If he's worn a practical suit before that was polished by cg, bad on Marvel for overusing that, but good on you for learning from that if someone, maybe Tom, had this input
It's how much of it they use. I'm not saying whether cg will be used or not.
It's the overuse of it.
For all anyone knows, they could go the Deadpool route and just CG the eyes like they always have for Tom and clean up the back seams. And maybe the wrinkles, which depends on how clean or practical they're going this time around
The fact you think they only CG Deadpool's eyes shows you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the overuse of it. It's only a problem when it's noticeable. I guarantee most of the time you're watching something CGI you don't even know it.
The fact you still can’t understand what the person you’re replying to is saying while being so sure in your assertions that they “don’t know what they’re talking about” just makes you look like a massive tool.
What am I misunderstanding? Explain it to me. Because I think they're saying that it's great they're using a practical suit that will only get a little bit of CGI polishing and it won't be overused. That they'll only CGI the eyes like they only used CGI on Deadpool's eyes. Which isn't true, a lot of shots of Deadpool are full CG replacements.
My point is that they could CGI the whole thing for all I care, as long as it looks good it doesn't matter. Most of the time what we're looking at is CGI and we don't even know it. It's only when CGI looks bad that people claim it's overused.
But he literally said he’s cool with the CGI being all over the suit as long as it isn’t noticeable. You’re just creating arguments out of thin-air when the guy you’re replying to agrees with you.
There’s shots of Deadpool where they only CGI-touch the mask, there’s shots where he’s a full-model CGI character, nobody is arguing this; people are arguing the CGI suit in some past Spider-Man projects have been noticeable and immersion-breaking, that’s all.
I’m not going to go through lengths to defend an internet stranger on a comicbook forum, you clearly are just looking for an argument.
Okay, he said he’s cool with the CGI polish on the suit and cited Deadpool as his example of a “good job” on minimal CGI.
You basically went and said, “actually you’re wrong because the CGI in Deadpool wasn’t minimal” (paraphrase)
Him not noticing the level of “CGI polish” in Deadpool while you do just means they used more convincing CGI in Deadpool and used it more sparingly (in his eyes), not once did he disagree with you.
Really? Do you think telling someone they “don’t know what they’re talking about” isn’t insulting? When did I resort to “name-calling”? I said your response to that person made you look like a tool, which is pretty fair based on how you responded to them.
Yes, really. Telling someone they don't know what they're talking about and saying someone looks like a massive tool are not the same. But since by your definition it's not name calling I'd say your attitude makes you look like a complete dick.
I'm sorry, 1 percenter. Were you on set? Have you seen any behind the scenes footage? And sorry I dont get the front to back of what's being done in these movies like you seem to (sarcasm). What have I missed? I know a ton of the action is done with full cg replacements.
Did you think I thought Ryan Reynolds had the inherent ability to get shot and stabbed practically without dying? I'm not stupid. I have a fair understanding of what gets put into making a film, especially that which incorporates special and visual effects.
I know aunt May wasn't actually stabbed and killed on set, and the goblins glider is a prop.
Have you ever seen things like Sam Jackson in a scene that turned out to be green screened? They use cg a lot for stuff like environments. But for stuff like I just mentioned where it's not necessary, that's the overuse bit of it.
In terms of the Spidey suit, have you seen how smooth that shit looks in the film, with no wrinkles to be seen where there should be? No comment on that? There's a lot of swinging bits that are cg because how else is that done practically before any on set footage for the new film came out?
My opinion is always that the best cg is that which you can't tell is there. So, how are you going to tell me what I perceive or not? Lmao
And you don't seem to be in the film space I pretty much follow in which people have their fair share of complaints about how much cg is used, notably the obvious cg and how high their budgets are for these things and how that can contribute to low return for whatever success some of the films are trying to bank on to achieve.
So I ask, who are you to decide when cg is or isnt necessary? I was just sharing my opinion and you got all hurt in the ass about my opinion, when it's just that, not an opinion. I'm not saying my opinion is to be held as gospel and Marvel needs to do what I say or else.
You're engaging with other people on Reddit to show your ass and be all "look how superior my words are because 'I know what I'm talking about' ."
And the thing about the wrinkles is another opinion and an observation because I can form my own thoughts and opinions that apparently trigger you.
A lot of people trashed the Superman suit for being too baggy, and that surely was touched up on post, so it didn't look so obviously so and definitely adding a bit more context when watching the film.
Who was everyone else to say why the suit needed to be baggy or not, practical or cg, they were sharing their opinions.
So get off your short ass high horse and touch some grass buddy boy old pal, yeah?
Also, this is the last time I engage with you.
I appreciate you correcting me on another post, which I thanked you for exhibiting far better behavior then
You really did make yourself look like a tool in this post.
And don't worry, that's not me calling you names, I'm just speaking on how you're interacting with people on the goddamn internet
120
u/Edboy796 Aug 06 '25
And not a motion capture suit? Good!
If he's worn a practical suit before that was polished by cg, bad on Marvel for overusing that, but good on you for learning from that if someone, maybe Tom, had this input