View Poll Results: Which do you prefer ZS Justice League or Infinity War/Endgame?

Voters
140. You may not vote on this poll
  • Zack Snyder’s Justice League

    19 13.57%
  • Avengers Infinity War-Endgame

    121 86.43%
Page 22 of 45 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324252632 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 669
  1. #316
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    The easiest answer is that people expect different things from different characters. For example, notice nobody's complaining about Aquaman killing. Mostly because that's not a huge part of his character. Same goes for someone like Iron Man.

    For Batman, Superman and even WW, not killing is a pretty HUGE part of their characterizations. So much so that entire story arcs have been devoted to it. Captain America is the moral equivalent to Superman in a lot of ways but he's also a soldier, so isn't expected to have as strict code against killing as Clark does. That doesn't mean people would be okay with him just murking people like the Punisher but in the heat of battle, it's far more acceptable. Same reason people forgive Wonder Woman killing in WW I but think it was too far in Justice League. It's not as simple as "Marvel killing is ok and with DC it's bad." There's levels to this. Hope that helps clarify things a bit.

    Spider-man is at least as much about not killing as Trinity, if not more so.
    IW, as said he came up with a plan to murder someone.

    I don't like the Spider-man Home series, so i can't remember almost anything about what happened.


    *Sorry, edited to NOT killing for spider-man.
    Last edited by tyusmax; 04-16-2021 at 03:28 PM.

  2. #317
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Tripper View Post
    I don't think you're actually being objective about Thanos' VFX though. It's all well and good to imply that Darkseid looks better because he is like an orc but that doesn't mean the vfx is better. One of the many praises given to Infinity War/Endgame is how they managed to make a fully CGI villain seem realistic, both in terms of character and design. If Darkseid is like an orc, Thanos' design is more in line with the Naavi, in that the designers and artists managed to craft something realistic. The way his face moves and they way they managed to fully capture Josh Brolin's personality and movements is no small feat. I think most people would agree that Darkseid didn't manage to get to that level simply because he hasn't had a whole movie to do so, only a couple of scenes.

    I would argue that Darkseid (as Uxas) didn't look as well realised as Thanos did in any of his battle sequences, but again, Thanos had the benefit of a whole movie being about him. I guess to me, what's remarkable about Thanos is that he looked realistic. He was shown in different lights and environments throughout the films, which actually showed that there was an insane amount of work put into him - from the opening on the Asgardian ship, to the Collector's collection, to the red scapes of Titan, to the bright daylight of Wakanda we got to see Thanos look real. I don't think Darkseid had this, because we only got to see him in dark lighting - even when he was Uxas the light was pretty muddy, and then on Apokalips it was a kind of brown-orange light.

    Honestly, it sounds like your problem is with the design of the characters, not the VFX themselves. If you like Darkseid's design because he is closer to an orc than a real person, then that's cool, but it's not the vfx you have a problem with. And even then there's no point in comparing them, because they are not reaching for the same goal.

    Marvel's (and DC's) CGI can definitely be a mixed bag - Black Panther, I'm looking at you - but man, Thanos is brilliantly rendered. Corridor Crew talk about him in detail in this and their video on Endgame.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWnRuPZ1Exg&t=70s
    I was been objective. You need to look at what I took into account in a sound way.

    The reason and film style? (Snyder is a person that see comic films beyond a kid's movie, he is not scared to give comic films a gritter or horror vibe)

    The Cinematography

    And maybe the make up. this is the reason I said Darksied not looking dark purple like his comic self was a better decision than thanos, because not every comic book character need to look like they are in film because sometimes they look too silly in live action to be taken seriously.

    If we break this down objectively , Thanos is weaker on screen in physical appearance because Snyder's decisions with Darkesid is pushing the genre more forward than Thanos.

    Thanos does not look like a Navi. If he did, James Cameron would not slam the Avengers films. I even said, it was a missed opportunity that MCU never got James Cameron AVATAR VFX. I said this on page 16 or 17 on this thread. The Navi are not even CGI. they were something out of this world, the Closest film to ever have used the style of VFX from Avatar was the quicksilver vfx in DOFP and it is not even the same thing, although it was the same kind of visual leap. Please see this thread. even many MCU fans admitted Avatar had superior VFX to Endgame.

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...me-Again/page6

    Also James has praised Zack Snyder's films, while sounding off on Avengers films.
    https://www.indiewire.com/2018/04/ja...ge-1201955913/

    Marvel's (and DC's) CGI can definitely be a mixed bag - Black Panther, I'm looking at you - but man, Thanos is brilliantly rendered. Corridor Crew talk about him in detail in this and their video on Endgame.
    Black Panther's CGI was not a mixed bag, it was simply bad not to mention disrespectful to the cast. Thanos CGI is more of a great action figure to put in toy stores, I wont call that brilliant compared to Avatar or LOTR. It also goes back to my first post on this thread, that what gives Snyder JL Cut the edge is that Snyder takes this movies very seriously to the point he sees it as high art. Even if anyone disagree that Snyder is a high art director, we cannot not admire his passion as a film maker. Marvel just doesn't really have the same artistic drive like Snyder with making Avengers films and it shows a lot.
    Last edited by Castle; 04-16-2021 at 03:12 PM.

  3. #318
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    11,186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffHanger2 View Post
    Because in their minds DCEU chars are "morally superior" to MCU characters. And "morally superior" heroes would rather let mass murderers break out of jail over and over again to kill boatloads of innocent people. Rather than kill said villains. It's kinda dumb imo but hey.
    That's because comics refuse to evolve and actually keep them in prison and develop new villains. It's odd to complain about heroes not killing off their villains then.

    Most of the time, the MCU heroes are fighting in some kind of bigger combat situation. Whereas Batman in BvS was fighting at street level, where killing is usally less necessary. But I agree on Hawkeye. I hated that nonsense

  4. #319
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    And yet you haven't responded to Jack the Triper who gave very clear reasoning as to why he prefers Thanos to Darkseid...

    You're also ignoring what fans are saying about WW on her CBR board here.
    I did not call what he said nonsense, also I have replied back to give what I hope is a sounder logical reason, to show why Darksied was a better visual leap forward with bringing ridiculous comic book looking characters like Darkseid/Thanos to live action.

  5. #320
    Mighty Member marvelprince's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tyusmax View Post
    Alright, I've been trying to avoid this topic so as not to have a 20 page back and forth.
    But it's starting to bother me.

    Why is it ok for MCU heroes to kill but not DCEU?

    For the record, I would prefer that superheroes don't kill unless absolutely necessary.
    WW blowing up the terrorist and the wall was definitely overkill.
    I am ok with Superman killing Zod b/c what are you gonna do with him? He's too powerful to hold anywhere. Also, he was directly threatening to kill civilians at the time.


    But over the years, I've heard a constant refrain about how any superheroes (especially Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman) should never never kill anyone period.
    However, these same people have no problem with MCU characters doing the same thing.


    Captain America is supposed to be the moral equivilent of Superman for Marvel.
    I just rewatched some of Winter Soldier (one of my favorite MCU movies).
    In there he threw multiple people over the side of the ship into the ocean (presumably killing them).
    He straight up tossed a grenade at 3 people to kill them. In contrast, Batman in the warehouse fight in BvS everyone always references blocked a grenade at him in desperation, and it happened to roll towards some bad guys.
    Are you telling me that a Super Soldier cannot find a way to subdue his normal human enemies without killing them?

    Falcon and Black Widow, murdering people with guns.


    In Endgame, Hawkeye hunting down and killing Yakuza
    In IM3, Tony "terminate with extreme prejudice" and also murdering Extremis.

    In IW, Spider-man, who should never ever kill, comes up with a plan to kill the Thanos TK guy that had Dr. Strange captive.

    In Falcon and Winter Soldier, Falcon kills like 15 dudes in the first half hour.


    I know there are a couple people that says it's all about WW portrayal and nothing else, and that's fine.

    But it seems like a large majority are all about the no killing in DCEU and fine with it in MCU.
    To me, there seems to be a disconnect on their take on superheroes.
    That interpretation says if you are a superhero, then you shouldn't kill, period. It should not matter if they come from DCEU or MCU.

    And whenever someone brings this up, they're always like don't compare the two universes. They want to silo off one from the other and not engage on the premise.

    So can someone explain to me what the difference is?



    I took a great deal of time and effort to craft this post, so I hope I am not offending anyone.
    You know I recently had a friend staying with me and I introduced her to the MCU films from the start, and was a little taken aback that by the time we got to Age of Ultron she said "so these guys just run around killing everyone?". I instinctively went to disagree, but then I thought about it and realized she had a point. Lots of casual deaths from the MCU characters and very few times did I even react. I think (for me personally) the difference is that Marvel characters just don't make as big as a deal about the no killing (or with Batman no guns) rule like the DC heroes. Stuff like Galactic Storm where the entire team was split over taking a life was ages ago, lately they voted to let Wolverine on the team cause maybe they'd need someone gutted at some point. Even guys like Deadpool have been Avengers. How many people has Venom eaten and he's got Cap on speed dial now? The DC heroes have always seemed more idealistic and hopeful so unfortunately it puts that added burden on them to be virtuous. Do I wish the Marvel heroes would be less kill happy? Sure. But I also understand in the context of the that universe where a majority of the team is made of soldiers/military personnel with people trying to take you out then yeah you're gonna use lethal force. Cap was a soldier and was shown to have taken lives in the war, Black Widow and Hawkeye were assassin's before joining shield, Sam and Carol were in the Air Force, Rhodey is a marine, Thor is a warrior god, Iron Man was an arms dealer. In comics I think its really only guys like Spidey who continue to really onto the Never Kill No Matter the circumstances attitude these days at Marvel.

    Now I don't have any issues with stuff like Superman killing Zod (he made it clear he would not stop so that's fine), but its so weird seeing a character like Batman who's whole thing for decades has been "guns are bad" actually use them so frequently (for me Batman using guns period bothers me more than him killing). But I don't think anyone really has an issue with say Aquaman taking a life cause he's established he will do that in the books, Wonder Woman some are split on (personally I prefer the Wonder Woman who will try to be peaceful but will cut of your head if necessary). When Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord we literally had 3, maybe more events that focused on why that was wrong and how that lead the DC down a "dark path". This juxtaposed with Hawkeye when went to assassinate Norman Osborn and got a very stern lecture for it or when he actually did kill an Avenger and got some very dirty looks for a few issues.

  6. #321
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    I did not call what he said nonsense, also I have replied back to give what I hope is a sounder logical reason, to show why Darksied was a better visual leap forward with bringing ridiculous comic book looking characters like Darkseid/Thanos to live action.
    I didn't say you did. I said you skipped over his reasoning/post. You went back AFTER I pointed it out to you.

    And you're still ignoring what actual WW fans on CBR have to say on the matter of her killing.

  7. #322
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    One thing this discussion is missing is the chance for objective POV.
    Let's be honest, you rarely ever have an objective POV when it comes to the MCU.

    You try to sell your opinion as facts.

    Someone gives their opinion and you try to treat it as a fact to 'correct'.

    You are off the mark so many times it really is like you are trying to provoke posters.

    If someone hates something which you enjoy it's okay. We are all different.

    If someone likes something you dislike it's okay too. We are all different.

    You really should have more of an open-mind.

  8. #323
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mik View Post
    That's because comics refuse to evolve and actually keep them in prison and develop new villains. It's odd to complain about heroes not killing off their villains then.

    Most of the time, the MCU heroes are fighting in some kind of bigger combat situation. Whereas Batman in BvS was fighting at street level, where killing is usally less necessary. But I agree on Hawkeye. I hated that nonsense
    But that's the thing they won't admit it's a lack of evolution or bad writing. They really think that represents some type of moral superiority. I don't think it's an odd complaint when there are no consequences for villains mass murdering. I would disagree killing is less necessary on a street level especially for a char with no super powers. In rl it would come down to kill or be killed for a masked vigilante.

  9. #324
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffHanger2 View Post
    Because in their minds DCEU chars are "morally superior" to MCU characters. And "morally superior" heroes would rather let mass murderers break out of jail over and over again to kill boatloads of innocent people. Rather than kill said villains. It's kinda dumb imo but hey.
    That's not really a factor in finite film continuities though. The reason they always break out over and over again is because the comics writers want to use the villains over and over, and there is no planned end for DC comic continuity. Even death isn't a permanent solution for villains in comics, so the debate on whether heroes would be more heroic if they killed their villains is kind of pointless.

    But take for example Nolan's Joker: Batman refused to kill him and not let him have the "moral victory", and for all intents and purposes the Joker never escaped again. So Batman's no kill/avoid killing rule worked out there because the story allowed it. Same with the Phantom Zone criminals in MOS, no other prison would ever hold them and it would be catastrophic if they ever got out again, but there don't seem to be any plans for them to ever escape, so it's moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    No I dont think WW fans care about her fighting style in an r rated film, this is the reason the complaint is only made mostly here, by the same people saying favouring IW/Endgameover the JL Cut.
    It being an R rating has nothing to do with it. She can exist in an R rated movie without needlessly killing or doing property damage. Nobody is really complaining about her speed displays when blocking the bullets or why there are comparatively less complaints about her killing Steppenwolf. Because he's a metahuman on or (ugh) above her level who almost ended the world.

    Killing human terrorists when she has the power to not do it is beneath her. Like if the Punisher just blew all their brains out or the Hulk smashed them to bits, I'd cheer and laugh. But this is Wonder Woman, not them.
    Last edited by SiegePerilous02; 04-16-2021 at 04:05 PM.

  10. #325
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    That's not really a factor in finite film continuities though. The reason they always break out over and over again is because the comics writers want to use the villains over and over, and there is no planned end for DC comic continuity. Even death isn't a permanent solution for villains in comics, so the debate on whether heroes would be more heroic if they killed their villains is kind of pointless.

    But take for example Nolan's Joker: Batman refused to kill him and not let him have the "moral victory", and for all intents and purposes the Joker never escaped again. So Batman's no kill/avoid killing rule worked out there because the story allowed it. Same with the Phantom Zone criminals in MOS, no other prison would ever hold them and it would be catastrophic if they ever got out again, but there don't seem to be any plans for them to ever escape, so it's moot.



    It being an R rating has nothing to do with it. She can exist in an R rated movie without needlessly killing or doing property damage. Nobody is really complaining about her speed displays when blocking the bullets or why there are comparatively less complaints about her killing Steppenwolf. Because he's a metahuman on or (ugh) above her level who almost ended the world.

    Killing human terrorists when she has the power to not do it is beneath her. Like if the Punisher just blew all their brains out or the Hulk smashed them to bits, I'd cheer and laugh. But this is Wonder Woman, not them.
    Eh, I'm not sure it worked out. The Joker killed the love of his life,drove Dent crazy and was blowing up hospitals ffs. I mean I get not wanting to kill but the guy jumps off his bike to avoid hitting Joker and ends up killing Dent in the end anyway. It's like way to go protecting your city guy. Yeah I'd feel safer with sonic boom WW around.

  11. #326
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colossus1980 View Post
    Let's be honest, you rarely ever have an objective POV when it comes to the MCU.

    You try to sell your opinion as facts.

    Someone gives their opinion and you try to treat it as a fact to 'correct'.

    You are off the mark so many times it really is like you are trying to provoke posters.

    If someone hates something which you enjoy it's okay. We are all different.

    If someone likes something you dislike it's okay too. We are all different.

    You really should have more of an open-mind.
    About been objective. I think you need to read this. it is your own post.
    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...dislikes/page5
    Biggest dislike for Marvel is the Fox X-Men. The brand is tainted and a lot of it is ruined IMO for new fans to come along. The characters and plotlines should have been adapted into billion dollar movies but there were a lot of box office disappointments. Probably will never see another adaptation of the Dark Phoenix in my lifetime. Fox really dropped the ball with the X-Men.
    Now to be objective and even truthful.
    1. Fox movies saved Marvel from bankruptcy, without Fox, Sony there would be no IW/Endgame. this is the truth.

    2. While it is personally and always possible not to like Fox films just because they are not part of the MCU. it is factually not objective to say Fox totally dropped the ball because Fox movies did on correct terms push the comic book genre forward and have gone places MCU will never be able to go. This is a fact in 2021 because MCU cannot make anymore r rated movies like Logan or PG 13 films like DOFP because Disney is not allowed to have certain content in their movies as confirmed by their spiderman and iron man directors, not to mention the grounded style and heavy social themes of the fox films that was their only high acclaim.

    In a twist of fate, JL Cut does have more of a Marvel fox vibe, that you were never objective about. That is part of the reason it is so well made from a director's POV. Snyder owned this film as Mangold owned Logan

    So please next time you tell me to be objective, dont. I dont say anything that I know is a big fact lie about marvel or dc because I Have never looked at it as marvel fans vs dc fans.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post

    It being an R rating has nothing to do with it. She can exist in an R rated movie without needlessly killing or doing property damage. Nobody is really complaining about her speed displays when blocking the bullets or why there are comparatively less complaints about her killing Steppenwolf. Because he's a metahuman on or (ugh) above her level who almost ended the world.

    Killing human terrorists when she has the power to not do it is beneath her. Like if the Punisher just blew all their brains out or the Hulk smashed them to bits, I'd cheer and laugh. But this is Wonder Woman, not them.
    In the Avengers films, I am pretty sure hulk did more damage and killed people in the name of stopping Loki.

    And the word is where it ends. she killed terrorists. Maybe we should let WW elevate from Avengers to more like Jack Buaer from 24. This just confirms when Snyder said he was telling a more mature comic book story. in that content, it is perfectly okay to kill terrorists.
    Last edited by Castle; 04-16-2021 at 04:20 PM.

  12. #327
    All-New Member MarshallBravestarr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    New Texas
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tyusmax View Post
    Alright, I've been trying to avoid this topic so as not to have a 20 page back and forth.
    But it's starting to bother me.

    Why is it ok for MCU heroes to kill but not DCEU?

    For the record, I would prefer that superheroes don't kill unless absolutely necessary.
    WW blowing up the terrorist and the wall was definitely overkill.
    I am ok with Superman killing Zod b/c what are you gonna do with him? He's too powerful to hold anywhere. Also, he was directly threatening to kill civilians at the time.


    But over the years, I've heard a constant refrain about how any superheroes (especially Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman) should never never kill anyone period.
    However, these same people have no problem with MCU characters doing the same thing.


    Captain America is supposed to be the moral equivilent of Superman for Marvel.
    I just rewatched some of Winter Soldier (one of my favorite MCU movies).
    In there he threw multiple people over the side of the ship into the ocean (presumably killing them).
    He straight up tossed a grenade at 3 people to kill them. In contrast, Batman in the warehouse fight in BvS everyone always references blocked a grenade at him in desperation, and it happened to roll towards some bad guys.
    Are you telling me that a Super Soldier cannot find a way to subdue his normal human enemies without killing them?

    Falcon and Black Widow, murdering people with guns.


    In Endgame, Hawkeye hunting down and killing Yakuza
    In IM3, Tony "terminate with extreme prejudice" and also murdering Extremis.

    In IW, Spider-man, who should never ever kill, comes up with a plan to kill the Thanos TK guy that had Dr. Strange captive.

    In Falcon and Winter Soldier, Falcon kills like 15 dudes in the first half hour.


    I know there are a couple people that says it's all about WW portrayal and nothing else, and that's fine.

    But it seems like a large majority are all about the no killing in DCEU and fine with it in MCU.
    To me, there seems to be a disconnect on their take on superheroes.
    That interpretation says if you are a superhero, then you shouldn't kill, period. It should not matter if they come from DCEU or MCU.

    And whenever someone brings this up, they're always like don't compare the two universes. They want to silo off one from the other and not engage on the premise.

    So can someone explain to me what the difference is?



    I took a great deal of time and effort to craft this post, so I hope I am not offending anyone.
    As someone who prefers the MCU to the DCEU and is not a huge fan of Snyder’s overall work, this is one argument I agree with. I don’t see any practical difference to WW chopping off Steppenwolf’s head to IM snapping him away to dust. I’m fairly certain that in every single IM movie, Tony kills the final villain. I don’t see how that’s any different to snapping Zod’s neck.

    Again, not a huge fan of Snyder’s work, but I disagree completely with the idea that he made the heroes much more “violent” than in the MCU.

  13. #328
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    ...


    Now to be objective and even truthful.
    1. Fox movies saved Marvel from bankruptcy, without Fox, Sony there would be no IW/Endgame. this is the truth.

    ...
    It is also a non-issue.

    It has objectively right around "Nothing..." to do with the quality of the films or if animated films are even remotely related to the specific "Snyder..." live action continuity.

    So, that's seriously where being "Objective..." totally falls apart. It's when grabbing stuff that has nothing to do with it gets thrown up against the wall to see if it will stick starts to happen.

  14. #329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    I was been objective. You need to look at what I took into account in a sound way.

    The reason and film style? (Snyder is a person that see comic films beyond a kid's movie, he is not scared to give comic films a gritter or horror vibe)
    I get that, but in terms of the VFX it's not conveyed. Again, I think you're talking about the designs/concept art more so than the actual VFX. In fact, stating that it's better due to Snyder aiming to tell a more adult focussed story shows that you're judging the VFX subjectively, not objectively. For example Fant4stic (2015) aimed to tell a body horror story aimed at older teens and adults, however this does not mean its rendering of The Thing is better than the rendering of Hulk in Avengers. You may appreciate that they were going for something "grittier and horrifying" but that doesn't automatically mean that its better from an objective standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    The Cinematography

    And maybe the make up. this is the reason I said Darksied not looking dark purple like his comic self was a better decision than thanos, because not every comic book character need to look like they are in film because sometimes they look too silly in live action to be taken seriously.

    If we break this down objectively , Thanos is weaker on screen in physical appearance because Snyder's decisions with Darkesid is pushing the genre more forward than Thanos.
    I'd argue that, due to the fact they managed to make a pink/purple skinned character believable and relatable to the mass audience, they actually pushed the envelope pretty far in that regard. Again, Thanos was one of the most beloved parts of IW/Endgame and has become an iconic villain pretty quickly. As much as I would have agreed with you before Infinity War, it's got to be said that they actually managed to make this huge, pink, scrotum-chinned dude that wears a colourful glove a believable character. I'm sure Darkseid would get the same treatment if we got a movie dedicated to him.

    I would like to point out as well that CGI grey skinned monsters aren't all that unique in blockbuster films - Cloverfield, Orcs/Trolls in the Hobbit films, Doomsday, Trolls in Harry Potter. I don't think Darkseid pushed the envelope at all - although the hologram graphics were great.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Thanos does not look like a Navi. If he did, James Cameron would not slam the Avengers films. I even said, it was a missed opportunity that MCU never got James Cameron AVATAR VFX. I said this on page 16 or 17 on this thread. The Navi are not even CGI. they were something out of this world, the Closest film to ever have used the style of VFX from Avatar was the quicksilver vfx in DOFP and it is not even the same thing, although it was the same kind of visual leap. Please see this thread. even many MCU fans admitted Avatar had superior VFX to Endgame.
    I'm not saying that Thanos looks similar to the Naavi, nor am I saying that the MCU has Avatar level effects. You're reading into my post incorrectly. What I'm saying, is that Thanos looks like a real character - his expressions and his movements feel realistic (not perfect mind you) - like the N'aavi. You say Darkseid is similar to an orc, but that does not mean he looks as good as the prosthetic make up used for orcs in the LotR trilogy - because he doesn't. No CGI will ever look as good as the real thing done well. But all in all, Thanos was made to look like a realistic humanoid with realistic expressions and emotions, and Darkseid was made with the sole purpose of looking threatening (as far as I can tell) - which is fine. It's perfectly acceptable. It doesn't mean either is bad. But to imply that the one with less screen time, less dynamic, and less presence is "objectively" better is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Black Panther's CGI was not a mixed bag, it was simply bad not to mention disrespectful to the cast. Thanos CGI is more of a great action figure to put in toy stores, I wont call that brilliant compared to Avatar or LOTR. It also goes back to my first post on this thread, that what gives Snyder JL Cut the edge is that Snyder takes this movies very seriously to the point he sees it as high art. Even if anyone disagree that Snyder is a high art director, we cannot not admire his passion as a film maker. Marvel just doesn't really have the same artistic drive like Snyder with making Avengers films and it shows a lot.
    Sorry, my mistake, I was trying to imply that Black Panther was the worst in the MCU's mixed bag. Again, I'm not comparing IW/Endgame to Avatar or LotR - I'm just saying that Thanos' VFX are clearly influenced by Avatar's VFX. I'm not saying it's better than that. However, as I stated, Thanos' physical believability was one of the most lauded aspects of these films, which shows how successful the VFX teams were at creating this character - so to dismiss that is quite a blatant bout of subjectivity.

    For me, an artistic vision isn't enough for me to like a movie. Yes, Snyder has a vision, but so did Tommy Wiseau when he made The Room. An artistic vision alone is not enough for it to be objectively better than something. Corey Feldman's Angelic 2 The Core is his own artistic vision, but I'd much rather listen to a Dua Lipa album.

    I think people judging something as better just because they feel the director has more of an artistic mind than another is its own kind of bias honestly. They refuse to judge a film on its own merits, and instead judge it based on their pre-conceived notions of what another film/series is like.

  15. #330
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Tripper View Post
    ...


    I would like to point out as well that CGI grey skinned monsters aren't all that unique in blockbuster films - Cloverfield, Orcs/Trolls in the Hobbit films, Doomsday, Trolls in Harry Potter. I don't think Darkseid pushed the envelope at all
    - although the hologram graphics were great.

    ...
    Chitauri.

    In an MCU film.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •