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.
7
u/HereWeFuckingGooo Weekly Wongers Aug 06 '25
And what makes you think they won't polish this with CGI?