Stephen Dorff BW garbage nonsense

[CTTT]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...on-1234977635/

Yet another star comes out of the woodwork to criticize MCU movies and blockbusters. Dorff has no room to talk because he starred in Blade in 1998. It's fine for actors/directors to not want to do comic book movies or like them because they appreciate "real" cinema. I appreciate the classics too. But, since they have nothing bad to say about BO take, the only comment they have to say is that the movies are garbage. Both in the MCU and outside of it, there have been various movies that show how comic book movies can be done well. Even on the animation side. I feel a lot of jealousy from Dorff coming out. He wishes he could have a movie gross a billion plus. Oh wait, but it has to be an art movie that does it that justifies it. If they want to point the finger at anyone blame Steven Spielberg and Jaws for ushering in the summer blockbuster. And just cause one likes comic book movies doesn't mean it's not real cinema or that person doesn't appreciate real cinema.

[Frobisher]

The article forgot to mention what new film he was attempting to promote, which is pretty funny.

[Username taken]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

But calling other people's hard work garbage and belittling the lead actress is quite wrong.

Especially considering Dorff is promoting a new film and he did Blade and Bucky Larson back in the day.

He should apologize to Scarlett Johansson for his ridiculous comments. They were totally uncalled for

[chicago_bastard]

Stephen Dorff: "I still hunt out the good **** because I don’t want to be in Black Widow"

Also Stephen Dorff: Played in Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark and the abysmal Sandler-written Bucky Larson


He made a smart move with this interview though. This is by far the biggest media coverage he has gotten in the last 20 years. Say something about the biggest pop-cultural phenomenon in the world and you'll get attention.

[Castle]

I dont think it is anything fresh that someone thinks marvel movies are not real movies or whatever. that been said, I think marvel should at least listen about their CGI. It's been a reoccurring thing as far back as I can remember, maybe even as far as Avengers 2012 and it has become so negative in their phase 3 era and from what I can see so far their phase 4 also. yes I am still looking at you Black Panther and Infifnty Wars Endgame. the 3rd and 4th avengers films is so video gamish for a series in their 3rd phase.


I dont why marvel keeps making their cgi like this, even if they want to sell toys, there should still be a balance with reality on how live action movies should look on the big screen with all the new film technical grounds that is broken every day, especially when you are the richest movie studio in the world.

When I and my siblings were watching Mortal Kombat, they felt that although the movie did have all the violent fatalities from the game, the movie looked barely violent at all because the cgi looked so fake and less convincing than the games but mortal kombat has a 50 million dollar budget or less.

MCU spends 200 million to even close to a billion on their movies, yet they have the most generic looking cgi that only says, buy the toys. the film making of their movies can be better and I say this with real genuine honesty and not hate that some always accuse me off. Also about black widow, Grace Randolph reviews seems the most balanced between many of the biased critics that will always give a MCU movie a pass and the ANTI SJWs who just trash every female lead comic film.

Grace did talk about how the movie is video game animated in quality, which seems to be the most important thing to care about with what Stephen Dorff said because let's be clear, Disney Marvel don't need to beg anyone to be in their movies. Many actors would want to be in a Disney Marvel film because of the millions they can make from it.



Many people dont even know who Dorff is.

[chicago_bastard]

CGI is such a negligible aspect of a movie's quality that nobody who wants to be taken seriously would make it a focal point of their review. In a few years the CGI will be outdated anyway no matter how state of the art it is nowadays.

A movie can have state of the art CGI like Transformers 3 and still be garbage. On the other hand a good movie isn't necessarily hampered by subpar CGI. Scorsese's The Irishman has some really poor effects like the scene in which "young" De Niro is kicking a guy and you clearly see that he's actually 80 years old, even though the movie had the budget of a smaller scale MCU movie. That alone doesn't make it a bad film though.

Have to say it's funny that someone who champions ZSJL is accusing other movies of looking like video games. But ZSJL isn't bad because of the poor CGI, it has far bigger problems on top of that.

[KCJ506]

“I still hunt out the good **** because I don’t want to be in Black Widow,” the True Detective actor told the newspaper. “It looks like garbage to me. It looks like a bad video game. I’m embarrassed for those people. I’m embarrassed for Scarlett! I’m sure she got paid five, seven million bucks, but I’m embarrassed for her. I don’t want to be in those movies. I really don’t. I’ll find that kid director that’s gonna be the next [Stanley] Kubrick and I’ll act for him instead.”

This sounds like something an edgy theater student would say. And he's quite the opposite of an auteur actor.

He's embarrassed for Scarlett, but stars in this?

AABYjZAACD0L.jpg

[Noodle]

Many people dont even know who Dorff is.

About as many that don't know who Grace is, but you cite her review as if it means something.

[Username taken]

I dont think it is anything fresh that someone thinks marvel movies are not real movies or whatever. that been said, I think marvel should at least listen about their CGI. It's been a reoccurring thing as far back as I can remember, maybe even as far as Avengers 2012 and it has become so negative in their phase 3 era and from what I can see so far their phase 4 also. yes I am still looking at you Black Panther and Infifnty Wars Endgame. the 3rd and 4th avengers films is so video gamish for a series in their 3rd phase.


I dont why marvel keeps making their cgi like this, even if they want to sell toys, there should still be a balance with reality on how live action movies should look on the big screen with all the new film technical grounds that is broken every day, especially when you are the richest movie studio in the world.

When I and my siblings were watching Mortal Kombat, they felt that although the movie did have all the violent fatalities from the game game, the movie looked barely violent at all because the cgi looked so fake and less convincing than the games but mortal kombat has a 50 million dollar budget or less.

MCU spends 200 million to even close to a billion on their movies, yet they have the most generic looking cgi that only says, buy the toys. the film making of their movies can be better and I say this with real genuine honesty and not hate that some always accuse me off. Also about black widow, Grace Randolph reviews seems the most balance between many of the biased critics that will always give a MCU movie a pass and the ANTI SJWs who just trash every female lead comic film.

Grace did talk about how the movie is video game animated in quality, which seems to be the most important thing to care about with what Stephen Dorff said because let's be clear, Disney Marvel don't need to beg anyone to be in their movies. Many actors would want to be in a Disney Marvel film because of the millions they can make from it.



Many people dont even know who Dorff is.

Didn't you compare a scene in TDK that was practical to a CGI scene.

You clearly can't tell what is actual CGI in movie talk much less about what's good CGI.

[Username taken]

This sounds like something an edgy theater student would say. And he's quite the opposite of an auteur actor.

He's embarrassed for Scarlett, but stars in this?

AABYjZAACD0L.jpg

It's pretty crazy.

Saying he's embarrassed for Scarlett after Dorff has starred in a glut of low brow nonsense.

I'm not usually against folks voicing their opinions but sometimes people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Username taken]

CGI is such a negligible aspect of a movie's quality that nobody who wants to be taken seriously would make it a focal point of their review. In a few years the CGI will be outdated anyway no matter how state of the art it is nowadays.

A movie can have state of the art CGI like Transformers 3 and still be garbage. On the other hand a good movie isn't necessarily hampered by subpar CGI. Scorsese's The Irishman has some really poor effects like the scene in which "young" De Niro is kicking a guy and you clearly see that he's actually 80 years old, even though the movie had the budget of a smaller scale MCU movie. That alone doesn't make it a bad film though.

Have to say it's funny that someone who champions ZSJL is accusing other movies of looking like video games. But ZSJL isn't bad because of the poor CGI, it has far bigger problems on top of that.

Quoted for truth.

CGI is not a measure of films quality.

A lot of disappointing movies like Transformers and the later Pirates of the Carribean movies (those movies have breath taking effects) but are still terrible movies.

[Tofali]

Stephen Dorff: "[B]
He made a smart move with this interview though. This is by far the biggest media coverage he has gotten in the last 20 years. Say something about the biggest pop-cultural phenomenon in the world and you'll get attention.

This is what I was thinking too when I was reading the story lol the best thing for media coverage any actor or director can do is criticizing the superhero and cbm genres but especially the MCU

[Castle]

Star Wars could easily have won best picture over Annie Hall in 1979 because the technical side of the movie was nothing short of ground breaking. James Cameron is the director he is because people know and love his work as a visual film maker, who rarely has an equal maybe apart from George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and those 2 are the blokes who really brought VFX to Hollywood movies in way that was there to say.
.

VFX matters because it is part of the film process that us suppose to make what is impossible, possible or at least as believable in the world of pure fiction. Also comic films of 20 years, part of the critical acclaim they got was because they were doing something amazing with VFX that has never been done in the genre even if they had a strong story screenplay to back it up.

X-MEN 2 is good example with Nightcrawler teleporting in the White House to the Train scene in Spiderman 2 , And that was not an easy feat in 2004 for Spiderman 2, with Will Smith's I Robot been out the same year and Alfonso Cuaron game changing how to make Harry Potter films with Prisoner of Azkaban, all these movies I mentioned brought something new or impressive visually to the world of comic books, fantasy and science fiction in 2004.

Christopher Nolan is mostly known as a high budget film director, who has never gotten nominated for best director at the oscars but his moves always win all the technical Oscars including VFX. The recent winner been Tenet in 2021, because Nolan knows how to use VFX in an updated fashion


I think it is pretty strange I am reading some reply to me saying CGI does not matter. Uh, yes it does. it is big deal in many high budget films. [B] those movies have such high budgets in the first place because VFX are meant to be very costly,Anyone that says good or bad CGI does not matter in deciding the quality of a film is what I cannot take seriously, not the other way around.

[Kirby101]

Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean were not disappointing (okay the last ones were). They are mindless fun, there is a difference.

[Username taken]

Star Wars could easily have won best picture over Annie Hall in 1979 because the technical side of the movie was nothing short of ground breaking. James Cameron is the director he is because people know and love his work as a visual film maker, who rarely has an equal maybe apart from George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and those 2 are the blokes who really brought VFX to Hollywood movies in way that was there to say.
.

VFX matters because it is part of the film process that us suppose to make what is impossible, possible or at least as believable in the world of pure fiction. Also comic films of 20 years, part of the critical acclaim they got was because they were doing something amazing with VFX that has never been done in the genre even if they had a strong story screenplay to back it up.

X-MEN 2 is good example with Nightcrawler teleporting in the White House to the Train scene in Spiderman 2 , And that was not an easy feat in 2004 for Spiderman 2, with Will Smith's I Robot been out the same year and Alfonso Cuaron game changing how to make Harry Potter films with Prisoner of Azkaban, all these movies I mentioned brought something new or impressive visually to the world of comic books, fantasy and science fiction in 2004.

Christopher Nolan is mostly known as a high budget film director, who has never gotten nominated for best director at the oscars but his moves always win all the technical Oscars including VFX. The recent winner been Tenet in 2021, because Nolan knows how to use VFX in an updated fashion


I think it is pretty strange I am reading some reply to me saying CGI does not matter. Uh, yes it does. it is big deal in many high budget films. [B] those movies have such high budgets in the first place because VFX are meant to be very costly,Anyone that says good or bad CGI does not matter in deciding the quality of a film is what I cannot take seriously, not the other way around.

This isn’t true. Some of the most critically acclaimed and awarded superhero movies got acclaim for their story and character(s) and not their vfx. The Dark Knight trilogy, Black Panther, Spider-man (the first one had a lot of wonky cgi for the time compared to something like the Star Wars movies), Logan, Wonder Woman and even the first Iron Man fall very much into that category. They weren’t hailed as revolutionary for their vfx but for their stories, plot and characters. No doubt they were appreciated in technical categories at awards ceremonies but that wasn’t the focus of why people loved these films.

That being said, you shouldn’t expect others to take your POV on this as something serious when you can’t even identify what is or isn’t CGI in a movie. No one is saying CGI doesn’t matter just that it doesn’t make or break or movie. There’s a long list of movies of rubbish movies that were panned by critics (Transformers, some of the X-men movies, Pirates movies, etc) with great visual effectsi and some great movies with not so great visual effects (like the aforementioned Irishman).

If you like the bright, dazzling special effects over other aspects of a movie, then that’s your opinion. But based off on what is actually critically acclaimed, then it doesn’t make or break or movies reception.

No doubt, Tenet did win an Oscar for VFX but last year was at the height of the pandemic and very few vfx heavy movies released last year. Any other year and it might have been a different story.

About Nolan and vfx

https://screenrant.com/christopher-n...ffects-scenes/

The man as much as possible likes to use practical effects. This is actually one of Nolan’s trademarks, where he can do it practical he does it practical.