I soooooooooooooooooooooooo wanna watch Loki, Tom is really darn good as him, but of course you have to sign up to Disney+ which i don't want to do, damn
We are finding it well worth the money now. I wasn’t too sure at first. With the addition of the fox stuff though we seem to be watching it a lot more than Netflix.
Not interested in the TV programme, and I've never heard of all the other names, but having watched Olivia Colman from way-back-when (in shows like Mitchell and Web, she's a great comedian and actress, with awards, so "she's the latest thing" in Hollywood so ... how long is her star on the rise?I enjoyed last Friday's episode a lot more than the others. I don't think that the show is at all bad, I just don't think it is different enough to generate the conversations that Wandavision did.
I'm looking forward to Loki now though.
Also, the amazing Olivia Colman is joining the MCU in Secret Invasion, alongside Sam Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn and we are to assume from the end of Wandavision,Teyonah Parris. I'm very much looking forward to this.
This will probably go down like a lead balloon...but I really avoid Marvel films because I feel so icky afterwards.
To me, they are like eating 10 bags of candy floss - really good at the time but nutritionaly empty. Vacuous. I know I shouldn't have done it...
Some people even prefer DC!
Oh, I love the Wonder Woman films, but I'm a nutcase. They're like modern fairy tales.
Marvel movies do all end in a big CGI fight, every single one, and it is samey.
I really might as well watch a computer game. And the scripts really get to me as well...like every line a character says has to be whip-smart, cool and funny...it's fun, for a bit, but then it just gets tiresome. Just have an intelligent conversation!
Call it The Whedon effect (no, not bullying in the workplace!).
You've just expressed how I feel, pretty much.This will probably go down like a lead balloon...but I really avoid Marvel films because I feel so icky afterwards.
To me, they are like eating 10 bags of candy floss - really good at the time but nutritionaly empty. Vacuous. I know I shouldn't have done it...
I yearn to see a really good hard SF film.
NO.Would a really good hard SM film do instead?
And this computer is where the digital actors live. Autograph prints are available on the way out.Pretty soon, the studios will be selling studio tours where the 'guests' are wheeled into a big green-screen room and they are told "Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is where the magic is recorded."
I really might as well watch a computer game. And the scripts really get to me as well...like every line a character says has to be whip-smart, cool and funny...it's fun, for a bit, but then it just gets tiresome. Just have an intelligent conversation!
Why exactly are they bothering with, well, y'know, live actors?
That's one of my main objections to them, every character quips like every person's idealised version of themselves. The quips aren't even that funny most of the time but they are always there. You can almost predict the rhythm. And they all just feel bland and homogeneous overall.
I honestly don't think they will for much longer. I watched "Raya" the other day, which was excellent, but I noticed a lot of the computer animation was totally indistinguishable from reality...the foliage, the hair, skin, movement of the characters. Filimg a movie is a load of hassle and expense...you will be able to make "real" animated movies for a fraction of the cost...4 people in an office with computers. Heck, don't even need an office...4 people on computers working from home
This is beautiuflly and intelligently put. It's what I was trying to say but am not as smart as you. Yes - you always know when they are coming, it's like a drum rhythym. Inevitable. Some of them really work and are great...most of them just seems to be there because...just because...
I think actually "realistic" actors are still an long way off, perhaps personally. I agree they can render backgrounds realistically, terrifyingly most of the backgrounds in the "live" Lion King were entirely CGI... They can also get something very close to skin, and movements, especially "big" movements - jumping, kicking etc can be very convincing but our eyes and brains are too good at spotting actual people, especially when it comes to faces and facial expressions. One of the reasons why Raya might be so convincing is that the characters are still cartoon-y looking, so we avoid the uncanny valley. It would be very different if they tried to make the characters looking like actual people, it would likely fail and double/triple/quadruple the budget too. The demands for realism in the backgrounds would likely increase too.
They actually can't make these types of films more quickly or cheaply than live action at the moment - the CGI demands huge amounts of animators working around the clock and the computational/energy/hardware costs are enormous and time consuming as well. Things may be "improving" in this filed but my best guess is that is still prohibitive whatever efficiency has been gained and will continue to be so for some time. It's true you eliminate "real world" problems like dealing with weather, accidents, actors behaviour etc but you are swapping those for different problems.
Thank you for proving I have absolutely no idea I'm talking about.
Which is absolutely true!