-
[QUOTE=James Cameron;6065509]Again, it's not one or the other!!
Have these MCU movies convinced you there are only two ways to do this? Are you seriously acting like pratical and digital effects have never been used simultaneously? Do you think there are no characters in all of media that have been made taller and more muscular without being turned completely animated?
Please look beyond how these shows are just entertainment for you[/QUOTE]
Move those goalposts farther.
You specifically said "Just paint her green!"
Please look beyond your own self-righteous nonsense.
-
[QUOTE=ZeroBG82;6065525]Move those goalposts farther.
You specifically said "Just paint her green!"
Please look beyond your own self-righteous nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Self righteous because I care about art and artists getting a fair shot and fair compensation? What is the correlation?
For a start, yes, just paint her green. Never said it ended there, but it would look way better than what we have now.
What I'm trying to say is the "movie making factory" is doing a disservice to a great character, primarily out of greed.
-
Let's wait and see how the actual show turns out before complaining about the CGI effects; frequently, trailers don't even use fully rendered graphics anyways.
-
[QUOTE=WebLurker;6065534]Let's wait and see how the actual show turns out before complaining about the CGI effects; frequently, trailers don't even use fully rendered graphics anyways.[/QUOTE]
Not just complaining about the effects themselves -- moreso the darker reason they went that route to begin with
-
[QUOTE=James Cameron;6065540]Not just complaining about the effects themselves -- moreso the darker reason they went that route to begin with[/QUOTE]
They went with CGI because hiring a female body builder and painting her green wouldn't adequately bring the character to life. The Hulk is a separate entity from Bruce Banner, and if you're looking to bring the Savage Hulk to the screen you don't really need an articulate actor for the role so you can have the Hulk physically be a different actor than Banner and it isn't an issue...but She-Hulk is differnt, She-Hulk is still Jenn, you're supposed to be able to still recognize that it's the same person just bigger and greener which means that it can't be some body builder because you need an actress capable of nuance.
-
[QUOTE=James Cameron;6065540]Not just complaining about the effects themselves -- moreso the darker reason they went that route to begin with[/QUOTE]
Darker reasons? You are making an unfounded assumption and treating it as fact. The Hulk is cgi and has been for over a decade. So why wouldn’t they try that with She Hulk? There doesn’t have to be some nefarious reason behind it.
They made a choice. One they think works best for the character and the story they want to tell. They still use plenty of practical effects and makeup artists where it makes sense. However even if they didn’t it’s not like they are under some obligation to do so. If cgi gets good enough and cheap enough to use exclusively that would be a valid decision.
-
[QUOTE=James Cameron;6065513]Not convinced, because they could have easily done that with minimal digital effects and makeup, and the MCU has done this constantly, made digital creations out of things that could have been practical, but aren't because they can do it for far cheaper with folks who aren't part of unions.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure if only because of the kind of "look" they want to capture with her and the kind of feats/movement she's going to be doing.
-
[QUOTE=James Cameron;6065540]Not just complaining about the effects themselves -- moreso the darker reason they went that route to begin with[/QUOTE]
What darker reasons? Hulks have been CGI characters from day one in the movies.
-
[QUOTE=WebLurker;6066239]What darker reasons?[/QUOTE]
Scroll back. He's already explained that in previous posts.
-
Wasn’t there a report that they slimmed her down from the original design on orders from above?
I’ve been thinking that it’s possible her design is more off putting than desired if they had a “perfected” design and then had to modify it rather than create one from the ground up.
-
While I understand why they chose CGI, it does take away from the character to do that, in my opinion. A big part of the character's being is her sex appeal, and that just becomes at best an awkward thing with an all CGI character. At worst it will be laughable.
I will still watch it, but getting strong vibes that this could end up being funny for the wrong reasons.
-
[QUOTE=Scott Taylor;6067742]While I understand why they chose CGI, it does take away from the character to do that, in my opinion. A big part of the character's being is her sex appeal, and that just becomes at best an awkward thing with an all CGI character. At worst it will be laughable.
I will still watch it, but getting strong vibes that this could end up being funny for the wrong reasons.[/QUOTE]
I mean, I don't think her being CGI precludes her from being sexy unless that takes people out of it but I guess that might be a your mileage might vary thing.
-
I am just really hoping we see more of Matt Murdock in the MCU starting with this show. I hope the rumors are true.
-
[QUOTE=WebLurker;6065534]Let's wait and see how the actual show turns out before complaining about the CGI effects; frequently, trailers don't even use fully rendered graphics anyways.[/QUOTE]
I'm always a bit amazed by people who excuse a bad trailer and urge the viewer to wait and watch the movie/show before deciding.
A trailer is a commercial. It's whole point is to sell you on something by putting the best aspects of the show/movie on view (or at least hinting at them). If, instead, it made the viewer think a major aspect of the show/movie isn't put together well it failed and there's no valid reason to expect the viewer to tune in.
I honestly can't think of any other industry that expects its consumers to purchase and try a product despite bad marketing. You don't see, for example, Ford or GM putting out a commercial where the wheels fall off or the rear gas tank catches fire on the theory that drivers should "wait and see" how the car drives after buying one.
-
[QUOTE=Mark Trail;6068722]I honestly can't think of any other industry that expects its consumers to purchase and try a product despite bad marketing. You don't see, for example, Ford or GM putting out a commercial where the wheels fall off or the rear gas tank catches fire on the theory that drivers should "wait and see" how the car drives after buying one.[/QUOTE]
If that's not a false equivalency, then there is no such thing. There is a big difference between waiting and seeing on a car where the wheels fall off and an hour long show on a subscription service you probably already have. Entertainment is the definition of a low stakes endeavor.
I get what you're trying to say and I am in no way defending the less than great trailer. In fact, I agree with you, but the metaphor is clumsy.
