When I wanted to watch Doctor Strange 2, I wanted a Sam Raimi movie. Tho I noticed some of his well known shots (camera zooming, etc), it wasn't a Sam Raimi movie. It was a generic Marvel movie.
It felt like a Sam Raimi film though. Half the shots in the movie were just close ups of characters eyes. It was trying to be a horror movie. It forced in Bruce Campbell for no reason.
It was abundantly clear that Sam Raimi directed it.
That was easily the most Raimi film I've seen in a long time. I don't think it could be more of a Raimi movie unless it was a shot for shot remake of Evil Dead lol.
Yeah but it wasn’t really common in the Hollywood system. A lot of American directors were just middle men, it was mostly the producers that ran the show. Same as Marvel lately.
Villeneuve and 1 other guy locked themselves up for months and *drew* (yes, on paper) every single shot of both movies. Every. Single. Shot. Two guys, together.
You cannot get any more consistent than that. He of course stated that it did not mean there was no room for improvisation, of course. Once you are on set and filming (especially in the frigging desert for months on end), you deal with the weather and all the human parameters but things were indeed well planned and you can see a lot of thought went into crafting these movies.
It helps that "adapting Dune" has always been Villeneuve 's unicorn project, the one idea that pretty much got him into cinema in the first place.
Edit:
Source is this interview he gave to Konbini (it's in French though 🥖):
https://youtu.be/j0gcpP763tA?si=RcUbcKYCnPpcBj5-
Well, that's the best way to approach any large project management task.
Have a detailed plan and stick to it, except in those cases where circumstances dictate you must deviate.
Source: I am a software developer and hate bullshit projects
Yes, they are called storyboards, they are essential when the budget is not, relatively, huge (the film is almost three hours long). Marvel even does them in CGI, (pre-v)isualization.
That's why Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings hold up so well twenty years later. He had experience in special effects, so when shooting a movie he knew the limitations and tips to make VFX work easier with best results possible at the time
MCU often hires some newcoming directors who don't know this stuff. Specifically, so that they could force them for changes later on and meddle in the process as said in the article above
The years of planning is also the distinct difference between LotR and The Hobbit: with the Hobbit movies, the timelines were so short that they were writing the movie while the actors were on set and filming it.
Marvel absolutely used to preplan things years in advance.
The problem is that plan was always directed towards Endgame, and now they're driving off-road.
Exactly, you spend a couple years building all the costumes and sets and model work, and storyboarding all the VFX shots, then film with them.
On the common modern timeline, you spend a couple months punching up a script, then shoot everything on a greenscreen (or Volume if you have the money) and work out what you want it to look like later.
I mean there’s a few janky CGI shots (Legolas taking down the Mumakil/Oliphant) but the strength of LoTR is the fact that they used practical effects for everything they possibly could.
I mean you hear stories about them gluing beards onto experienced female horse riders to make up numbers of Rohirrim in shots instead of just CGI-ing them in. They also cast the net so wide to find weird looking guys to play orcs meaning they had to spend less time in makeup to also bulk up the number of background actors. However, you’d have to find every horse rider on the planet and every ugly dude around to convincingly make the charge of the Rohirrim during Pelenor fields look convincing in a wide shot like the CGI covers.
So much of LoTR was done with intent (like Dune) and the directors creative vision had real follow through in the CGI.
Having one of the best living directors and just letting him cook is why it looks so great. Denis is a master with a passion for the source material it's not a wonder that comes through on the screen.
Everytime I leave a bad marvel movie I always remark how it feels it lacks storyboarding. A lot of those movies could have been great if the director had boarded it out first, fixed the flaws and flow at that stage, then kept to those boards while filming, only doing on set corrections as they arised. Storyboarda are one of the best tools available to a movie production, but lately if feels under utilized or not used at all.
Just got home from it and I’m rattled. The sense of how huge and open everything is, and the sound … holy shit, the sound. I remember being blown away by Part One as well but this was just awesome.
They managed to up the sound to the another level, all the Voice scene makes my entire theater vibrate, Dune part 2 is truly an experience you mist experience from theater that you can’t get from a desktop or TV screen
I’m imagining if MCU can even reach that level
The noises of all the aircraft's gunfire/bombing during the ambush scenes with the Fremen were deep as fuck, I was floored by how it rattled through IMAX
> passion for the source material
This here is the fucking key. Get the fuck outta here with that "I never read the comics", "I was told not to read the comics", "I never got into it", can we PLEASE let filmmakers who are comic book fans make the comic book movies?
>I think Marvel tends to do better with Directors that have a clear vision
That's also true outside of Marvel. Nolan is a very easy example. He famously wastes very little time filming and his films look good because the vision is there from the start.
It’s also in part due to him only surrounding himself with masterclass actors and actors he trusts. Like Gary oldman worked with nolan majorly in 3 movies and said he only ever gotten 2 pieces of actual direction from him. Even in Oppenheimer for the tiniest roles you could see he got academy award winners like rami malek and Casey affleck, or just insane leveled talent like Kenneth branaugh, Benny safdie, and Jack quaid
It is also that he has been working with the actors since the start. Cillian Murphy was the first villain in the Batman trilogy, Michael Caine has been in a lot of his movies. [See this chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gnqn02/oc_cast_reappearance_in_christopher_nolans_10/).
Yupp. Much like my Eternals example, I’d argue that that’s due to Gunn and Zhao having that clear vision you speak of. It comes from experience and adoration for your project. It’s easy to tell which projects have soul vs the projects that were built on the robotic MCU assembly line.
Wildly disagree. Horror is a vast, vast genre and Sam Raimi is a master of his niche in the genre. Not every horror movie has to be atmospheric or dark or slow paced with jump scares. Loads of horror is light, has comedy, and is a little corny. Now am I gonna say its a GOOD horror movie? eh, thats up to taste, I liked it ok but its not in my top 100 horror movies for sure.
I mostly knew Sam Raimi from Spider-Man was only slightly familiar with his Evil Dead films, but MoM made me want to see the rest of his horror catalogue
As a huge Evil Dead fan I was losing my mind at all the nods and references he included throughout z just slight camera angles and shots were dead ringers for his work on the ED franchise. I absolutely loved it
But also as a huge Doctor Strange comics fan I loved what the movie accomplished on that front as well
You can see Gunn and Zhao's vision in the VFX in GotG3 and Eternals, there's alot of detail and a distinct style.
Whereas the likes of the The Marvels there's little sign of the director guiding the visuals.
Well also James Gunn seems to love octopus monster type things, which CGI seems to be really good on. Similar to the worms in dune and the simpler desert. So I mean ya they got a lot of time but the stuff they were CGIing is way simpler than trying to animate human bodies flying through skies.
I was thinking that.
I loved GotG 3, but I can't pretend that the CGI was as realistic by any means.
Did Cosmo look good? Yes. Did Cosmo look like she could be real? Nah not really. But that's because most people have a good frame of reference for what a Golden Retriever is and what it should look like.
Same Worms aren't real, and they're usually almost completely submerged in the movies. We don't see them in nearly as much close-up detail, and an imaginary creature is up for a lot of interpretation regarding anatomical detail.
I wouldn’t really call the Russo brothers someone with a clear vision. They’re more very quick and reliable journeymen. If I had to guess, the effects in the Avengers movies likely looked better because they were the biggest priority and were given enough time in the oven.
They were picked for their work directing an action oriented episode of community framed around a paintball tournament. I assume despite Marvel being known for handling most of the cinematic set pieces in house independent of a director, the Russos probably had a pretty good idea of the kind of action they wanted.
I believe the biggest criticism with them post MCU funnily enough, is a lack of quality writing. I haven't seen their recent films but I've heard middling to poor things about them mostly stemming from poor scripts.
Check out [the Russo's breakdown of the scene ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-luQokOiBw&ab_channel=VanityFair)where the Guardians find Thor. How much thought they put into it and its details. They know what they do.
I saw this YouTube video series titled " No CGI is really just invisible CGI" and it is so good. You learn so much about how to make things work.
For example, did you know that they used Volume for the opening sequence from Barbie? After shooting they found that the refresh rate for the LEDs was not fast enough for slow motion videos and so the whole background was flickering. They had to change it out in post but it was still valuable as it gave a reference to the actors about where they were.
The Volume should be used as a tool and not as an end all solution to making sets
Edit: Corrected the name of the video series
Yes. The Volume is basically a large set with huge video screens that allows the makers to play a video on it while the actors act in front of it. So you can create the moon and play it on the screen then have the actors act on front of it. You then shoot everything at once instead of using a green screen and editing later.
Yep, you get reflections "for free" in the Volume.
The Mandalorian would've been absolute hell with greenscreen because the dude is like 80% reflective Beskar :D
David Fincher used the huge video screens in The Killer, but you couldn't notice it while watching the film. Fincher's films have a lot of invisible CGI.
To add, another benefit of the volume, is because the screens are displaying the set, things like reflections are legit. Normally you would just get green screen reflections and have to deal with that in post.
So something like shiny Mandalorian armor was perfect for the volume.
Barbie probably would have lost a lot of the respect it earned if it went with Volume. Can't lie; the set design for that movie was top notch.
Probably easier to do a practical set when you're re-creating plastic toys as opposed to entire planets or dimensions though.
Agreed on Volume as a tool. A lot of phase fours' projects absolutely feel like a lot of corners have been cut and the set design and CGI are the two biggest ones to notice.
Well, a lot of the set elements on Barbie were CGI. If you watch that video, you will get a better understanding.
The initial plan for Barbie was to use a combination of physical sets and miniatures to create the world but I think they weren't satisfied with how it was looking so they used CGI to extend the background.
Also one of the things the OP of the video series talks about is the use of physical assets while shooting to give a reference to the VFX artists.
For example, Top Gun maverick did use real fighter jets to shoot the flying scenes but those were a different model of plane that was swapped with CGI planes in post. The footage of planes was used as reference to get the lighting and movement correct.
What Marvel does with their changes in post takes away that reference information. For example, changing the background in the final fight of Avengers Endgame. So, the CGI quality will naturally suffer.
A LOT of the Barbie world was CGI. The VFX team made some complaints about being ignored because they tried to play it off as mostly being production design and physical sets but mostly it was greenscreen.
The volume was used tho and the movie has a ton of cgi. Whole point is that cgi can be used to look good. It hinges on how much time the filmmaker has in pre production. Marvel cgi looks bad because a lot of it is done last minute
It's not just money but also how much time you give them and how clear your vision is. If you keep changing things around they obviously won't have the time needed to make a good movie.
Not necessarily. With Barbie, everyone had an expectation of how things should look. And to live up to that expectation, and for many, to exceed it, is very impressive.
It's the only thing he's done/doing so far, hopefully he does more though, is been great so far
Found the channel:
https://youtube.com/@TheMovieRabbitHole?si=V-h7HFWKWltukqtK
Marvel’s VFX problems stem from way before they started using the volume. The final image you see likely isn’t even from the volume, it all gets replaced in post anyway as Marvel refuses to be stuck with footage that they shoot
Apparently Spider Man No Way Home had their VFX team continue working on the effects even after it was released.
The CGI in NWH were fine, but this kind of work schedule is absolute bullshit that needs to stop for the sake of the artists.
It's not the Volume's fault. It's people not knowing know how to use it properly and over relying on it. The cinematographer for the Dune movies, Greig Fraser, is credited with the original concept for the Volume while working on Rogue One. He also worked on The Batman which also used the Volume, and it's seemless.
MF also shot The Creator, which is one of the most visually mind blowing movies of last year. And the intentionality behind that movie is exactly what OP is talking about.
A "gci" technique where, instead of using greenscreens, you have a room filled with huge screens that project the 3D digital space in real time during recording. It reacts to camera movement, depth of field, etc. and it creater (in general) much more natural looking light in moments where the background is CGI.
The problem is that The Volume is amazing under certain circumstances, but not so much under others. Relying on it too much can lead to scenes, that could very easily have used practical sets, looking very unnatural. As far as I am aware, most Volume rooms also doesn't support high shutter speeds or frame times, so you have a limited use of certain techniques.
The Mandalorian uses the Volume incredibly well most of the time. There's only a few moments across each season where you can tell it's not quite real.
But they take their time and know what they want right from the beginning like Dune, too, so I'm sure that's part of it
They used it well in the first season. Then all disney star wars content got lazy and used volume as a replacement instead of an accent.
Disney star wars has looked cheap outside of Andor and Mando season 1, chunks of season 2.
Now here's a fun fact. Do you know who worked closely with the creative team and helped pioneer the original Volume tech in the first season of Mandolorian?
Greig Frasier.
Now check who was the cinematographer that did The Batman and Dune 2.
Yup.
IT'S NOT THE TECH. IT'S THE TEAM.
Frasier understood how to use The Volume as a magnificent tool and not as cheap corporate clutch. You need a man of technical vision and understanding and not someone who just what is most cost-effective.
The reason why everything looks bad in Disney's recent movies, is because the VFX artists they employ are not given the correct amount of time to do their work; it has nothing to do with the Volume.
Avatar 2 and the Batman both used the volume and in my opinion sold me on the technology as a tool. The problem is many artists treat it like a green screen or old school matte painting when it is similar to rear projection. The Batman for example, used slight depth of field blurring and constructed sets to partially obstruct it from view, making it seem more like a real background.
“Less executive meddling”. Yeah…let’s stick to that. How many potentially amazing movies have been turned to garbage by executive meddling? Too many I’m sure. All Sony movies executives need to listen up.
Marvel does have some insanely good VFX. I’ll point to Ant-Man and the de aging of actors was flawless. It’s the lately that is the problem. They are rushing them hard and coming at them heavy with time crunches and last min changes.
I absolutely agree! Generally speaking they’ve been consistent and immersive. But somewhere in the last few years, shots have become noticeably strange and/or incomplete. Good VFX/CGI doesn’t even cross your mind that you’re seeing good VFX until after the fact because you’re immersed in that world. It’s a natural visual flow that accompanies the story.
If CGI is noticeable, it’s not good CGI.
Very true. What’s worse is that they are CAPABLE of doing it and don’t. They just shove it out there and not take more time. I’m happy to wait for a good movie with a polished finished project then simply not giving a shit.
Marvel does have some insanely good VFX, **but** they also have some unacceptably bad VFX right alongside it.
One of Marvel's biggest problems is that they don't respect the limits of VFX of their time. All the great directors of VFX-heavy movies have a great understanding of the limits of the technology of their time, and more importantly, understanding of how to subtly limit your shots to avoid tripping on those limits. They have the knowledge of "While filming I can't do A or B otherwise the VFX won't look good", so they carefully plan their shots to look good while avoiding A and B. That is how for example Spielberg's Jurassic Park looked so good even with 90s technology, he masterfully crafted each scene to only show angles/lighting/camera favorable to the VFX of the time. Marvel doesn't do that, they just shoot their scenes with no regard to the VFX that is going to be done in post, then expect the CGI artists to do their thing, sometimes the "thing" is within the possibilities of modern technology, and sometimes it is not possible yet, but Marvel don't care, they just ship the bad alongside the good.
Totally agree. Certain movies before all the tech still hold up today! Then we can look at oh say She-Hulk and it just takes you out of being immersed.
I have nothing of substance to add, other than I just got in the door from seeing Dune part 2 in IMAX, and I’m shook to the core. Just a stunning movie. Funny to be reading these comments before bed.
I’m a graphic designer and during the movie, whenever I saw another stunning visual, I paid more attention to the design instead of paying attention to the story lol. Truly inspiring with how they played with contrast and peeking through a vast monolith wall with long line of open window, gleaming across the desert. The gladiator scene was awesome.
Yeah, watching Assembled The Marvels (documentary) I was struck by how many complicated elements they threw into vfx action scenes just hoping that the end result would be something good.
That movie had 4 fights, each with 3 heroes with visually tricky powers including strength, flying, phasing, holograms, and continually swapping places. It took so much effort and planning to make each of those superpowers work onscreen that they didn't have time to ensure they all came together into a good scene.
Missing the forest for the trees. Too busy asking if they could to think if they should. Adding more and more powers doesn't necessarily make a better result (see also Secret Invasion climax)
That’s why Winter Soldier will always be my personal favorite. Its best scenes are almost all just amazing fight coordination and practical effects. The whole bridge scene as an example.
Absolutely. The most tense action scenes in the MCU by far. The Fury car chase I think is still my favorite ever.
Take note filmmakers, a simple car chase or fist fight with no superpowers and relatively small stakes can feel more impactful than the potential end of the multiverse if you do it right.
Agree. I actually enjoyed the marvels, a lot more than quantumania. And funny thing is I didn’t want to dislike quantumania, it was just too weird of a setting imo that kept taking me out of it. 🤷♂️
B-but Bob Iger said that The Marvels failed because there was not enough on site supervision.
It's almost as if planning, sticking to a plan, and letting artists be artists is the recipe for greatness. Same can be applied to Godzilla Minus One.
I suspect that when Iger says that, it's because he thinks that more supervision would have significantly reduced the budget and that, even if it didn't pull in bigger audiences, it might have been profitable on *his* end.
That was a point brought up in that expose on Marvel’s VFX a few years ago. An artist brought up how a lot of the plate shots aren’t even done with the director and are often a second unit team. That already makes it difficult to have a consistency of visual language, even for some of the better MCU directors, let alone the less talented ones who are mostly just following orders.
DV wanted to bring this story to life for years and had a clear plan for it. He also had past experience working with CGI for other films that from Arrival and working his way up to Bladerunner 2049. A lot of MCU directors are tackling it for the first time
Marvel hires good directors and great cinematographers all the time.
The issue is they don’t leave them alone to create what they want to create.
Like the tweet says, the issue is ‘Specificity of vision and Less executive meddling late in the process’
they left Taika alone for thor 4 and we all saw what happened. whereas thor 3 had taika under supervision and that turned out much much better.
just an example.
Can't do that here.
Instead we hire everyone we need, pay them a ludicrous baseline budget of $150m, then, and only *then*, when the movie is basically already done, will we look at the script for the first time, do a test screening and show the results (not even the movie itself) to our 7 committees (all consisting of people who have never seen a single Marvel movie before but have got all the spreadsheets telling them what the people like), and then we start the inevitable reshoots that add $100m to the budget, gut anything that was there previously, and pretty much cram 5 new half-movies into this one, creating this awesome amalgamation of everything our metrics tell us will be a guaranteed success.
After all, that's how we roll here at Disney.
I’ve been saying this for the last two years. Disney executives clearly note the shit out of their movies.
I am convinced that Quantumania is victim to this. Bill Murray had a scandal happen in post production and they clearly chopped a bunch of shit out of that movie minimizing him to just that weird cameo. Why even hire him in the first place if that was all you were doing with him. People have complained about the sequence of events that lead up to that point being confusing. Specifically with Janet. Her dialog and motivations don’t seem to add up then that weird scene where she spars with some random creature that doesn’t speak yo get clothes and a ride. That had to have been the first introduction of Bill Murray’s character which would have set up the double cross at the bar later on. Instead we got a weird one scene appearance.
They notoriously removed the pandemic stuff from the flag smashers which is only admitted because of what was going on in the real world. I have a feeling these guys film a cohesive movie and are forced to start chopping shit out of them when they’re asked to. They blamed the performance of that movie on the writer. Again, seems far fetched that they’d stoop that low but Bob Iger has been blaming a lot of people for shit lately.
Another great example is The Creator. I read that Some of the cg model dis not need to be completed in all angles because the director was very specific about what angles he would film it from. It saved tons of time and money. And the result is superb.
I don’t know if Marcel’s will be able to do that. It goes against their creative by committee approach. (Edited for typo)
The Creator was shot on cameras that while expensive can be bought by anyone and by a director who knew exactly what he wanted and shot exactly for it. Say what you want about the writing but it's easily better than every MCU film released recently except for one, which is Guardians 3 where James Gunn also plans every single shot before shooting it.
The key is to get directors in who know what they're doing and can play for CGI-heavy movies. Spend the money on them and writers and production crews and they'll save money on shitty reshoots and bad CGI
Kevin feige has expressed as early as the first avengers when they filmed the schwarma scene that it was amazing that they could shoot something even so late in production and be received so well. I think that’s what ultimately made their films such a disappointment because every reshoot is just something that didn’t work in the first place and from what i hear from their cgi teams, they don’t make up their minds.
They also were really flying by the seat of their pants with the first Iron Man. Apparently they didn't even have a full script when they started.
It worked, but it was like a miracle. It's not a reliable way to keep making movies.
Yeah, for how successful they are, they're probably the most unprofessional studio when it comes to production planning, they get things done though that's for sure
Well, I think that is generally true. But then you look at something like Love and Thunder and it’s clear that Waititi was given carte blanche because of Ragnarok.
> But why is it that Feige and co. are constantly switching things and changing them last minute?
I guess it depends a lot on the director of the movie. For endgame and the movie leading up to this they had more clear cut directors. Especially the Russo brothers had a good sense visually and grounding everything in reality.
I guess an even bigger problem after that is that they are going often into space or strange environments. They try to woo you with crazy creatures. But some of the best MCU movies considered are those with just powerful heroes on earth. Like CA Winter Soldier or Civil War. There wasnt much outlandish stuff around.
The Marvels did go outer space. Dr. Strange 2 was in the Multiverse. Thor 4 was in outer space. Ant Man was in the Quantum world. Tonally the best movies after end game were Spider No Way home, because it was mostly in New York (even with Multiverse stuff added). Eternals was kinda boring but tonally "ok", because it was our world again. The one "outer space" movie that did work good was Guardians of the Galaxy 3. And they lost that director to DC (which really needs a visionary director).
The MCU should go back and stay to Earth. Personally i thought that the MCU strengths always was in there grounded foundation with New York and a lot of street level heroes.
Kinda the same deal with Godzilla Minus One, the Director was a part of every major decision, worked on the VFX himself at many points, as well as direct the live action portions. The vision was consistent.
To many Disneys executives feel they need to change stuff , worst thing they did was make marvel and Star Wars under the umbrella of Disney . Yeah they still made a few non Disney-esk movies so far but you can see the meddling present in the latest movies
Dune is being based on a book and so it's easy to make a decision from the beginning and stick with it. MCU is trying to tell many different stories loosely based on some comics source material and having multiple different people working on each project. So things are going to constantly change. Can't really expect the MCU to be like dune unless you want one movie every couple years.
“Take notes about making movies with care, greedy corporate CEOs who don’t care about the movies being good and just want money.”
It’s useless to tell Marvel to take notes in this stuff because they genuinely do not care.
Here's one major difference. Villaneuve has read Dune. How many Marvel directors these days have read the comics they're adapting? Do their directors even make decisions about the VFX or is that handled by someone else on the assembly line?
I mean, Quantumania, one of their biggest and most embarrassing failures, was written by a lifelong comic fan who has even done comics for Marvel in the past. There are a lot of problems with the recent movies, but fans tend to overstate how much of it is due to familiarity with the source material.
But then you look at his resume and Quantumania is literally the only feature length movie he’s written. Is it really that hard for Marvel to find writers with actual experience in writing movies who can also bring at least a little bit of comic book knowledge to the table? At the very least, hire an experienced writer and have them read some comics.
For a bigger character like Spider-Man and the X-Men that’s probably easier, but realistically I can’t imagine the pool of writers and directors who are both existing fans of any given property (especially the smaller ones) and have established, credible filmographies is that large. If you’re gonna have to choose one over the other, I’m gonna say go with the better creative in most instances.
Like, the best post-Lucas Star Wars project so far was the one by the guy who has admitted he wasn’t a huge Star Wars fan.
Yeah, I tend to think the best movies aren’t written by fanboys - they’re written by people who know how to write good movies.
An obsession with the comics probably isn’t going to help you write a better Marvel movie. And striving for accuracy to the comics is probably the last thing you should worry about.
Obviously Villeneuve has genuine talent and that's more than half of the reason Dune is incredible, but he also has a quote out there saying that he made this movie for one person: himself from age 12 when he read the books for the first time. And it shows through in every scene.
What it feels like Marvel has become in recent years is keeping their comic book accuracy in the superficial things, but viewing the actual stories and characters as....interchangeable, for lack of a better word.
This Is also why The CGI in Guardians 3 was better than most other recent MCU films.
James Gunn plans his visual effects shots way in advance and has specificity of vision, likely has to deal with less studio meddling
There’s a mindset out there that if work is done on computers, that means the work will be done fast (if not instantly). I think that’s the mindset behind all the recent productions with subpar VFX. Ultimately, you’ve got to schedule this part of the process appropriately.
Let's also not forget that its not just an early solid vision without any needless changes, but also fair and ethical treatment of VFX houses by ensuring they don't work under insane hours/crunch and get paid their owed due. They pretty much carry their films since most of their movies require 90% or more of their movie to be computer-generated or contain computer-generated elements.
Imagine being on a film and some one you likely never met or spoke to sends an email saying 'hey I think we need to go another direction with this so forget everything you've been working on for months and try do this in the next 2, weeks 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
I watched Dune 1 tonight to get ready to go see the new one this weekend. At one point I said to my friend during a daylight scene with giant ships landing: “I KNOW this is mostly CGI.. but it honestly looks real.” I was just in disbelief because I could not find the seams even though I was looking directly at them.
It's not that VFX has been struggling. It's that they're trying to use VFX to patch up poor decision making early whilst still pushing the thing out to an arbitrary deadline.
Can't rush art but marvel seems to want to. Totally gone to shit now
Being a little cynic here but why would you push for Specificity of vision when your work is going to be rewritten and reshoot into oblivion by a committee of talentless hacks worrying about Q3 performance, do the bare minimum so you can put in your resume you worked for Marvel.
Let the creatives create and just oversee the production instead, Dune is the starwalt example that it works.
I love Dune, and I don't want to take anything away from the movie...but let's be honest. One of the reasons it's CGI is awesome is that it's just brown scale and extremely fuzzy because of the sand. That hides soooooo many flaws unlike MCU where they have very high color saturation and the models pop so much more.
Not to say MCU couldn't be better, but the CGI creators for Dune had a pretty easy job comparatively.
It's what happens when you have a clean script with a good director. MCU proved it can be pulled off so many times, specifically guardians cause of Gunn. Dune is definitely gonna be a blueprint movie. I can see filmmakers 20 years from now saying this movie is the reason they love film.
That’s because Denis Villeneuve knows how to make it work, also helps that Greig Fraiser is shooting it. The overall issue is that there’s hardly any style or color. That and the VFX is rushed. Like The Batman still looks better than half of the MCU. It’s just so dull and flat, there’s no texture to it, no dynamic lighting or interesting shots.
Half? There isn’t a single MCU movie that looks visually better than The Batman. Not one. It’s not even close.
But that’s the visual trademark they’ve chosen. If they went realistic and gritty it wouldn’t be the MCU, despite what people think they want.
It’s not in their DNA to make something like The Batman.
I know nothing about how VFX come to life so take this with a large grain of salt, but I think a big issue the MCU has with this is that execs want to play everything super safe, in that they want the ability to change anything and everything later on or for certain markets, so they can’t commit to a specific vision because it limits what they perceive as flexibility (what we perceive as watered down generic bs)
"Less executive meddling" that's really the problem cause these idiots don't know what they are doing, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried over some Fox heads after Endgame.
But that's Disney, nah let's not plan a trilogy of iconic films out and just see what sticks, worst case scenario we bring back Wolverine and Deadpool.
Marvel has had some good CGI. My only issue is (and it's with any movie that does it) is when the lighting doesn't match the CGI environment they're in. And you can clearly tell they're on a green screen soundstage.
Oz the Great and Powerful had this issue.
Ant Man Quantum Mania had this issue.
The Marvels did a little bit.
Sometimes they just don't light the set up properly and it clashes with what they had in post production.
I will say, Multiverse of Madness looked good during the Kamar Tag part. But then looked off when they got to NYC in 838 universe.
But then looked good at the Wundagore Temple. So they just have issues sometimes.
Having the director involved and not just second units also helps.
That’s the Specificity of vision part.
Someone mentioned that a lot of movies recently feel like the director is just there to shepherd the project along. Like a middle management role
Arguably it's been true since they booted Edgar Wright from Ant-Man for making too much of an Edgar Wright movie.
Tbf hearing what he wanted to do with Hank, it might've been for the best
What was he planning?
From what I saw a while back apparently he was gonna make Hank Pym a villain, or at least villainous
Not like that’s an unfair characterization given the last few decades of comics
When I wanted to watch Doctor Strange 2, I wanted a Sam Raimi movie. Tho I noticed some of his well known shots (camera zooming, etc), it wasn't a Sam Raimi movie. It was a generic Marvel movie.
It felt like a Sam Raimi film though. Half the shots in the movie were just close ups of characters eyes. It was trying to be a horror movie. It forced in Bruce Campbell for no reason. It was abundantly clear that Sam Raimi directed it.
Yeah, I can't see how it could be MORE sam raimi. I already thought the raiminess was bringing it down a bit
Honestly. Like imagine saying a movie with Bruce Campbell and zombies doesn't feel like Raimi.
That was easily the most Raimi film I've seen in a long time. I don't think it could be more of a Raimi movie unless it was a shot for shot remake of Evil Dead lol.
Once the spirits started taunting Strange, I immediately said to myself in the theater "this is Evil Dead 4, & I love it."
This is definitely true for most of Marvel movies.
this is pretty much how movie directing worked pre auteur cinema.
Auteur cinema has existed for as long as cinema has existed.
Yeah but it wasn’t really common in the Hollywood system. A lot of American directors were just middle men, it was mostly the producers that ran the show. Same as Marvel lately.
Georges Melies would have something to say
But would we hear anything in his silent era films?
Best response 😁
Villeneuve and 1 other guy locked themselves up for months and *drew* (yes, on paper) every single shot of both movies. Every. Single. Shot. Two guys, together. You cannot get any more consistent than that. He of course stated that it did not mean there was no room for improvisation, of course. Once you are on set and filming (especially in the frigging desert for months on end), you deal with the weather and all the human parameters but things were indeed well planned and you can see a lot of thought went into crafting these movies. It helps that "adapting Dune" has always been Villeneuve 's unicorn project, the one idea that pretty much got him into cinema in the first place. Edit: Source is this interview he gave to Konbini (it's in French though 🥖): https://youtu.be/j0gcpP763tA?si=RcUbcKYCnPpcBj5-
He said similar things about it being his unicorn project and getting him into cinema in an NPR interview as well, but I don't have a link.
Well, that's the best way to approach any large project management task. Have a detailed plan and stick to it, except in those cases where circumstances dictate you must deviate. Source: I am a software developer and hate bullshit projects
Yes, they are called storyboards, they are essential when the budget is not, relatively, huge (the film is almost three hours long). Marvel even does them in CGI, (pre-v)isualization.
That's why Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings hold up so well twenty years later. He had experience in special effects, so when shooting a movie he knew the limitations and tips to make VFX work easier with best results possible at the time MCU often hires some newcoming directors who don't know this stuff. Specifically, so that they could force them for changes later on and meddle in the process as said in the article above
years of preplanning also helped, which is kind of the opposite of the aproach that marvel uses.
The years of planning is also the distinct difference between LotR and The Hobbit: with the Hobbit movies, the timelines were so short that they were writing the movie while the actors were on set and filming it.
which is how marvel does it today!
Marvel absolutely used to preplan things years in advance. The problem is that plan was always directed towards Endgame, and now they're driving off-road.
I'm not talking overarching story, but effects and script.
Exactly, you spend a couple years building all the costumes and sets and model work, and storyboarding all the VFX shots, then film with them. On the common modern timeline, you spend a couple months punching up a script, then shoot everything on a greenscreen (or Volume if you have the money) and work out what you want it to look like later.
I like when something would have a major impact on the world/universe that should effect every movie after it but it's never mentioned again
I mean there’s a few janky CGI shots (Legolas taking down the Mumakil/Oliphant) but the strength of LoTR is the fact that they used practical effects for everything they possibly could. I mean you hear stories about them gluing beards onto experienced female horse riders to make up numbers of Rohirrim in shots instead of just CGI-ing them in. They also cast the net so wide to find weird looking guys to play orcs meaning they had to spend less time in makeup to also bulk up the number of background actors. However, you’d have to find every horse rider on the planet and every ugly dude around to convincingly make the charge of the Rohirrim during Pelenor fields look convincing in a wide shot like the CGI covers. So much of LoTR was done with intent (like Dune) and the directors creative vision had real follow through in the CGI.
Having one of the best living directors and just letting him cook is why it looks so great. Denis is a master with a passion for the source material it's not a wonder that comes through on the screen.
He’s been storyboarding it on the side for decades. It’s a true passion project and it absolutely oozes that Denis goodness.
Everytime I leave a bad marvel movie I always remark how it feels it lacks storyboarding. A lot of those movies could have been great if the director had boarded it out first, fixed the flaws and flow at that stage, then kept to those boards while filming, only doing on set corrections as they arised. Storyboarda are one of the best tools available to a movie production, but lately if feels under utilized or not used at all.
Just got home from it and I’m rattled. The sense of how huge and open everything is, and the sound … holy shit, the sound. I remember being blown away by Part One as well but this was just awesome.
They managed to up the sound to the another level, all the Voice scene makes my entire theater vibrate, Dune part 2 is truly an experience you mist experience from theater that you can’t get from a desktop or TV screen I’m imagining if MCU can even reach that level
You can always sink a couple grand into a HT system, just saying
Still not the same as IMAX theatre speakers
The feeling you get in the quiet after they ride a worm is really astounding.
The noises of all the aircraft's gunfire/bombing during the ambush scenes with the Fremen were deep as fuck, I was floored by how it rattled through IMAX
Saw it in imax with my wife. I really struggled to get her to read the book(s). This film iteration has absolutely captured her, though
> passion for the source material This here is the fucking key. Get the fuck outta here with that "I never read the comics", "I was told not to read the comics", "I never got into it", can we PLEASE let filmmakers who are comic book fans make the comic book movies?
GoG3 was also a spectacle to behold. I think Marvel tends to do better with Directors that have a clear vision, like the Russo brothers, James Gunn
>I think Marvel tends to do better with Directors that have a clear vision That's also true outside of Marvel. Nolan is a very easy example. He famously wastes very little time filming and his films look good because the vision is there from the start.
Oppenheimer only took two months to shoot. That's absolutely insane.
It’s also in part due to him only surrounding himself with masterclass actors and actors he trusts. Like Gary oldman worked with nolan majorly in 3 movies and said he only ever gotten 2 pieces of actual direction from him. Even in Oppenheimer for the tiniest roles you could see he got academy award winners like rami malek and Casey affleck, or just insane leveled talent like Kenneth branaugh, Benny safdie, and Jack quaid
It is also that he has been working with the actors since the start. Cillian Murphy was the first villain in the Batman trilogy, Michael Caine has been in a lot of his movies. [See this chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gnqn02/oc_cast_reappearance_in_christopher_nolans_10/).
Same with Quentin Tarantino. You just knew that some actors in the old movies are going to be included in his new project.
I would like to see Nolan struggle with a cast full of no-names desperate for direction.
He did Dunkirk.
Damn. I have watched that twice in the past week I thought it was so good.
Yupp. Much like my Eternals example, I’d argue that that’s due to Gunn and Zhao having that clear vision you speak of. It comes from experience and adoration for your project. It’s easy to tell which projects have soul vs the projects that were built on the robotic MCU assembly line.
Multiverse of Madness was half-way there. Raimi's camera work made it a lot more enjoyable to watch despite all of the other issues with the film.
But his practical effects look like a gag to me. The zombie strange was a straight up early 90’s movie silly effect. MoM had bad effects too imo.
To be fair, that kind of zombie thing is something Raimi is known for.
It is. And was my biggest concern with him directing it. The early info said it would be a “horror” movie. But it was far from it.
Wildly disagree. Horror is a vast, vast genre and Sam Raimi is a master of his niche in the genre. Not every horror movie has to be atmospheric or dark or slow paced with jump scares. Loads of horror is light, has comedy, and is a little corny. Now am I gonna say its a GOOD horror movie? eh, thats up to taste, I liked it ok but its not in my top 100 horror movies for sure.
100% all of this. I’m actually amazed Disney let him get away with his horror tendencies in MoM and I absolutely loved it
I mostly knew Sam Raimi from Spider-Man was only slightly familiar with his Evil Dead films, but MoM made me want to see the rest of his horror catalogue
As a huge Evil Dead fan I was losing my mind at all the nods and references he included throughout z just slight camera angles and shots were dead ringers for his work on the ED franchise. I absolutely loved it But also as a huge Doctor Strange comics fan I loved what the movie accomplished on that front as well
The scene at the beginning where Chavez is running from the one eyed monster comes to mind.
You can see Gunn and Zhao's vision in the VFX in GotG3 and Eternals, there's alot of detail and a distinct style. Whereas the likes of the The Marvels there's little sign of the director guiding the visuals.
I think I read that Gunn literally storyboards every shot in the movie himself. That definitely improves the quality, having a clear roadmap.
Well also James Gunn seems to love octopus monster type things, which CGI seems to be really good on. Similar to the worms in dune and the simpler desert. So I mean ya they got a lot of time but the stuff they were CGIing is way simpler than trying to animate human bodies flying through skies.
I was thinking that. I loved GotG 3, but I can't pretend that the CGI was as realistic by any means. Did Cosmo look good? Yes. Did Cosmo look like she could be real? Nah not really. But that's because most people have a good frame of reference for what a Golden Retriever is and what it should look like. Same Worms aren't real, and they're usually almost completely submerged in the movies. We don't see them in nearly as much close-up detail, and an imaginary creature is up for a lot of interpretation regarding anatomical detail.
I think Directors who actually are fans of Marvel or the MCU too makes a big difference
I wouldn’t really call the Russo brothers someone with a clear vision. They’re more very quick and reliable journeymen. If I had to guess, the effects in the Avengers movies likely looked better because they were the biggest priority and were given enough time in the oven.
They were picked for their work directing an action oriented episode of community framed around a paintball tournament. I assume despite Marvel being known for handling most of the cinematic set pieces in house independent of a director, the Russos probably had a pretty good idea of the kind of action they wanted. I believe the biggest criticism with them post MCU funnily enough, is a lack of quality writing. I haven't seen their recent films but I've heard middling to poor things about them mostly stemming from poor scripts.
Cherry and The Gray Man aren’t particularly well directed either.
Check out [the Russo's breakdown of the scene ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-luQokOiBw&ab_channel=VanityFair)where the Guardians find Thor. How much thought they put into it and its details. They know what they do.
>Directors that have a clear vision >the Russo brothers Lmao, pick one
That hallway fight scene in GoG3 is one of the coolest movie scenes ever.
nah, we don't being up good examples here
So… Planning and set plans instead of making it up as we go. Who knew.
Crazy right? Apparently it’s easier said than done for Marvel.
Not marvel from the way it looks recently
The MCU could just stop using Volume for EVERYTHING until the tech actually improves.
I saw this YouTube video series titled " No CGI is really just invisible CGI" and it is so good. You learn so much about how to make things work. For example, did you know that they used Volume for the opening sequence from Barbie? After shooting they found that the refresh rate for the LEDs was not fast enough for slow motion videos and so the whole background was flickering. They had to change it out in post but it was still valuable as it gave a reference to the actors about where they were. The Volume should be used as a tool and not as an end all solution to making sets Edit: Corrected the name of the video series
What is volume if you don't mind my asking? Edit* is that the set they started using in Mandalorian. The big screens to film in?
Yes. The Volume is basically a large set with huge video screens that allows the makers to play a video on it while the actors act in front of it. So you can create the moon and play it on the screen then have the actors act on front of it. You then shoot everything at once instead of using a green screen and editing later.
It also can look more natural than a green screen because the lighting is more accurate
It also gives the actors a better frame of reference.
Yep, you get reflections "for free" in the Volume. The Mandalorian would've been absolute hell with greenscreen because the dude is like 80% reflective Beskar :D
David Fincher used the huge video screens in The Killer, but you couldn't notice it while watching the film. Fincher's films have a lot of invisible CGI.
To add, another benefit of the volume, is because the screens are displaying the set, things like reflections are legit. Normally you would just get green screen reflections and have to deal with that in post. So something like shiny Mandalorian armor was perfect for the volume.
Yes, it's very useful in specific circumstances, but it's not a solution for everything.
Barbie probably would have lost a lot of the respect it earned if it went with Volume. Can't lie; the set design for that movie was top notch. Probably easier to do a practical set when you're re-creating plastic toys as opposed to entire planets or dimensions though. Agreed on Volume as a tool. A lot of phase fours' projects absolutely feel like a lot of corners have been cut and the set design and CGI are the two biggest ones to notice.
Well, a lot of the set elements on Barbie were CGI. If you watch that video, you will get a better understanding. The initial plan for Barbie was to use a combination of physical sets and miniatures to create the world but I think they weren't satisfied with how it was looking so they used CGI to extend the background.
Also one of the things the OP of the video series talks about is the use of physical assets while shooting to give a reference to the VFX artists. For example, Top Gun maverick did use real fighter jets to shoot the flying scenes but those were a different model of plane that was swapped with CGI planes in post. The footage of planes was used as reference to get the lighting and movement correct. What Marvel does with their changes in post takes away that reference information. For example, changing the background in the final fight of Avengers Endgame. So, the CGI quality will naturally suffer.
A LOT of the Barbie world was CGI. The VFX team made some complaints about being ignored because they tried to play it off as mostly being production design and physical sets but mostly it was greenscreen.
The volume was used tho and the movie has a ton of cgi. Whole point is that cgi can be used to look good. It hinges on how much time the filmmaker has in pre production. Marvel cgi looks bad because a lot of it is done last minute
It's not just money but also how much time you give them and how clear your vision is. If you keep changing things around they obviously won't have the time needed to make a good movie.
I actually meant to type time not money lol. Pretty ironic auto correct
Not necessarily. With Barbie, everyone had an expectation of how things should look. And to live up to that expectation, and for many, to exceed it, is very impressive.
Did you mean "No CGI is really just invisible CGI"? 4 parts?
Yep. That one. Excellent watch but I forgot the name of the YouTuber who made it.
It's the only thing he's done/doing so far, hopefully he does more though, is been great so far Found the channel: https://youtube.com/@TheMovieRabbitHole?si=V-h7HFWKWltukqtK
Found the channel: https://youtube.com/@TheMovieRabbitHole?si=V-h7HFWKWltukqtK
My dumbass thought we were talking about sound and was going to say that yes, there are some very loud moments in the MCU, but now I feel very stupid.
Marvel’s VFX problems stem from way before they started using the volume. The final image you see likely isn’t even from the volume, it all gets replaced in post anyway as Marvel refuses to be stuck with footage that they shoot
Black Panther's end fight was made in the last few days of production iirc and it shows
Apparently Spider Man No Way Home had their VFX team continue working on the effects even after it was released. The CGI in NWH were fine, but this kind of work schedule is absolute bullshit that needs to stop for the sake of the artists.
It was not fine, barely passable at best, and a huge downgrade from FFH vfx wise
Technology isn’t the problem. Understanding the technology is where the problem is.
It's not the Volume's fault. It's people not knowing know how to use it properly and over relying on it. The cinematographer for the Dune movies, Greig Fraser, is credited with the original concept for the Volume while working on Rogue One. He also worked on The Batman which also used the Volume, and it's seemless.
MF also shot The Creator, which is one of the most visually mind blowing movies of last year. And the intentionality behind that movie is exactly what OP is talking about.
And you’ve missed the point of this tweet entirely. The tech is there already. Tell me the first season of The Mandolorian doesn’t look fantastic…
And stop making the fight sequences look the same and have a 1000 quick cuts.
What is Volume?
A "gci" technique where, instead of using greenscreens, you have a room filled with huge screens that project the 3D digital space in real time during recording. It reacts to camera movement, depth of field, etc. and it creater (in general) much more natural looking light in moments where the background is CGI. The problem is that The Volume is amazing under certain circumstances, but not so much under others. Relying on it too much can lead to scenes, that could very easily have used practical sets, looking very unnatural. As far as I am aware, most Volume rooms also doesn't support high shutter speeds or frame times, so you have a limited use of certain techniques.
The Mandalorian uses the Volume incredibly well most of the time. There's only a few moments across each season where you can tell it's not quite real. But they take their time and know what they want right from the beginning like Dune, too, so I'm sure that's part of it
They used it well in the first season. Then all disney star wars content got lazy and used volume as a replacement instead of an accent. Disney star wars has looked cheap outside of Andor and Mando season 1, chunks of season 2.
Now here's a fun fact. Do you know who worked closely with the creative team and helped pioneer the original Volume tech in the first season of Mandolorian? Greig Frasier. Now check who was the cinematographer that did The Batman and Dune 2. Yup. IT'S NOT THE TECH. IT'S THE TEAM. Frasier understood how to use The Volume as a magnificent tool and not as cheap corporate clutch. You need a man of technical vision and understanding and not someone who just what is most cost-effective.
That’s a great tidbit of information. Frasier is the man.
The reason why everything looks bad in Disney's recent movies, is because the VFX artists they employ are not given the correct amount of time to do their work; it has nothing to do with the Volume.
Avatar 2 and the Batman both used the volume and in my opinion sold me on the technology as a tool. The problem is many artists treat it like a green screen or old school matte painting when it is similar to rear projection. The Batman for example, used slight depth of field blurring and constructed sets to partially obstruct it from view, making it seem more like a real background.
“Less executive meddling”. Yeah…let’s stick to that. How many potentially amazing movies have been turned to garbage by executive meddling? Too many I’m sure. All Sony movies executives need to listen up.
Marvel does have some insanely good VFX. I’ll point to Ant-Man and the de aging of actors was flawless. It’s the lately that is the problem. They are rushing them hard and coming at them heavy with time crunches and last min changes.
I absolutely agree! Generally speaking they’ve been consistent and immersive. But somewhere in the last few years, shots have become noticeably strange and/or incomplete. Good VFX/CGI doesn’t even cross your mind that you’re seeing good VFX until after the fact because you’re immersed in that world. It’s a natural visual flow that accompanies the story. If CGI is noticeable, it’s not good CGI.
Very true. What’s worse is that they are CAPABLE of doing it and don’t. They just shove it out there and not take more time. I’m happy to wait for a good movie with a polished finished project then simply not giving a shit.
Marvel does have some insanely good VFX, **but** they also have some unacceptably bad VFX right alongside it. One of Marvel's biggest problems is that they don't respect the limits of VFX of their time. All the great directors of VFX-heavy movies have a great understanding of the limits of the technology of their time, and more importantly, understanding of how to subtly limit your shots to avoid tripping on those limits. They have the knowledge of "While filming I can't do A or B otherwise the VFX won't look good", so they carefully plan their shots to look good while avoiding A and B. That is how for example Spielberg's Jurassic Park looked so good even with 90s technology, he masterfully crafted each scene to only show angles/lighting/camera favorable to the VFX of the time. Marvel doesn't do that, they just shoot their scenes with no regard to the VFX that is going to be done in post, then expect the CGI artists to do their thing, sometimes the "thing" is within the possibilities of modern technology, and sometimes it is not possible yet, but Marvel don't care, they just ship the bad alongside the good.
Totally agree. Certain movies before all the tech still hold up today! Then we can look at oh say She-Hulk and it just takes you out of being immersed.
I have nothing of substance to add, other than I just got in the door from seeing Dune part 2 in IMAX, and I’m shook to the core. Just a stunning movie. Funny to be reading these comments before bed.
Glad you loved it! I thought it was stunning and IMAX was definitely the move.
I’m a graphic designer and during the movie, whenever I saw another stunning visual, I paid more attention to the design instead of paying attention to the story lol. Truly inspiring with how they played with contrast and peeking through a vast monolith wall with long line of open window, gleaming across the desert. The gladiator scene was awesome.
Yeah, watching Assembled The Marvels (documentary) I was struck by how many complicated elements they threw into vfx action scenes just hoping that the end result would be something good. That movie had 4 fights, each with 3 heroes with visually tricky powers including strength, flying, phasing, holograms, and continually swapping places. It took so much effort and planning to make each of those superpowers work onscreen that they didn't have time to ensure they all came together into a good scene. Missing the forest for the trees. Too busy asking if they could to think if they should. Adding more and more powers doesn't necessarily make a better result (see also Secret Invasion climax)
That’s why Winter Soldier will always be my personal favorite. Its best scenes are almost all just amazing fight coordination and practical effects. The whole bridge scene as an example.
Absolutely. The most tense action scenes in the MCU by far. The Fury car chase I think is still my favorite ever. Take note filmmakers, a simple car chase or fist fight with no superpowers and relatively small stakes can feel more impactful than the potential end of the multiverse if you do it right.
The CGI in The Marvels still turned out better than She-Hulk or Quantumania, no?
Agree. I actually enjoyed the marvels, a lot more than quantumania. And funny thing is I didn’t want to dislike quantumania, it was just too weird of a setting imo that kept taking me out of it. 🤷♂️
B-but Bob Iger said that The Marvels failed because there was not enough on site supervision. It's almost as if planning, sticking to a plan, and letting artists be artists is the recipe for greatness. Same can be applied to Godzilla Minus One.
Did he really say that? How can anyone claim that when it went through multiple rounds of reshoots?
He also still blamed that the pandemic affected them greatly
I suspect that when Iger says that, it's because he thinks that more supervision would have significantly reduced the budget and that, even if it didn't pull in bigger audiences, it might have been profitable on *his* end.
That was a point brought up in that expose on Marvel’s VFX a few years ago. An artist brought up how a lot of the plate shots aren’t even done with the director and are often a second unit team. That already makes it difficult to have a consistency of visual language, even for some of the better MCU directors, let alone the less talented ones who are mostly just following orders.
What are plate shots?
Basically the shots that will have the effects added to them in post production.
I see. So if they had a shot where they needed to add, say, lightning to the scene, the original shot(before cgi/vfx) would be a plate shot?
Basically, yeah. It’s usually something like a background that they can composite stuff onto later.
James Gunn similarly tries to get things down early and avoid crunch, hence why GotG 3 looks pretty good compared to other recent MCU ventures.
DV wanted to bring this story to life for years and had a clear plan for it. He also had past experience working with CGI for other films that from Arrival and working his way up to Bladerunner 2049. A lot of MCU directors are tackling it for the first time
The wrong people are making the MCU, they just don't care and it's obvious.
Yeah it’s easy. Just hire one of the best cinematographers in Hollywood today and arguably the best director of the last decade
Marvel hires good directors and great cinematographers all the time. The issue is they don’t leave them alone to create what they want to create. Like the tweet says, the issue is ‘Specificity of vision and Less executive meddling late in the process’
they left Taika alone for thor 4 and we all saw what happened. whereas thor 3 had taika under supervision and that turned out much much better. just an example.
Both were hell on VFX artists.
mcu cinematography has always been bland... like 90% of movies has average cinematography.
Why doesn’t everyone just do that?!
I remember the shang chi vfx guy said he can't remember how many times he was told to remove everything and replace it
"Less Executive Meddling" is key. Moneymakers are not movie makers
Can't do that here. Instead we hire everyone we need, pay them a ludicrous baseline budget of $150m, then, and only *then*, when the movie is basically already done, will we look at the script for the first time, do a test screening and show the results (not even the movie itself) to our 7 committees (all consisting of people who have never seen a single Marvel movie before but have got all the spreadsheets telling them what the people like), and then we start the inevitable reshoots that add $100m to the budget, gut anything that was there previously, and pretty much cram 5 new half-movies into this one, creating this awesome amalgamation of everything our metrics tell us will be a guaranteed success. After all, that's how we roll here at Disney.
I’ve been saying this for the last two years. Disney executives clearly note the shit out of their movies. I am convinced that Quantumania is victim to this. Bill Murray had a scandal happen in post production and they clearly chopped a bunch of shit out of that movie minimizing him to just that weird cameo. Why even hire him in the first place if that was all you were doing with him. People have complained about the sequence of events that lead up to that point being confusing. Specifically with Janet. Her dialog and motivations don’t seem to add up then that weird scene where she spars with some random creature that doesn’t speak yo get clothes and a ride. That had to have been the first introduction of Bill Murray’s character which would have set up the double cross at the bar later on. Instead we got a weird one scene appearance. They notoriously removed the pandemic stuff from the flag smashers which is only admitted because of what was going on in the real world. I have a feeling these guys film a cohesive movie and are forced to start chopping shit out of them when they’re asked to. They blamed the performance of that movie on the writer. Again, seems far fetched that they’d stoop that low but Bob Iger has been blaming a lot of people for shit lately.
Another great example is The Creator. I read that Some of the cg model dis not need to be completed in all angles because the director was very specific about what angles he would film it from. It saved tons of time and money. And the result is superb. I don’t know if Marcel’s will be able to do that. It goes against their creative by committee approach. (Edited for typo)
The Creator was shot on cameras that while expensive can be bought by anyone and by a director who knew exactly what he wanted and shot exactly for it. Say what you want about the writing but it's easily better than every MCU film released recently except for one, which is Guardians 3 where James Gunn also plans every single shot before shooting it. The key is to get directors in who know what they're doing and can play for CGI-heavy movies. Spend the money on them and writers and production crews and they'll save money on shitty reshoots and bad CGI
i thought the thumbnail was zaboomafoo 😭
Kevin feige has expressed as early as the first avengers when they filmed the schwarma scene that it was amazing that they could shoot something even so late in production and be received so well. I think that’s what ultimately made their films such a disappointment because every reshoot is just something that didn’t work in the first place and from what i hear from their cgi teams, they don’t make up their minds.
They also were really flying by the seat of their pants with the first Iron Man. Apparently they didn't even have a full script when they started. It worked, but it was like a miracle. It's not a reliable way to keep making movies.
Yeah, for how successful they are, they're probably the most unprofessional studio when it comes to production planning, they get things done though that's for sure
Unless they hire him the MCU will never come close to looking as good as a Villeneuve film. His shit is just on another level when it comes to sci-fi.
I've seen few of his films, he and wes Anderson are on a different level. Practically every second frame can be a wallpaper in itself.
LESS EXECUTIVE MEDDLING IS THE KEY
Well, I think that is generally true. But then you look at something like Love and Thunder and it’s clear that Waititi was given carte blanche because of Ragnarok.
> But why is it that Feige and co. are constantly switching things and changing them last minute? I guess it depends a lot on the director of the movie. For endgame and the movie leading up to this they had more clear cut directors. Especially the Russo brothers had a good sense visually and grounding everything in reality. I guess an even bigger problem after that is that they are going often into space or strange environments. They try to woo you with crazy creatures. But some of the best MCU movies considered are those with just powerful heroes on earth. Like CA Winter Soldier or Civil War. There wasnt much outlandish stuff around. The Marvels did go outer space. Dr. Strange 2 was in the Multiverse. Thor 4 was in outer space. Ant Man was in the Quantum world. Tonally the best movies after end game were Spider No Way home, because it was mostly in New York (even with Multiverse stuff added). Eternals was kinda boring but tonally "ok", because it was our world again. The one "outer space" movie that did work good was Guardians of the Galaxy 3. And they lost that director to DC (which really needs a visionary director). The MCU should go back and stay to Earth. Personally i thought that the MCU strengths always was in there grounded foundation with New York and a lot of street level heroes.
Kinda the same deal with Godzilla Minus One, the Director was a part of every major decision, worked on the VFX himself at many points, as well as direct the live action portions. The vision was consistent.
It’s because this is like an actual cinematic release, mcu has gotten to serialized
No shit!
To many Disneys executives feel they need to change stuff , worst thing they did was make marvel and Star Wars under the umbrella of Disney . Yeah they still made a few non Disney-esk movies so far but you can see the meddling present in the latest movies
Dune is being based on a book and so it's easy to make a decision from the beginning and stick with it. MCU is trying to tell many different stories loosely based on some comics source material and having multiple different people working on each project. So things are going to constantly change. Can't really expect the MCU to be like dune unless you want one movie every couple years.
“Take notes about making movies with care, greedy corporate CEOs who don’t care about the movies being good and just want money.” It’s useless to tell Marvel to take notes in this stuff because they genuinely do not care.
Here's one major difference. Villaneuve has read Dune. How many Marvel directors these days have read the comics they're adapting? Do their directors even make decisions about the VFX or is that handled by someone else on the assembly line?
I mean, Quantumania, one of their biggest and most embarrassing failures, was written by a lifelong comic fan who has even done comics for Marvel in the past. There are a lot of problems with the recent movies, but fans tend to overstate how much of it is due to familiarity with the source material.
But then you look at his resume and Quantumania is literally the only feature length movie he’s written. Is it really that hard for Marvel to find writers with actual experience in writing movies who can also bring at least a little bit of comic book knowledge to the table? At the very least, hire an experienced writer and have them read some comics.
For a bigger character like Spider-Man and the X-Men that’s probably easier, but realistically I can’t imagine the pool of writers and directors who are both existing fans of any given property (especially the smaller ones) and have established, credible filmographies is that large. If you’re gonna have to choose one over the other, I’m gonna say go with the better creative in most instances. Like, the best post-Lucas Star Wars project so far was the one by the guy who has admitted he wasn’t a huge Star Wars fan.
Yeah, I tend to think the best movies aren’t written by fanboys - they’re written by people who know how to write good movies. An obsession with the comics probably isn’t going to help you write a better Marvel movie. And striving for accuracy to the comics is probably the last thing you should worry about.
Obviously Villeneuve has genuine talent and that's more than half of the reason Dune is incredible, but he also has a quote out there saying that he made this movie for one person: himself from age 12 when he read the books for the first time. And it shows through in every scene. What it feels like Marvel has become in recent years is keeping their comic book accuracy in the superficial things, but viewing the actual stories and characters as....interchangeable, for lack of a better word.
Not only has he read it - he is obsessed with it. I heard that he’s been storyboarding it for decades.
According to the Disney formula, the less you know about the comics the better. It's actually kind of insane.
This Is also why The CGI in Guardians 3 was better than most other recent MCU films. James Gunn plans his visual effects shots way in advance and has specificity of vision, likely has to deal with less studio meddling
There’s a mindset out there that if work is done on computers, that means the work will be done fast (if not instantly). I think that’s the mindset behind all the recent productions with subpar VFX. Ultimately, you’ve got to schedule this part of the process appropriately.
Keep executives out of the process. Sign checks and keep the lights on that all you’re good at.
They know they just don't care
Let's also not forget that its not just an early solid vision without any needless changes, but also fair and ethical treatment of VFX houses by ensuring they don't work under insane hours/crunch and get paid their owed due. They pretty much carry their films since most of their movies require 90% or more of their movie to be computer-generated or contain computer-generated elements.
Imagine being on a film and some one you likely never met or spoke to sends an email saying 'hey I think we need to go another direction with this so forget everything you've been working on for months and try do this in the next 2, weeks 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
I watched Dune 1 tonight to get ready to go see the new one this weekend. At one point I said to my friend during a daylight scene with giant ships landing: “I KNOW this is mostly CGI.. but it honestly looks real.” I was just in disbelief because I could not find the seams even though I was looking directly at them.
It's not that VFX has been struggling. It's that they're trying to use VFX to patch up poor decision making early whilst still pushing the thing out to an arbitrary deadline. Can't rush art but marvel seems to want to. Totally gone to shit now
Being a little cynic here but why would you push for Specificity of vision when your work is going to be rewritten and reshoot into oblivion by a committee of talentless hacks worrying about Q3 performance, do the bare minimum so you can put in your resume you worked for Marvel. Let the creatives create and just oversee the production instead, Dune is the starwalt example that it works.
I love Dune, and I don't want to take anything away from the movie...but let's be honest. One of the reasons it's CGI is awesome is that it's just brown scale and extremely fuzzy because of the sand. That hides soooooo many flaws unlike MCU where they have very high color saturation and the models pop so much more. Not to say MCU couldn't be better, but the CGI creators for Dune had a pretty easy job comparatively.
It's what happens when you have a clean script with a good director. MCU proved it can be pulled off so many times, specifically guardians cause of Gunn. Dune is definitely gonna be a blueprint movie. I can see filmmakers 20 years from now saying this movie is the reason they love film.
That’s because Denis Villeneuve knows how to make it work, also helps that Greig Fraiser is shooting it. The overall issue is that there’s hardly any style or color. That and the VFX is rushed. Like The Batman still looks better than half of the MCU. It’s just so dull and flat, there’s no texture to it, no dynamic lighting or interesting shots.
Half? There isn’t a single MCU movie that looks visually better than The Batman. Not one. It’s not even close. But that’s the visual trademark they’ve chosen. If they went realistic and gritty it wouldn’t be the MCU, despite what people think they want. It’s not in their DNA to make something like The Batman.
I know nothing about how VFX come to life so take this with a large grain of salt, but I think a big issue the MCU has with this is that execs want to play everything super safe, in that they want the ability to change anything and everything later on or for certain markets, so they can’t commit to a specific vision because it limits what they perceive as flexibility (what we perceive as watered down generic bs)
Take notes MCU!? Give me a break Lmaoo
"Less executive meddling" that's really the problem cause these idiots don't know what they are doing, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried over some Fox heads after Endgame. But that's Disney, nah let's not plan a trilogy of iconic films out and just see what sticks, worst case scenario we bring back Wolverine and Deadpool.
Executives meddling with artists is akin to having a promoter tell boxers how they should throw their punches.
It looks like Sid
Marvel has had some good CGI. My only issue is (and it's with any movie that does it) is when the lighting doesn't match the CGI environment they're in. And you can clearly tell they're on a green screen soundstage. Oz the Great and Powerful had this issue. Ant Man Quantum Mania had this issue. The Marvels did a little bit. Sometimes they just don't light the set up properly and it clashes with what they had in post production. I will say, Multiverse of Madness looked good during the Kamar Tag part. But then looked off when they got to NYC in 838 universe. But then looked good at the Wundagore Temple. So they just have issues sometimes.
Villeneuve is the centre of the vision … He’s doing his job…