The Flash | June 16 2023 | Ezra Miller, Michael Keaton | We’re stoping the count at a Nice 69% RT (it’s 72% For Real) | Please Remember that Your Enjoyment Of The Film is Not Based On Others Opinions And To Be Nice To Each Other

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

57 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

There are exceptions, like those mentioned. But I'm not judging a movie for its "time". Jason and the Argonauts looks like garbage. There's a reason (many) Dune is 100000x better than the original, and it's the VFX. If anything, pre-2000s movies prove that a movie can be good and have just shit VFX. 

 

There are far far far fewer examples of movies that are bad, but made better due to the VFX. 

 

This makes me want to cry.

 

Jason and the Argonauts is calibrated perfectly for storytelling. The creatures have the exact texture they should and the tone is consistent across all the creatures and effects.

 

When the robots fight in Transformers movies, I don't care what you lot say about "good CGI"....I literally don't have a clue what's happening.

 

Good special effect augment the storytelling, bad special effects undermine the storytelling.

 

Jason and the Argonauts doesn't look real. Transformers, like 99% of all CGI, doesn't look real. They have equal status therefore in looking not-real. One augments the story, one impedes it. I know which I prefer.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

50 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Except I quite literally did not say shit VFX makes a shit film. Nor that a shit film will be made great solely through great CGI. I said a great film with great VFX is better than a great film with shit VFX. So your post is just agreeing with me if anything.

 

It is simply not right to pretend how a film looks (which, for the record, goes much further than just the quality of its CGI) isn't an important component of the medium.

 

This can fire back in the other direction, though, in an era where filmmakers don't use extras and insane real structure sets to the extent of previous iterations due to the prohibitive costs.

 

I watched Carry on Cleo the other day and some of the Roman sets in that look more tactile and atmospheric than anything we get now. Never mind something like Quo Vadis or Ben Hur or Cleopatra.

[ChipDerby]

As much as everyone wants realism and real sets and practical effects... That's just not possible with some of these movies. These are comic book characters that travel at the speed of sound, etc etc. The reason why a lot of the early MCU stuff looks good is either the heroes weren't powered, or WAY powered down, or the scope of the films was just smaller.

 

Marvel was able to spend just an insane amount of time and money to make Thanos look excellent, but even those films had moments of... uhhh. questionable VFX. It was fine! Barry's suit honestly looks pretty similar to the Iron Man version in IW/Endgame.

[Merkel]

One thing that bothers me in the footage I've seen do far (it could be different in the movie itself) is how the vast majority of the Batman scenes seem to be set in daytime. It bothered me in TDKR and it bothers me here, but in the Nolan film, the settinh at least felt palpable

[JustLurking]

1 hour ago, ChipDerby said:

Are the remastered Star Wars films better than the originals? Because that would surely prove your point.

 

ANYWAY, got my tickets for the 15th. Can't wait. Excited to see the FULL film and to see if there's anything about the future of the DCU in it.

I wouldn't be able to comment on this particular example considering my only experience with the OT is the remastered version, but if we're looking at the exact same film with better VFX, resolution, colors and whatnot...yeah? They're better versions.

 

I don't even understand the point of the question. Are you telling me if you had to pick between 2 identical films, and one of them had bad VFX while the other had great VFX, you wouldn't pick the one with great VFX 100 times out of 100?

[ChipDerby]

It's a film by film basis.

[Merkel]

1 minute ago, JustLurking said:

I wouldn't be able to comment on this particular example considering my only experience with the OT is the remastered version, but if we're looking at the exact same film with better VFX, resolution, colors and whatnot...yeah? They're better versions.

 

I don't even understand the point of the question. Are you telling me if you had to pick between 2 identical films, and one of them had bad VFX while the other had great VFX, you wouldn't pick the one with great VFX 100 times out of 100?

 I would hate to see the VFX in Ghostbusters, for example, to be redone. It's a different thing to cleap up the footage that has faded over time. It's quite another to remake part of a film.

 

Some movies are, in many ways, historical artifacts. You start "improving them" and they lose something of what made them special and they lose their place in time and in the evolution of the art form

[JustLurking]

3 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

It's a film by film basis.

It's a film by film basis on whether the same identical film would be better if it...looked better? What?

 

3 minutes ago, Merkel said:

 I would hate to see the VFX in Ghostbusters, for example, to be redone. It's a different thing to cleap up the footage that has faded over time. It's quite another to remake part of a film.

 

Some movies are, in many ways, historical artifacts. You start "improving them" and they lose something of what made them special and they lose their place in time and in the evolution of the art form

This is simply to do with historical preservation and their role in the history of the media, and even then, it's just a point of view (hence why remasters were even made). Has nothing to do with my point, however.

 

If it was a newly made film and two versions of the same product were made, both of them being identical, and one of them looked better than the other, the one that looks better would be the better version of said film.

 

There is no situation where a film looking WORSE would improve the product. That's just absurd.

[BigBoxOfficeBucks]

Edgar Wright, Tom Cruise, James Gunn and Stephen King all endorse this movie

 

Even so, I still doubt if this movie is really that good.

[Merkel]

3 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

It's a film by film basis on whether the same identical film would be better if it...looked better? What?

 

This is simply to do with historical preservation and their role in the history of the media, and even then, it's just a point of view (hence why remasters were even made). Has nothing to do with my point, however.

 

If it was a newly made film and two versions of the same product were made, both of them being identical, and one of them looked better than the other, the one that looks better would be the better version of said film.

 

There is no situation where a film looking WORSE would improve the product. That's just absurd.

 

 

I would generally agree with you, but you must realize that "looking worse" is still subjective.

 

Take something like Del Toro's Pinocchio. He chose to do with stop-motion. The movement will never be as fluid as it is with computer animation. You can't go as crazy with the camera and produce impossible shots. The range of movements of the characters is more restricted. So in many ways, it might be considered to be a "worse looking" technique than computer imagination. And yet, those limits, that rustiness in the movement is absolutely integral to the whole endeavor.

 

To this day, this is one of most visually arresting games I have ever played. It's called Return to the Obra Dinn, released in 2018. It uses exactly 2 colors: black and white. It would not look better with 3000 colors.

 

[JustLurking]

5 minutes ago, Merkel said:

 

 

I would generally agree with you, but you must realize that "looking worse" is still subjective.

 

Take something like Del Toro's Pinocchio. He chose to do with stop-motion. The movement will never be as fluid as it is with computer animation. You can't go as crazy with the camera and produce impossible shots. The range of movements of the characters is more restricted. So in many ways, it might be considered to be a "worse looking" technique than computer imagination. And yet, those limits, that rustiness in the movement is absolutely integral to the whole endeavor.

 

To this day, this is one of most visually arresting games I have ever played. It's called Return to the Obra Dinn, released in 2018. It uses exactly 2 colors: black and white. It would not look better with 3000 colors.

 

Yes, but like, we are going into MUCH more subjective realm here. You're bringing artstyles into play. But these are realistic blockbusters, not animated films on different artstyles.

 

If I tell you Zootopia looks better than GDT's Pinocchio, that's subjective. If I tell you the water VFX in Avatar 2 looks a whole lot better than the water VFX in Aquaman...well, I don't expect a lot of resistance on that point, that's for sure. If I say Aquaman would be a better film if it had Ava2's water VFX, I think we can agree on that as well.

 

I understand your point, really! I agree with you. But you are really straying from what my original point was.

Edited May 24, 2023 by JustLurking

[TMP]

10 minutes ago, BigBoxOfficeBucks said:

Edgar Wright, Tom Cruise, James Gunn and Stephen King all endorse this movie

 

Even so, I still doubt if this movie is really that good.

don't think wright said anything about this. He praised killers of the flower moon the other day though

[grim22]

6 minutes ago, TMP said:

don't think wright said anything about this. He praised killers of the flower moon the other day though

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/Csoww-2rPL_/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

[Merkel]

5 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Yes, but like, we are going into MUCH more subjective realm here. You're bringing artstyles into play. But these are realistic blockbusters, not animated films on different artstyles.

 

If I tell you Zootopia looks better than GDT's Pinocchio, that's subjective. If I tell you the water VFX in Avatar 2 looks a whole lot better than the water VFX in Aquaman...well, I don't expect a lot of resistance on that point, that's for sure. If I say Aquaman would be a better film if it had Ava2's water VFX, I think we can agree on that as well.

 

I understand your point, really! I agree with you. But you are really straying from what my original point was.

 

Yeah, I think we're pretty much in agreement. I don't think some of the shots in The Flash look wonky as they look because of an artistic choice. It might come down to a sort of "we'll fix in post" mentality when shooting that makes these movies have bad VFX shots, even with long post production schedules and large subjects.

 

On the other hand, directors like Villeneuve or Nolan really never had bad VFX shots in any of their movies. If a shot can only be achieved though wonky CGI, bets are they will just ditch it altogether.

 

Just one small note: I often read that cinema is a visual medium, and I don't fully agree. It is also a deeply sonic medium. Sound, music, dialogue are equaly important 

[lorddemaxus]

35 minutes ago, TMP said:

don't think wright said anything about this. He praised killers of the flower moon the other day though

He talked about it on Instagram. But he watched it with one of the editors on this (who is also one of his frequent collaborators).

[Krissykins]

The posters for this really are great.

[dudalb]

46 minutes ago, Merkel said:

 

Yeah, I think we're pretty much in agreement. I don't think some of the shots in The Flash look wonky as they look because of an artistic choice. It might come down to a sort of "we'll fix in post" mentality when shooting that makes these movies have bad VFX shots, even with long post production schedules and large subjects.

 

On the other hand, directors like Villeneuve or Nolan really never had bad VFX shots in any of their movies. If a shot can only be achieved though wonky CGI, bets are they will just ditch it altogether.

 

Just one small note: I often read that cinema is a visual medium, and I don't fully agree. It is also a deeply sonic medium. Sound, music, dialogue are equaly important 

I disagree. A good script is the foundation, 

Re;VIsuals in general. SOme people here who get upset by visuals that are not state of the art are going to suffer mental damage if they ever watch a Golden Age (1930' or 1940's) movie.........

 

Though I would maintain that for sheer visual beauty wiht colors,  the 1938 Robin Hood has never been surpassed.

Edited May 24, 2023 by dudalb

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 

This can fire back in the other direction, though, in an era where filmmakers don't use extras and insane real structure sets to the extent of previous iterations due to the prohibitive costs.

 

I watched Carry on Cleo the other day and some of the Roman sets in that look more tactile and atmospheric than anything we get now. Never mind something like Quo Vadis or Ben Hur or Cleopatra.

The fun with Carry On Cleo is that the satire is specifially aimed at the 1963 Cleo.

And it had one of all time favorite lines

"Infamy! Infamy! They all have it Infamy!".

[Merkel]

6 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I disagree. A good script is the foundation, 

 

 

Of course. It's an amalgamation of many mediums. Of visual art, of music, of sound, dialogue, the written word, choreography. It pretty much encompasses all arts. I just find calling film a visual medium is deeply reductive

[vinny2487]

4 hours ago, 21C said:

Between The Flash and Justice League I kinda wonder if this means that Batman isn't that big a draw in team-up films. It'd make sense since audiences have been conditioned to think of Batman as a solo property, and his most succesful incarnations have been the "grounded" ones.  The fact Flash points to be opening significantly lower than The Batman even though The Batman was a new incarnation of the character and Flash has Keaton, seems to point to that as well.

Perhaps grounded/realistic solo Batman truly is the Batman that modern audiences prefer. Something that Gunn will have to keep in mind. 

The opening weekend BO of Batman v Superman says otherwise. People were hyped for that movie and WB absolutely laid a rotten egg with that movie. A more competent director BvS would've been a $1 billion+ movie and the DCEU wouldn't be in such a sorry state.