[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[Endus]

They had nowhere near the problem with Ruffalo, and they could have used the technique used in Free Guy instead, which should be a bit easier and smoother (and cheaper) now that the technique has been developed. Given the amount of cash they have to throw around, there's no excuse for it being as shoddy as it was in the trailer.

The only hope is that it was a marketing gimmick (it's certainly got a lot of people talking) and it's either unfinished or they purposely used unfinished shots for the trailer for this express purpose. But it's admittedly a long shot.

But hey, that gets in the way of white knighting, so here you are.

That's a discussion about why the CGI gets a little uncanny-y in the trailer, when I was responding to why practical effects wouldn't work for the show.

As for the "white knighting", I've been saying the CGI looks off the whole damned time, so you're really digging deep to make up something to try and complain about.

[qwerty123456]

There's no possible way to make someone look bigger with practical effects. They certainly haven't been doing so for the past 100 years

[Biomega]

There's no possible way to make someone look bigger with practical effects. They certainly haven't been doing so for the past 100 years

As people have pointed out, there ARE ways, but they can't be used in every situation. And you can't just redo every scene to accommodate for practical effects. At some point, CGI is just the best option. And you better get that right, or things will look REALLY shit.

[Orby]

There's no possible way to make someone look bigger with practical effects. They certainly haven't been doing so for the past 100 years

Unless you do some forced perspective effects a'la Lord of the Rings. But I think that could be too much work in this case :P

[Endus]

There's no possible way to make someone look bigger with practical effects. They certainly haven't been doing so for the past 100 years

Not to the degree Maslany needs to (she can't just wear platforms or stand on a box in close shots), not without forced perspective, and forced perspective has a lot of really specific limitations on cinematography.

Like the example I cited; the LotR movies, which famously used forced perspective in exactly this way, it was expensive, difficult, and still they had to use CGI in all kinds of spots because forced perspective couldn't possibly be used for every shot.

[Infinity Cubed]

Again, they had no problem doing it with Ruffalo in all of the MCU movies (and this series itself), nor was there any problem doing it with Ryan Reynolds in Free Guy using a completely different method, one which probably would work better (ie, pretty much painting her face on a larger actor's body). But they opted for... whatever it is we've seen in the trailer.

Also again, here's hoping it's either unfinished CGI or an intentional choice to get people talking, and they're going to have the finished product in the series itself. If that is, indeed, the finished product they fucked up, and fucked up big. (Or not nearly big enough, as the case is.)

[Biomega]

Again, they had no problem doing it with Ruffalo in all of the MCU movies (and this series itself), nor was there any problem doing it with Ryan Reynolds in Free Guy using a completely different method, one which probably would work better (ie, pretty much painting her face on a larger actor's body). But they opted for... whatever it is we've seen in the trailer.

Also again, here's hoping it's either unfinished CGI or an intentional choice to get people talking, and they're going to have the finished product in the series itself. If that is, indeed, the finished product they fucked up, and fucked up big. (Or not nearly big enough, as the case is.)

My guess is that it's budget restraints.

It's a very different world between a 90-minute movie and a 9-episode series. CGI doesn't just magically happen, it costs a lot of money.

[Endus]

Again, they had no problem doing it with Ruffalo in all of the MCU movies (and this series itself), nor was there any problem doing it with Ryan Reynolds in Free Guy using a completely different method, one which probably would work better (ie, pretty much painting her face on a larger actor's body). But they opted for... whatever it is we've seen in the trailer.

Also again, here's hoping it's either unfinished CGI or an intentional choice to get people talking, and they're going to have the finished product in the series itself. If that is, indeed, the finished product they fucked up, and fucked up big. (Or not nearly big enough, as the case is.)

There's really only the one scene in the trailer that even feels that hinky to me, the one where she's picking the guy up in her arms. Beyond that, it's pretty much fine, IMO. And it's not coming out for like another three months, all of which they'd continue working on it. Let's recall that they delayed Sonic the Hedgehog for three months when it was already in the can, because of Internet pushback on the Sonic character design, and they got it out and fixed it entirely in that time frame, and that was going back to the drawing board on character design completely, not just fine-tuning some detail work.

[qwerty123456]

Not to the degree Maslany needs to (she can't just wear platforms or stand on a box in close shots), not without forced perspective, and forced perspective has a lot of really specific limitations on cinematography.

Like the example I cited; the LotR movies, which famously used forced perspective in exactly this way, it was expensive, difficult, and still they had to use CGI in all kinds of spots because forced perspective couldn't possibly be used for every shot.

Unless you do some forced perspective effects a'la Lord of the Rings. But I think that could be too much work in this case :P

As people have pointed out, there ARE ways, but they can't be used in every situation. And you can't just redo every scene to accommodate for practical effects. At some point, CGI is just the best option. And you better get that right, or things will look REALLY shit.

You have forced perspective, stunt doubles, smaller props/clothing, film overlay or splicing?(not sure whats the term I'm not a filmmaker), and I'm sure a dozen other things they have successfully done over the years. I could see arguing that practical effects wouldn't be cost effective but to say they just can't do it is hilariously stupid. Hell they could have just pulled something from the original Hulk and have two actors play the different parts they could even have Maslany dub over the She Hulk actor if they wanted to keep the same voice.

[Biomega]

to say they just can't do it is hilariously stupid.

What's hilariously stupid is to assume that anyone ever said that. Because nobody here did.

And often it's not about cost-efficiency so much as it is about cinematography. Practical effects require certain setups. Scenes have to be shot a certain way. Things have to be set up in ways that facilitate those effects. That puts a big burden on the creative expression of the film, and since we're no longer in the 1950s we don't have to shoot an entire film/series in a way that allows for practical effects.

CGI is often even the more expensive alternative to some practical effects, but it allows for FAR greater creative freedom because you can do almost anything with it.

[Infinity Cubed]

You have forced perspective, stunt doubles, smaller props/clothing, film overlay or splicing?(not sure whats the term I'm not a filmmaker), and I'm sure a dozen other things they have successfully done over the years. I could see arguing that practical effects wouldn't be cost effective but to say they just can't do it is hilariously stupid. Hell they could have just pulled something from the original Hulk and have two actors play the different parts they could even have Maslany dub over the She Hulk actor if they wanted to keep the same voice.

Either of those would definitely have been preferred over what we see in the trailers. I mean, random people on the Internet are putting together stuff that looks better. Example

But again, I'm hoping it's just a marketing gimmick and we'll get a quality closer to what we've come to expect from Marvel in the finished product. Because, honestly, there's no way the people responsible for the show haven't actually seen the fucking trailer themselves; literally everyone I know, both online and off, who've seen it have been all "wtf?" They can't be that dense, can they?

[qwerty123456]

What's hilariously stupid is to assume that anyone ever said that. Because nobody here did.

And often it's not about cost-efficiency so much as it is about cinematography. Practical effects require certain setups. Scenes have to be shot a certain way. Things have to be set up in ways that facilitate those effects. That puts a big burden on the creative expression of the film, and since we're no longer in the 1950s we don't have to shoot an entire film/series in a way that allows for practical effects.

CGI is often even the more expensive alternative to some practical effects, but it allows for FAR greater creative freedom because you can do almost anything with it.

n"ot to the degree Maslany needs to (she can't just wear platforms or stand on a box in close shots), not without forced perspective, and forced perspective has a lot of really specific limitations on cinematography."

"As people have pointed out, there ARE ways, but they can't be used in every situation. And you can't just redo every scene to accommodate for practical effects. At some point, CGI is just the best option. And you better get that right, or things will look REALLY shit.
"

Bad CGI is always worse looking than bad practical effects. Jennifer Walters is 5′ 10″ Tatiana Maslany is 5′ 4″ while She Hulk is 6′7″. She doesn't even grow a full foot in height you wouldn't even need to find a smoking hot 6′7″ actress as you would get same height difference using someone like Elizabeth Debicki.

[Endus]

Bad CGI is always worse looking than bad practical effects. Jennifer Walters is 5′ 10″ Tatiana Maslany is 5′ 4″ while She Hulk is 6′7″. She doesn't even grow a full foot in height you wouldn't even need to find a smoking hot 6′7″ actress as you would get same height difference using someone like Elizabeth Debicki.

In the MCU, Walters isn't 5'10". She's 5'4".

People really need to stop pulling minutiae from the comics and pretending they're true of the MCU.

You're citing this; https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jenni...rs_(Earth-616)

That only applies to Earth-616 Jennifer Walters. Not the MCU version, which is Earth-199999.

And before you cite Mysterio in Spider-Man: Far From Home saying it's Earth-616, I'll remind you he was making that shit up and literally knew nothing about other universes; it's an amusing reference, not a contradiction.

It's weird as hell to pretend Maslany's Walters is supposed to be 5'10". They clearly don't make any effort to make her seem taller than her actual 5'4" in the trailer we've all seen now.

[rarhyx]

And before you cite Mysterio in Spider-Man: Far From Home saying it's Earth-616, I'll remind you he was making that shit up and literally knew nothing about other universes; it's an amusing reference, not a contradiction.

spoiler from dr strange 2:
iirc christie also said the mcu earth is 616

[SavoirFaire]

spoiler from dr strange 2:
iirc christie also said the mcu earth is 616

Which is another universe that has cataloged alternate universes, hence that is true only in their frame of reference. I’ll collect my no-prize.

[qwerty123456]

Yeah, that sounds worse.

Using another actress sounds worse than bad cgi? Why is that? Hopefully they spend more time on it and improve it so she could eventually be in the films without standing out so much compared to Hulk.

In the MCU, Walters isn't 5'10". She's 5'4".

People really need to stop pulling minutiae from the comics and pretending they're true of the MCU.

You're citing this; https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jenni...rs_(Earth-616)

That only applies to Earth-616 Jennifer Walters. Not the MCU version, which is Earth-199999.

And before you cite Mysterio in Spider-Man: Far From Home saying it's Earth-616, I'll remind you he was making that shit up and literally knew nothing about other universes; it's an amusing reference, not a contradiction.

It's weird as hell to pretend Maslany's Walters is supposed to be 5'10". They clearly don't make any effort to make her seem taller than her actual 5'4" in the trailer we've all seen now.

When are you ever told the height of a character in a film/tv? They don't give Robert Downey jr highheels to make him an official height they do so so he looks the height they want with the other characters he's interacting with. And I didn't say she needed to be 5' 10" I said the height difference is less than a foot and could easily be done with another actress playing the She Hulk version.


Also MCU established that the MCU is also the 616 earth.

[Endus]

Using another actress sounds worse than bad cgi? Why is that? Hopefully they spend more time on it and improve it so she could eventually be in the films without standing out so much compared to Hulk.

Because your only reason to want a different actress is that she's taller, not that she can better portray the character.

When are you ever told the height of a character in a film/tv? They don't give Robert Downey jr highheels to make him an official height they do so so he looks the height they want with the other characters he's interacting with.

Tom Cruise does that, like, a lot.

But regardless, we can see the height of the character. Maybe we're off by an inch or two without a tape to go by. But it's not that complicated.

And I didn't say she needed to be 5' 10" I said the height difference is less than a foot and could easily be done with another actress playing the She Hulk version.

Except the height difference is not "less than a foot". As we can see, on-screen. This is where you start making stuff up that has no basis in the MCU, and holding it to your personal made-up non-standard.

Also MCU established that the MCU is also the 616 earth.

It literally can't be. To the point that any such indication in an MCU film, like the one in Far From Home, has to be presumed to be an error or an issue of perspective.

The characters in the MCU have wildly divergent origin stories and what story elements are borrowed are changed heavily. It's clearly not the same universe. Or Peter would've known some version of the villains that showed up in No Way Home, and he clearly didn't. Just as one super obvious example. Hell, for another; where's Uncle Ben? He's always been there in Peter's story from the start, in the Earth-616 continuity. And he's not here, in the MCU; not only just not present, but literally has never existed.

You can't seriously claim the MCU is actually Earth-616 in the Marvel continuity.

[rarhyx]

can we just agree there is just a comic universe with all it's different earth versions and a cinemtaic universe?
like both are seperate spheres that can't interact with each other
or like 2 capsules: in one is the comic variant and in the other the cinematic
basically capsule A earth-616 and caspule B earth-616

the cinematic is just using the comic(s) as a baseline and twist it for their needs
atleast that's how I see until marvel says anything different

[Lady Atia]

In the MCU, Walters isn't 5'10". She's 5'4".

People really need to stop pulling minutiae from the comics and pretending they're true of the MCU.

You're citing this; https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jenni...rs_(Earth-616)

That only applies to Earth-616 Jennifer Walters. Not the MCU version, which is Earth-199999.

And before you cite Mysterio in Spider-Man: Far From Home saying it's Earth-616, I'll remind you he was making that shit up and literally knew nothing about other universes; it's an amusing reference, not a contradiction.

It's weird as hell to pretend Maslany's Walters is supposed to be 5'10". They clearly don't make any effort to make her seem taller than her actual 5'4" in the trailer we've all seen now.

Wrong. MCU is officially called 616 now, and to go with this not connected to the same multiverse as the comics, it seems.

[MrLachyG]

Indeed. It was confusing as hell.

not really. the book that stated that the MCU was Earth-19999 was written when, back in 2009? so back then they probably didn't have the plans to do multiverse, they were firmly focused on phases 1 2 and 3. so yeah basically the book is not right, what they said in the movie is right.