter 2001??
I’m glad you have constructive criticism than some other people it refreshing. It’s honestly sad that I liked the first Iron Man suit more than the newer ones. The newer ones are fine but I prefer the older ones.
I think it's gotten much worse, we're even at the point where Tom Holland doesn't even have to wear the costume anymore, he can just wear a mocap suit and pose.
Yeah, I read that there was an actual suit made for Tom Holland's spider man but they use full-on CGI anyway, which is such a shame because the CGI makes his suit looks less tangible/real and way more cartoony than it should :(
Actually he wore the costume for real in most scenes in No Way Home. You can see it in the making of.
@@colliric ohh, the one I read was about homecoming, but I'm glad they used the real one for no way home (especially since Andrew and Tobey had real suits, I'm assuming)
An other big problem is that they release so many movies and shows in such a sort time, that the entire project doesn't have enought time to be made. Visual Effects artists that worked on Marvel movies said that Marvel has the worse Visual Effects pipeline cos they have never really sedeled on how things are supposed to look like or what is gonna be there. the VFX Artists then have to replace so many stupid things or have to creat CGi background for scenes that could've been shot practicly. Yes there are always seperate teams working on each mocie, but when the ''finished'' script is delivered the pre-production ''finished'' and production starts all the way to the post-production, then there is not that much time. All of these thing and the things you said make the Visual Effects and a all of the CGi terrible.
Awesome video, you deserve more subscribers. great reaserch great examples clips of everything youre talking, very well worded and nice to hear, great points. really really good for a channel this small. only knitpick is the audios cuts could be smother but it is just a knitpick
thank you so much!! I appreciate the feedback :)
She actually DIDNT do great research on the video. Many examples she used have been explained as to why they HAD to use CGI. Some of her examples were not supposed to be CGI but the studio was basically forced to do it in CGI for various reasons. (Covid, scheduling conflicts, reshoots etc.)
@@pyro2452 Is that not great research??
That Jurassic Park opening is hilarious
Thank you! It took way longer to make than it should have 😅
To be honest, effects from the 1980s-2010s were way better then the current ones, for example: the practical effects and the computer effects for the movie “Killer Klowns from outer space” were a little bad and weird looking, but it was the 80s when this movie came out and was worked on, and the animictronic heads for that movie were really well made for a movie made around 30 years ago, nowadays, MARVEL has to use CGI for the most simple things, they could have filmed the scene of Peter Parker at New York, but no they have to put him in a blue screen, this generation is screwed.
The thing about practical effects, Marvel is so focused on churning out as many movies in the shortest amount of time possible that I assume they don’t care enough to put in effort
Wow, great video! The CGI in the MCU has been bothering me for a while now. I agree with everything you said! :D
civil war started the trend of iron man taking off his helmet and showing a stupid floating head on top of a suit.
While I agree the the recent cgi have been lackluster and overused, I feel like some of the clips you showed were fine or there’s a reason.
For the clips like Flash and Fury, I heard that was due to scheduling conflicts and while maybe they could of not used a blue screen, I don’t really mind cause i would have never noticed it cgi. (That last part goes for the black widow clip too)
For Venice it’s hard to shoot everything there because of the shots they were doing. They would have to clear out very populated areas for shooting, while it has been done before, idk if we know the full story like maybe they tried but weren’t given the permission. And they had scenes where the used real effects like water pushing Peter and that might not be possible to setup in the actual Venice area.
Ok it’s late for me, Im tired and I’m changed the wording of this a ton of times so Idk if I said everything right but my point is basically that for some of these I can give a pass to because either I didn’t notice or they did what they could
That being said, I almost completely agree with the general points you made and that CGI is clearly a problem that needs to be worked on in Marvel. I’m sure tons of fans would rather have a scene changed to be more grounded if it meant it they didn’t have to see a clearly obvious CGI
It seems like all these big companies have forgotten that makeup art is a thing. I remember when I was younger I would have nightmares of the Orcs from Lord of The Rings. They looked so real because they were real in a sense. CGI was created to enhance the experience, NOT to carry it.
I can confirm that people who don't care don't always notice. Im not a huge marvel fan but when my ex and I watched Black Widdow and I pointed out how bad the effects are, he said that I didnt know what i was talking about and that they were great. -_-
I've just rewatched the guardians of the galaxy. It looks so incredibely good. So much CGI but it looked real and amazing ! Every single detail on the ships could move and interact. They really went above and beyond necessary for a 2014 movie. Definitively a lot better than now
not just cgi getting worse, stories are getting worse as well. plot holes seem to be multiplying with each new movies being released.
Nice Stephanie, I thought it was a meme at first but actually u got a lot of points and I eventually watch till enz
Great critique, hope this channel grows 👍🏽
I honestly thought I was the only one that noticed the quality getting worse, but this video shows that I'm not, I fully agree with what you had said in this video. I love the new movies not for the cgi but simply for the story, although, they should 100% take more time on their movies, and not rush, as of the moment, I feel as though they are more about the money rather than the quality
I'm praying that someday directors and/or companies use CGI in the exact same way as David Fincher.
I assume you people have watched kaptainkristian's video on David Fincher, if not, please do, it's a good companion piece to this video.
Also, enjoyed your video, Stephanie. Good job!
So sad that Marvel is now goes more to the quantify instead of the quality. I read an article how stressfull it is working at the MCU as a cgi worker, because of the lack of time they get.
Which is why DC is much better