DC Comics Cinematic Universe (2013 - present)

17374767879220

Comments

  • I'm not really affected by the whole CGI thing that people seem to be complaining about. I'm sure within the 8 months before release, they'll be touching that up and making it look better. We've seen far worse CGI in other films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I normally don't mind CGI in the Marvel/DC superhero universe, but agree that DC seems to be laying it on a bit thick. I find Marvel does a better job of it generally, but adventures like Thor are way too much for me with their outer space environment. Still, I can forgive it because not everyone can be Nolan.

    Where I find CGI particularly annoying is when it's used to 'poorly' augment a more grounded universe, like has been happening in the recent Bond films. That's a big 'no' for me.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This had me cracking up:



    Tony's reaction to Bruce's, "I'm rich" made my day.
  • Posts: 9,858
    While it would never be done in a million years a Marvel Vs DC film (focusing on the avengers so Hulk Cap Thor for Marvel and the Justice League for DC) would be so brilliant I could see at the very least Robert Downy Jr and Ben Affleck playing well off each other... but oh well Dreams I suppose
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The comics have done crossovers, so never say never.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Marvel V DC film would be an EPIC undertaking! @-)
  • The comics have done crossovers, so never say never.

    But that's different however. All the big talent names associated with these two franchises, who would be getting top billing? How would the companies settle to an agreement for a crossover? Who would get what share of profits? I hate to say it, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
  • Posts: 9,858
    just a video game would be awesome enough
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The comics have done crossovers, so never say never.

    But that's different however. All the big talent names associated with these two franchises, who would be getting top billing? How would the companies settle to an agreement for a crossover? Who would get what share of profits? I hate to say it, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

    It'll never happen. However, hypothetically speaking Robert Downey Jr is the biggest/bankable name in comic book movies, if ever there was some sort of cross over he'd get top billing.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    The comics have done crossovers, so never say never.

    But that's different however. All the big talent names associated with these two franchises, who would be getting top billing? How would the companies settle to an agreement for a crossover? Who would get what share of profits? I hate to say it, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

    It'll never happen. However, hypothetically speaking Robert Downey Jr is the biggest/bankable name in comic book movies, if ever there was some sort of cross over he'd get top billing.

    So is Ben Affleck, and Will Smith, there's tons of huge names involved that it would be hard to find out who gets top billing. Downey, Affleck, and Smith would probably be the 3 most bankable stars if a crossover was to happen. Still, lots of legal crap to settle
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Affleck and Smith are nowhere near bankable actors within the comic book genre compared to Downey and outside of SS Smith has been in flop after flop for more or less a decade. He's not as bankable as he used to be and Affleck isn't and has never been a bankable actor. His last film cemented that fact. Yes, they may be big names obviously but in the landscape of the comicbook genre Downey Jr is numero uno. His next 3 movies coming out, Spider-Man Homecoming and the 2 IW films will bank a $Billion each.
  • Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find it ridiculous that people complain about the mass of CGI, as if that were a criterion for quality.
    But the trailer doesn´t do anything with me.
    So you mean to say that bad CGI never hinders your experience of a film?
    Recent posts mentioned more the amount than the quality of CGI, and that is also what is written in my post you quoted. The suggestion that bad CGI might never hinder my experience of a film has nothing to with my original post.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    boldfinger wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find it ridiculous that people complain about the mass of CGI, as if that were a criterion for quality.
    But the trailer doesn´t do anything with me.
    So you mean to say that bad CGI never hinders your experience of a film?
    Recent posts mentioned more the amount than the quality of CGI, and that is also what is written in my post you quoted. The suggestion that bad CGI might never hinder my experience of a film has nothing to with my original post.

    I can only speak for myself, and have in fact been vocal in both respects. Too much CGI takes one out of the film, and if that CGI is also bad, well, it's all the worse. I don't see the high quantity of CGI as a positive any time.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find it ridiculous that people complain about the mass of CGI, as if that were a criterion for quality.
    But the trailer doesn´t do anything with me.

    It has nothing to do with quality, but rather my enjoyment with a film. As I've said in the past, I become immediately detached from what's unfolding on screen when its awash with CGI/greenscreen/CGI action and characters, hence my distaste for the superhero fare these days.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    Affleck and Smith are nowhere near bankable actors within the comic book genre compared to Downey and outside of SS Smith has been in flop after flop for more or less a decade. He's not as bankable as he used to be and Affleck isn't and has never been a bankable actor. His last film cemented that fact. Yes, they may be big names obviously but in the landscape of the comicbook genre Downey Jr is numero uno. His next 3 movies coming out, Spider-Man Homecoming and the 2 IW films will bank a $Billion each.

    Id argue the opposite about Affleck and Smith. Yes RDJ is probably to most recongizable comic book genre actor, but there is more too it. The box office profits will not decide who should get the top billing in a film like that, it's the talent involved with it. Yes Smith and Affleck might not be as bankable as Downey, but their statuses in Hollywood are right up there with him, if not higher, there is no way they would be able to settle that billing issue.

    I also feel that at this point, the MCU is shoehorning characters in for the sake of cameos and setting up future film installments. Does Iron Man really need to be in the next Spider-Man movie? I know he's really popular, but this is Spider-Man's first film in the MCU, let's have it be on him, not Iron Man. Its something about both the MCU, and DCEU that annoys me tbh, throwing in characters for the sake of hitting the billion dollar mark, even if it means sacrificing the films themselves
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find it ridiculous that people complain about the mass of CGI, as if that were a criterion for quality.
    But the trailer doesn´t do anything with me.

    It has nothing to do with quality, but rather my enjoyment with a film. As I've said in the past, I become immediately detached from what's unfolding on screen when its awash with CGI/greenscreen/CGI action and characters, hence my distaste for the superhero fare these days.

    Depends on how well the film handles it. Guardians of the Galaxy for instance contains a lot of CGI, but it's rather well handled for the most part and only a couple of the longer running action sequences lead my mind to wander. Other films like The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Man of Steel have enormous, sprawling, never-ending action sequences with blurry CGI work filling the screen and zero connection to character and that's where I shut down and write the film off entirely. But overreliance upon CGI is only partially to blame there. The culprit is also the poor writing and poor direction that disconnects the audience from story and character, leaving them feeling like they're watching a friend play a mediocre video game they couldn't care less about. Some of the CGI in the JL trailer looks bad, yes. Some of it will also be good, I'm sure. But I'm mostly worried that the film will become an exhausting exercise in action on film completely devoid of heart, humor, emotional resonance, or characters we care about. Like the entire second half of Snyder's Man of Steel. The clips shown so far have been color-drained and dreary and CGI-heavy, none of the jokes have made me smile, and there is little if anything to suggest the film will have even partially developed characters or a semblance of a heart. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Maybe it's just a terribly edited trailer and the film will actually be good. If that's the case, they should have cut a better trailer.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Affleck and Smith are nowhere near bankable actors within the comic book genre compared to Downey and outside of SS Smith has been in flop after flop for more or less a decade. He's not as bankable as he used to be and Affleck isn't and has never been a bankable actor. His last film cemented that fact. Yes, they may be big names obviously but in the landscape of the comicbook genre Downey Jr is numero uno. His next 3 movies coming out, Spider-Man Homecoming and the 2 IW films will bank a $Billion each.

    Id argue the opposite about Affleck and Smith. Yes RDJ is probably to most recongizable comic book genre actor, but there is more too it. The box office profits will not decide who should get the top billing in a film like that, it's the talent involved with it. Yes Smith and Affleck might not be as bankable as Downey, but their statuses in Hollywood are right up there with him, if not higher, there is no way they would be able to settle that billing issue.

    I also feel that at this point, the MCU is shoehorning characters in for the sake of cameos and setting up future film installments. Does Iron Man really need to be in the next Spider-Man movie? I know he's really popular, but this is Spider-Man's first film in the MCU, let's have it be on him, not Iron Man. Its something about both the MCU, and DCEU that annoys me tbh, throwing in characters for the sake of hitting the billion dollar mark, even if it means sacrificing the films themselves

    Considering their mentor/student relationship in Civil War was important to Spidey's appearance in the film, yeah, kinda.

    But yes, the MCU and the DCEU throw certain characters in for little reason other than foreshadowing movies that (especially on the DCEU's side) may change so greatly to as negate that appearance in the first place. Some cameos are nice, some are worthless, they need to fix that problem.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,293
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find it ridiculous that people complain about the mass of CGI, as if that were a criterion for quality.
    But the trailer doesn´t do anything with me.

    It has nothing to do with quality, but rather my enjoyment with a film. As I've said in the past, I become immediately detached from what's unfolding on screen when its awash with CGI/greenscreen/CGI action and characters, hence my distaste for the superhero fare these days.

    Depends on how well the film handles it. Guardians of the Galaxy for instance contains a lot of CGI, but it's rather well handled for the most part and only a couple of the longer running action sequences lead my mind to wander. Other films like The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Man of Steel have enormous, sprawling, never-ending action sequences with blurry CGI work filling the screen and zero connection to character and that's where I shut down and write the film off entirely. But overreliance upon CGI is only partially to blame there. The culprit is also the poor writing and poor direction that disconnects the audience from story and character, leaving them feeling like they're watching a friend play a mediocre video game they couldn't care less about. Some of the CGI in the JL trailer looks bad, yes. Some of it will also be good, I'm sure. But I'm mostly worried that the film will become an exhausting exercise in action on film completely devoid of heart, humor, emotional resonance, or characters we care about. Like the entire second half of Snyder's Man of Steel. The clips shown so far have been color-drained and dreary and CGI-heavy, none of the jokes have made me smile, and there is little if anything to suggest the film will have even partially developed characters or a semblance of a heart. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Maybe it's just a terribly edited trailer and the film will actually be good. If that's the case, they should have cut a better trailer.

    With your CGI argument, another example of where that didn't really work so well was the recent prequel The Thing, when you compare it's effects too the original, it's no competition. Man of Steel for me worked with its CGI, I found the action set pieces to be pretty entertaining for the most part, they did drag quite a bit, but that was a minor quibble for me. I'm sure that the CGI in JL I'll be improved upon before the films release, but here is where I start to disagree regarding the trailer. The trailer was pretty solid for me. The jokes made here were pretty subtle and down to earth (nothing as bad as "Tony Stank" and the "Orange Slices" jokes), I didn't really see the lack of color as well. There were plenty of colorful shots in the film as well, a bit grey here and there but not completely colorless, and I would also argue that we did get to see bits of these characters and how they'll develop. We see Batman and Aquaman constantly having witty back and forth banter with each other. Cyborg gets a few moments to shine (in a way reminds me of Chris Evans and Christopher Reeve tbh), the parts with The Flash and Batman as well are another example. We're not going to see anymore of these bits for now because it's a trailer, we don't wanna see too much of how these characters are going to interact in the film. I understand some people might not have liked the trailer, but the complaints for it, at least to me, are kind of pushing it.

    EDIT; Anybody have an Instagram? I have to say this video cracked me up. Batman vs Superman with LL Cool J in the background

  • You're right, they have time to beef up the CGI and I'm sure they will. (Though seeing Cyborg like that has me wondering why they didn't just put the guy in an actual physical suit and CGI in the parts they couldn't make function practically.)

    There's also some color, yes—like Wonder Woman with her still somewhat muted primaries—but the overall scheme is dark grays, blues, and blacks, a very desaturated Batmanesque color scheme that really only befits one character out of the team. The Justice League really could use a brighter, more vibrant color palette in my opinion. But dark and dreary is Snyder's thing and it's really all about Batman anyways, so I get it even if I don't like it.

    For the humor, yeah it's there but none of it popped. And what disappointed me more than anything is that everyone is delivering their lines in that flat, largely emotionless "cool guy" voice, like Batman.

    The trailer didn't need to spell out the whole movie, but it should—like that great MoS teaser posted earlier—evoke a sense of the film's emotional heartbeat. Whether that is aching introspection (Man of Steel) or fun, colorful, comedic extravagance (Guardians 1 & 2). This JL trailer provided a sense of sprawling CGI-heavy action sequences through a heavily dreary and desaturated color prism and dull, flatly delivered jokes. That's what the trailer is selling to me, along with the odd choice of a cover of a Beatles headbanger that appears to channel the Guardians' musical aesthetic against material that isn't Guardians at all.
  • You're right, they have time to beef up the CGI and I'm sure they will. (Though seeing Cyborg like that has me wondering why they didn't just put the guy in an actual physical suit and CGI in the parts they couldn't make function practically.)

    There's also some color, yes—like Wonder Woman with her still somewhat muted primaries—but the overall scheme is dark grays, blues, and blacks, a very desaturated Batmanesque color scheme that really only befits one character out of the team. The Justice League really could use a brighter, more vibrant color palette in my opinion. But dark and dreary is Snyder's thing and it's really all about Batman anyways, so I get it even if I don't like it.

    For the humor, yeah it's there but none of it popped. And what disappointed me more than anything is that everyone is delivering their lines in that flat, largely emotionless "cool guy" voice, like Batman.

    The trailer didn't need to spell out the whole movie, but it should—like that great MoS teaser posted earlier—evoke a sense of the film's emotional heartbeat. Whether that is aching introspection (Man of Steel) or fun, colorful, comedic extravagance (Guardians 1 & 2). This JL trailer provided a sense of sprawling CGI-heavy action sequences through a heavily dreary and desaturated color prism and dull, flatly delivered jokes. That's what the trailer is selling to me, along with the odd choice of a cover of a Beatles headbanger that appears to channel the Guardians' musical aesthetic against material that isn't Guardians at all.

    Well, when you do put it in that context, it's quite understandable. I thought that BvS really hit it with the first trailer they did for comic con, and the teasers and trailers for MOS were superb, so when compared to those trailers. But I feel as if, they're trying to make it look more fun for people. I agree, maybe leave some action scenes out, maybe have a scene like in the Logan trailers of all the main characters interacting like a family. I 100% agree with the choice of music, either they should've pick the original track, choose scenes where it actually fits the song, or scrap it all together, and to be perfectly honest here, I have only seen the trailer about 3 times or so, so I haven't seen it enough to where I can have everything fresh in my mind still; it might have something to do with the fact that my enthusiasm for comic book movies is starting to die a little bit. Nonetheless I can appreciate other people's opinions (especially for the folks here on the forums more than anywhere else), but I found that trailer to be pretty good.)
  • Oh I totally understand people liking it. Some of the action featured and especially those opening shots in the mountains look pretty cool. I think for me it's more of an identity issue than anything. As you suggest, they're trying to make it look more fun and less gloomy, more (dare I say it?) like a Marvel film perhaps. But without going all the way. So I feel like it's sitting in this strange middle ground, neither full-on Dark Knight brooding and horizon-gazing nor bright and optimistic, swinging-in-to-save-the-day heroism. Not that a film needs to be starkly one or the other, but a commitment to some kind of a cohesive aesthetic or vibe is needed and DC feels like they've got a foot on either ship deck with the gap widening beneath them right now. (Spectre gave me a similar impression actually, but I'm definitely not going to go there in this thread.)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Affleck and Smith are nowhere near bankable actors within the comic book genre compared to Downey and outside of SS Smith has been in flop after flop for more or less a decade. He's not as bankable as he used to be and Affleck isn't and has never been a bankable actor. His last film cemented that fact. Yes, they may be big names obviously but in the landscape of the comicbook genre Downey Jr is numero uno. His next 3 movies coming out, Spider-Man Homecoming and the 2 IW films will bank a $Billion each.

    Id argue the opposite about Affleck and Smith. Yes RDJ is probably to most recongizable comic book genre actor, but there is more too it. The box office profits will not decide who should get the top billing in a film like that, it's the talent involved with it. Yes Smith and Affleck might not be as bankable as Downey, but their statuses in Hollywood are right up there with him, if not higher, there is no way they would be able to settle that billing issue.

    I also feel that at this point, the MCU is shoehorning characters in for the sake of cameos and setting up future film installments. Does Iron Man really need to be in the next Spider-Man movie? I know he's really popular, but this is Spider-Man's first film in the MCU, let's have it be on him, not Iron Man. Its something about both the MCU, and DCEU that annoys me tbh, throwing in characters for the sake of hitting the billion dollar mark, even if it means sacrificing the films themselves

    After reading the synopsis for Homecoming it makes perfect sense that Stark/Iron Man is in this. Nevermind that the MCU from the get go is all about a cinematic universe and interconnectivity; and the fact that spider-man has already had 5 solo films to himself; Homecoming deals with the fall out and aftermath of superhero battles/damages that Adrian Toomes as head of a clean up business secures contracts for but in this instance loses a clean up and removal contract to Stark and it's from here Stark's involvement isn't so much as shoehorned in but included in a reasonable and organic way.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,293
    I don't know, to me it just seems like another way to get RDJ to do another Marvel movie. I know it doesn't seem at all any different to when he appeared in The Incredible Hulk, or even in Civil War, but it's just a gripe that I have with Superhero films, I think that they tend to overuse some characters by putting them into other films when they shouldn't really be there to begin with. I know they weaved it into the story, and time is going to tell if it'll work, but still, why feel the need put RDJ in other characters movies, instead of just making Iron Man 4. The MCU and DCEU both might be about continuity, but do they really need to be reusing characters for the sake of reinforcing that this is the same universe. It's just a small issue I have with these films. Nonetheless, I'll most likely be seeing Homecoming when it hits. This year is a good one for comic book movies.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    The comics do it all the time.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The comics do it all the time.

    Exactly. It seems like there's a lack of understanding in the point of a cinematic universe. Marvel Studios is the first film company to emulate the dynamic between characters existing in a comicbook universe at bringing it to the screen. Stark's a popular character and spearheaded the MCU into what it is today; it makes perfect sense that he at least shows up in Marvel's signature character's movie, then there's the relationship Tony and Peter have in the comics and most importantly, narrative lyrics speaking it makes sense. If spider-man lived and operated in Canada then I could understand but New York is his home/play ground and it just so happens to be the home of the majority of Marvel's top tier characters. Like I said, the synopsis of Homecoming and Vulture's involvement makes sense that Stark/IM appears in this. However, make no mistake, this is still Spider-Man's film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    For an old comic book fan, the last years development of cgi has been a huge blessing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If I'm not mistaken, RDJ is (or at least was) the highest paid actor at one point recently. He single handedly boosted the Marvel universe with Iron Man as doubleoego noted. My understanding is that due to his substantial pay grade, Marvel/Disney decided to use him to lend credibility to other characters as they are established, rather than give him another Iron Man film. I read that somewhere a while back, and they seem to be executing well on the strategy. It works.

    Affleck can't hold a candle to RDJ in the superhero universe, irrespective of his talents & expertise elsewhere.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find it ridiculous that people complain about the mass of CGI, as if that were a criterion for quality.
    But the trailer doesn´t do anything with me.

    It has nothing to do with quality, but rather my enjoyment with a film. As I've said in the past, I become immediately detached from what's unfolding on screen when its awash with CGI/greenscreen/CGI action and characters, hence my distaste for the superhero fare these days.

    Depends on how well the film handles it. Guardians of the Galaxy for instance contains a lot of CGI, but it's rather well handled for the most part and only a couple of the longer running action sequences lead my mind to wander. Other films like The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Man of Steel have enormous, sprawling, never-ending action sequences with blurry CGI work filling the screen and zero connection to character and that's where I shut down and write the film off entirely. But overreliance upon CGI is only partially to blame there. The culprit is also the poor writing and poor direction that disconnects the audience from story and character, leaving them feeling like they're watching a friend play a mediocre video game they couldn't care less about. Some of the CGI in the JL trailer looks bad, yes. Some of it will also be good, I'm sure. But I'm mostly worried that the film will become an exhausting exercise in action on film completely devoid of heart, humor, emotional resonance, or characters we care about. Like the entire second half of Snyder's Man of Steel. The clips shown so far have been color-drained and dreary and CGI-heavy, none of the jokes have made me smile, and there is little if anything to suggest the film will have even partially developed characters or a semblance of a heart. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Maybe it's just a terribly edited trailer and the film will actually be good. If that's the case, they should have cut a better trailer.

    It doesn't for me, as I found GotG to be terribly forgettable, as well. Too much CGI, and I simply check out, aside from very, very rare cases, such as Favreau's 'The Jungle Book,' which I loved.
  • Posts: 533
    I normally don't mind CGI in the Marvel/DC superhero universe, but agree that DC seems to be laying it on a bit thick. I find Marvel does a better job of it generally, but adventures like Thor are way too much for me with their outer space environment. Still, I can forgive it because not everyone can be Nolan.


    Oh please! People have been complaining about the CGI in some of the Marvel films - especially "Age of Ultron". Who are you kidding?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    DRush76 wrote: »
    I normally don't mind CGI in the Marvel/DC superhero universe, but agree that DC seems to be laying it on a bit thick. I find Marvel does a better job of it generally, but adventures like Thor are way too much for me with their outer space environment. Still, I can forgive it because not everyone can be Nolan.


    Oh please! People have been complaining about the CGI in some of the Marvel films - especially "Age of Ultron". Who are you kidding?
    Sure, there's quite a lot of CGI in Ultron as well, I'm not denying that. I still prefer it to what DC dished up with BvS & SS, which both have a highly cartoonish vibe on top of the special effects, either due to filtering and/or actual sloppy effects.
Sign In or Register to comment.