The model work in TMP and TWOK is just exquisite.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
It really isn't anything new with Thunderbolts*, for the last few years now more and more movies and TV shows have been going back to more practical effects. Christopher Nolan has especially become known for keeping the CGI in his movies to the absolute bare minimum. I haven't seen it yet so I don't know how it came across onscreen, but I read that even the nuclear bomb going off in Oppenheimer was done practically.
Costume fitting leak of Doom
I was disappointed by Oppenheimer's depiction of the atomic explosion, because it was too much of a conventional movie fireball. Even a big one of those doesn't scale up convincingly to the appearance and behavior of a nuclear explosion, which is far bigger and hotter and interacts differently with the layers of the atmosphere as it rises. This is one case where I feel CGI would've been a better choice.
Given that the recent "photos" of Marsden, Wong and McKellen shooting Doomsday turned out to be AI generated I'm going to wait for more proof.Costume fitting leak of Doom
Though not nearly to the extent that they want you to think they have. It's part of standard big budget buzzword bingo to talk about "doing it for real!", even though they know full well there are still 2,000 VFX shots in the film, and that almost no effects shot doesn't get touched up digitally in one way or another.
As long as the end result is good, I'm happy.
Nothing wrong with that. The best way to do visual effects has always been to mix and match techniques, to use whatever method works best for a given shot or element, and vary it up so that the limitations of any one technique don't become too evident. In the pre-digital days, it was common for a single FX shot to combine live-action, miniatures, matte paintings, animation, and sometimes even superimposed smoke or flame effects. So there's nothing the least bit wrong with a single shot today combining both practical and CGI elements. The only problem with CGI is that filmmakers often have a tendency to rely on it exclusively and use it to excess. As long as it's one tool in the kit, used in concert with other techniques to refine and improve them, then it's been used properly.
That was impressive. A little jerky, but I assume that's an issue with the YouTube clip rather than the original effect.
It would've been nice to see it in color, though. I was going to complain about Oppenheimer's fireball being orange, since I figured a mushroom cloud would be white-hot or blue-hot. But I looked it up, and apparently eyewitness accounts generally agree it starts out blindingly white and then cools to yellow and orange. Evidently some eyewitnesses in Hiroshima described a multicolored cloud, which could've been from various elements burning in various colors, or it could've been a trick of the eye looking at a bright white light.
Costume fitting leak of Doom
Where's the helmet? Let me guess. He won't be wearing it much in the movie.
It's digital.
This probably isn't a real picture.
I welcome more practical FX, as the MCUs history with CGI has been spotty more often than not.
Well, they have to give hope to the dreams of those "Doom is a Stark variant" fanboys, right?
Keep in mind that in most of Downey's scenes as Iron Man, he was wearing a mocap suit and the armor was entirely a digital creation. If that photo is real and represents how he'd look on the set, it's possible that he'll have severe scarring digitally added, or something. There's no telling at this point, so it's best not to jump to conclusions.
People really need to learn to recognise AI slop because it's only going to get worse and worse (ie technically better and better.)
I was wondering how they were going to be pull that off, I know nuclear explosions act in a specific way and I was how they were going to do it without CGI or a real nuclear explosion.
Sure, but at least they're doing more stuff that can be done in camera with practical effect. It seemed like for a while even the simplest things were being done with CGI when it could have just as easily been done practically, and probably would have been more convincing.Though not nearly to the extent that they want you to think they have. It's part of standard big budget buzzword bingo to talk about "doing it for real!", even though they know full well there are still 2,000 VFX shots in the film, and that almost no effects shot doesn't get touched up digitally in one way or another.
As long as the end result is good, I'm happy.
And cover those luscious locks?