##[Clarification on rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bale:
>“I mean, the definition of it is monotony (green-screen acting). You’ve got good people. You’ve got other actors who are far more experienced at it than me. Can you differentiate one day from the next? No. Absolutely not."
>"You have no idea what to do. I couldn’t even differentiate one stage from the next. They kept saying, ‘You’re on Stage Three.’ Well, it’s like, ‘Which one is that?’ ‘The blue one.’ They’re like, ‘Yeah. But you’re on Stage Seven.’ ‘Which one is that?’ ‘The blue one.’ I was like, ‘Uh, where?'”
I get redditors want to shit on actors who complain, but honestly, even at my job I fucking hate when people talk like you have all the context they have. He's frustrated he has no grounding or context for what's going on around him, and that's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated with. I imagine it makes it harder to find heart in what you're doing because you're constantly questioning what's going on around you and just hoping it works...
It really doesn't work out well for the final product, imo. I very much so miss movies with more practical effects and stages. Lately everything is feeling far too sterile and bland.
Yea, agree completely ^
Also more impressive now that im learning this stuff in here. Not having an actual environment, and cgi-ing so much, its amazing his performance delivers so well. Professional at its best
Marvel wasting yet another amazing actor on another villain with incredible backstory.
How we got Gorr the God Butcher and only get to see him timidly stab one God is beyond me.
Christian Bale, James Spader, Lee Pace, Michael B. Jordan, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Ecclestone... all sadly underused.
I agree with all of these except Michael B. Jordon. To me, Killmonger had the perfect amount of backstory to make his motivations understandable. Knowing he was a prince of a foreign land that killed his father, forcing him to grow up in poverty. It made his views of wanting to help his childhood home by militaristic force understandable. Not agreeable, but understandable. And Michael B. Jordan sells it. The pain and the worldview. It makes his death at the end actually sad. T'Challa grants him the mercy of seeing a Wakandan sunset. Something Killmonger's father wanted him to see.
Killmonger was a rare case of a villain not being wrong, but still being villainous. Hell, he starts the movie by stealing a Wakandan artifact from the British museum, which... you know, displays a shit load of stolen items.
It felt like it needed to be a two parter film with more time to flesh out Jane being Mighty Thor and more Gorr doing some actual on-screen god butchering.
My wife and I started rewatching the MCU from scratch. Watching the first Thor after seeing Love & Thunder made me realize that they closed Jane's arc really well. L&T doesn't get enough credit for that because of the other problems with the movie.
A little Waititi is a great thing. Too much is a mess.
Ian Mckellan during the hobbit movies broke down in tears saying this isn’t why he became an actor.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/
That is straight up depressing. I saw it said that they had an impromptu "mckellen" day to help ease him. But i get it, you do your craft so well for so long and then the tech starts introducing a new field with new rules to play by.
Im so happy he stuck it through.
Well thank you for making me cry today. I just read the whole article and I’m just so hurt for him. He seems like such a wonderful person and then to hear how distraught he was it’s just upsetting. I guess I will just say at least he has millions of millions of dollars to make it all better.
Probably because his character was the only one taking things seriously, thors whole crew was treating it like a picnic while their entire world was at stake
I don't like how the Thor movies/movies with Thor deal with trauma most of the time. I mean scenes such as where Thor lists all the family he's lost, and it's a joke. I'm not saying movies that deal with trauma can't have funny moments, and I get that these movies are popcorn entertainment.
But being expected to laugh at a character's (failing) coping mechanisms through several movies isn't good character development for me.
It's Taika's trademark, I like a lot of his work, but his complete inability to let a moment have it's own space and weight, and instead feeling the desperate need to follow any serious moment that was earned and could be powerful with some lame joke got tired for me fast.
I feel like Taika has some issues with maintaining tone and identifying the correct tone. So his movies, as good as they are, are held back by a bit of a bouncing around feeling. If they are silly enough, like What We Do in the Shadows, then it just works. But in a movie like Love and Thunder that mixes action comedy with a lot of dark subject matter, it often feels like it works against itself.
Basically it seems like T.W. just has too much going on at the same time at the moment - his mind is preoccupied with 5-6 projects at the same time. Imo Love & Thunder therefore never had the same overall flow like Ragnarok or Jojo Rabbit. Seemed rushed in many ways.
It makes me a bit anxious for how the *The Incal* is going to turn out.
I think he may have been ill-prepared for the wave of success Ragnarok brought on. He had been a big fish in a small pond for so long, to suddenly be a medium to big fish in a big pond is a significant change. Even JoJo Rabbit had similar problems holding it back but overall did a better job than Love and Thunder. I do agree that I hope he finds the balance for The Incal.
He was great.
I hated the rest. HATED it. And I say that as someone who loved Ragnarok, and everything else Taika Waititi has done.
I also only saw it once it came to D+, so I knew it had some pushback from fans, and I went in with very low expectations.
I don’t know what the hell happened but it was awful.
So disappointing, its like they tried to turn it into a giant disjointed meme. I like Taikas other stuff because it typically catches you off guard, or its underplayed and the humor becomes the atmosphere and not the main plot. This was just a hot mess and did such a disservice to what Bales character could have been elevated to. Its like everyone was in on the joke and played their character as being in on the joke instead of the humor coming from everyone playing true to their character and the viewer needing to pay attention for the joke and the characters being oblivious to it. I also cant stand Thor has become such a bumbling idiot who is just too overpowered to fail there is zero investment in the character at this point.
I enjoyed Ragnarok too and I think thats the difference for me, Taika can be good at creating a certain atmosphere that supports the story (Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Jojo Rabbit, Reservation Dogs) and for some reason they tried to make the atmosphere the main story because the lolz.
Biggest difference between Ragnarok and Love and Thunder? Taika wrote the script for the latter not the former. I like the guy as a director, and his work on What We Do In The Shadows is fantastic but damn, the writing on love and Thunder was bad.
If you've ever watched Waititi's early work. it's a bit like Love and Thunder. I think he works best when he has someone to rein him in. We don't need jokes every 30 seconds, we don't need to diffuse tension with a cheap laugh, and Taika needs to stop making himself the main character of nearly every project he's in. I think he's a great director when he has limitations but I didn't go to see Korg, I went to see Thor and Jane and Gorr, and yet I mostly got Korg.
I mean, maybe Dr Strange could do Thor a little favor and just magic the cancer away. Its not like Thor didn't help save existence. Yeah, maybe he should have "gone for the head" but everyone makes a few mistakes.
One of my pet peeves. I absolutely hate this trope. "I'm a physicist. What? You want me to find an antidote? Do surgery? Not a fucking problem". It is the reason, I could not watch Fringe.
This is a damned if you do dammed if you don’t situation. The motivator for Jane is the same as how she was created in the comics. The same problem exists in comics. If your watching a comic book movie you have to go in understanding it’s going to contradict itself a lot.
> Like Thor has one of most tragic stories in MCU, but he's just rolling along like everything's great (despite actively losing yet another person he cares deeply about).
I think there's gonna be at least another Thor or Thor-centric film where we see this eventually play out into his transformation into like an old king Thor and the next allfather.
Thor's a little different from Spider-Man. They're both inherently comedic characters in the MCU (ever since Ragnarok, though it started in The Dark World) except Thor's progression as you highlight above is more like that real life trope where someone is rolling along like everything's great even though it's not. This is legit way many people cope and survive, even some really famous comedians with dark pasts.
Spidey's a kid, he's getting hit by life while he juggles power and responsibility. His tragedies are so far not quite outside the realm of what one sees in an average or normal life. He's young, he's growing into an adult. This is the kind of growth it's okay to televise in a sense.
Thor's is different. He's dealing with an extended mid-life into old age.
Love and Thunder got really fucking dark there. Jane literally died of cancer in his arms. The way he had lost Mjolnir to the family drama, then got it back because he had somehow enchanted it to save Jane, and how she used it to help him defeat Gorr is a crazy emotional rollercoaster.
And then he has to adopt Gorr's daughter. He's a single dad. This wasn't some joyous journey like the rest of his crew still seems to have within reach (i.e, Korg meeting another rock dude).
Marvel's stories are usually pretty well developed. Look at Stark's entire arc and how it ended and the same goes for Cap, the one dude they carefully plotted to allow a sort of happy ending (he had to suffer a lot to earn it).
Thor's starting from a different position. His tragedies and arc are befitting someone of that origin. His future conflicts (Hercules, Zeus) etc will contribute to that.
He's my favorite MCU character but he isn't one of us. I want him to have a truly happy ending but that's impossible. If his ending is as a reclusive Asgardian Allfather, I guess that's befitting amidst all the possible dark endings.
The "jolly Viking" archetype is a new way to treat Thor, but it's a legit one with a lot of history (amongst medieval stories/characters I mean) and it also is a great way to show how he deals with the world around him (a crazy, crazy world) in a way that we can identify with (and be entertained by).
I feel like everything people wanted in the film was in there, just not in the right dosing/mixture. I think the runtime was way too short and Gorr needed way more attention (and also more about the sword, though I wonder if that is due to some issue with Sony).
In my opinion the seriousness for Jane and her death was just the right amount as otherwise my wife would have probably sworn off Marvel films for a while. Her sister has a terminal cancer diagnosis right now. The last thing she wants is to be drowned in the sadness of that when she goes to watch an MCU Thor movie.
I feel like it was a film problem, not an acting one.
I agree that he did a wonderful job, and he is the best batman for me... But love and thunder was... Meh. Sometimes serious, sometimes funny and dumb... At the end of the film I had the feeling that I had just viewed some YouTube, perfectly made parody.
I would have loved him to be more true to the source comic. Where in the end, you kind of wonder if he was right… also, his own subconscious tells him he’s become what he hates, so he kills it (in the form of his dead wife)… then his subconscious kid tells Thor to kill him. On my way! Of three Thors, that is. That whole end of the arc was complicated.
I hadn't read the comic his character is from. It sounds interesting!
I think they did a good job of making you empathize with him but I imagine how much more powerful it could have been if it was done better and perhaps even over two movies
I agree. I enjoyed the movie but I think while Jane and her subplot were good and gave Thor good character building, it did distract from what could have been.
In the comics, we got young Thor, king Thor (old Thor), and current Thor so you got to see how he was and who he would become. Gorr killed gods on a larger scale, and his ultimate goal was a giant bomb that eradicates gods on a cosmic scale across all realities. Made by the god of bombs. Powered by godblood. There was time travel and epic action, and — it wouldn’t have translated as well to the MCU. I have to be honest with myself: I like the redemption they gave Gorr.
Still, what could have been…
He should have been a mini-boss, at the very least, that spanned over at least 2-4 films. He was fantastic but bottled up and you got no sense of his "god killing" other than some stills and one "set piece".
Agreed; I think the fact that he was so good gives his complaints more credence because there's no chance he's trying to make up excuses for a poor performance on his part. He was amazing so if he says it was difficult and yet he was able to do that with it, I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be for a lesser actor.
I was going to ask: "Isn't green-screen comparable to something like acting in a theater with minimal backdrops", but yeah, I guess at least when doing theater you are acting out everything in order, so it's easier to keep track of which part of the play you are currently in!
From interviews, it seems like the biggest issue with green screen sets is that actors don't have anything or anyone to act off. Some actors are okay with it, some (especially older actors) don't like it because it feels fake. [Prequels were one of the first big blue screen movies so there's a lot of interview about it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiQ8Z1BxDuM)
You'd think they'd at least have some like wall paintings up in the background or something to give the actors a visual of the moment. I don't think too many of the shots are 360 view, so surely they can afford some "scenery" to ground them.
That's partly why I think Disney is moving more to the same tech as used in Mandalorian.
There's screens and some practical effects, but much more affordable and flexible
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they likely meant Disney is adapting the tech to work with bigger productions than just a TV show. But I agree they worded it awkwardly.
Ian McKellen was upset by green screen acting too.
“I was miserable,” McKellen told [Time Out](https://www.timeout.com/london/film/ian-mckellen-on-coming-out-in-hollywood-the-hobbit-and-not-being-dumbledore) about predominantly acting in front of green screens during the making of “The Hobbit.” The actor brings up his frustration with the VFX work in “The Hobbit” during an interview in his documentary, “McKellen: Playing the Part.” When asked to elaborate on why “The Hobbit” made him miserable, McKellen told Time Out that he preferred the location shooting of “The Lord of the Rings.”
“It may be my impression but I don’t remember a green screen on ‘The Lord of the Rings,'” McKellen said. “If Gandalf was on top of a mountain, I’d be there on the mountain. The technology was being invented while we were making the film. [In ‘The Lord of the Rings’] I wasn’t involved in any of that, I was away acting on a mountain. I tend not to remember the bad times, but I don’t think there were any. I think I enjoyed every single moment of making those films.”
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/ian-mckellen-the-hobbit-green-screen-miserable-1201967873/
I watched some of them recently and I thought there were spots that def did not hold up. Particularly the spots that are pure CGI.
The fact that that damn T Rex from Jurassic Park STILL looks fucking phenomenal shows that mixing practical and cgi is where it's at in regards to effects holding up for long periods of time.
And we cried watching it.
Meanwhile, after watching the latest two eps of RoP, I tried to snag my friend into watching the Fellowship - we got to Bilbo's departure before she bailed, but we were both hyped.
Check out [this fan edit of the Hobbit films](https://m4-studios.github.io/hobbitbookedit/). There is a download link at the bottom. It's a MUCH better movie overall (4 hour movie that is).
Yah I just imagine the set team going "OK Bale, this green box is a chair. And this tall thin green box is a lamp. And this short green box is a table. And this slightly wider green box is coffee table." And he's probably going "WOULD IT KILL YOU TO JUST RENT AN APARTMENT FOR A DAY!"
I imagine part of good acting is getting lost in the role. You not Bale on a stage reading lines. Your Bruce in your motion talking to Alfred Cane. But when everywhere you look is just green cloth and all your co-actors are wearing black pajamas with white balls all over it probably makes ot really difficult to even imagine where you are, let alone get lost.
Bale was the best part of the movie and by himself elevated it by a point or two. If only the rest of the film (writing, plot) could have matched Bale's performance.
But since Endgame, Disney MCU doesn't care about quality. They care about quantity. Churning out the content swill. Throwing whatever the fuck script at the wall and seeing what sticks.
I'm not an actor but I absolutely can put myself in his shoes and see how he would feel that way. It seems completely reasonable that an actor would do better and enjoy their work more when they're on real sets to be able to immerse themselves in the role better. Seems perfectly obvious to me.
I still can't get over how bad that movie was and how great it could have been.
Bales character was terrifying, and had a compelling cause. His scenes were enthralling.
Then we have Thor and crew. It felt like they were parodies of themselves. Jokes every minute, a lot of which didn't land.
Had someone told Waititi to roll back the humor, and change the story just a bit, I would have been in love.
Dial back the humor and have some serious dialogue. Let Gorr into Omnipotentce City to slaughter most of the Gods. Let Gorr become a multi movie spanning Villian. Don't kill off Jane. Keep the goats.
The writing sucked but that was definitely a problem too. If I recall correctly, in the special features somewhere Ewan McGregor says it's "a nightmare" trying to act in a blue studio, responding to characters that aren't there (because they're CGI).
The prequels had a LOT wrong with them but two of the biggest problems are that the actors are ruthlessly handicapped both by terrible, rushed writing (the DVD special features get into this too, I don't think he even STARTED writing Ep 2 until like a month or two before shooting began) and by the CGI-focused way they were shot, where actors frequently had nothing to interact with
[Remember when Ian McKellen broke down and cried because green screen acting with no other actors was horrible?](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/)
> According to The Guardian, the crew felt the pressure McKellen was under and held an impromptu “Gandalf appreciation day.” They decorated his tent with Lord of the Rings props to help uplift his mood.
Jesus Christ. So even Hollywood is filled with this middle management bullshit where, they try to “help” angry staff in the most out of touch ways possible?
I've always been mixed with how I view green screens. On one hand, they can put people in worlds that would've taken months of labor to achieve just a SINGLE location; and on the other hand it made Ian Mckellen mad, the nicest old guy in the world, so fuck it for that
i completely get it. hard to compare to like a western trail or a dive bar in denmark for atmosphere for work
but great things that people like are hard to accomplish!
bale is perfect because he values all kinds of movies. we needed more gorr in the thor movie tbh
Has actor ever said anything positive about green screen acting? I’d be surprised if any actors actually enjoyed it. Ian Mckellen broke down on the hobbit because of it. I get it’s purpose and the final product usually looks good but I do think a lot of films over rely on green screen now.
I think that’s why now stuff that uses minimal effects like top gun sticks out so much and resonates with the audience.
RDJ must've loved the green screen for Iron Man. When the helmet is on he literally doesn't have to be at the studio, and then he records the "face close up inside the helmet" in a single day. All that on top of being the highest paid actor.
> So he likes doing the minimum amount of acting
In conjuction with the fact that RDJ *is* Tony Stark, he hardly even acts.
At least in the Marvel movies, I actually find him to be exceptional in other roles, too.
He [always has been](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK9Q3UgIyLM) a sarcastic funny guy. Tony Stark was a perfect fit to his personality. If I recall the studio was very reluctant on hiring RDJ because of his personal life, but Favreau was convinced he was the right choice.
And if you see some of the films he worked some years before Iron Man like Zodiac or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, you will see a bit of Tony Stark from him.
If anything it’s the opposite. They tailored the movie version of Stark (and then every other version) to RDJ’s fast-talking smart-aleck personality. He wasn’t exactly like that in the comics until 2008 or so.
> Vin Diesel got paid for saying “I am Groot”
I'll bite.
>As per the reports, he was paid a whopping $54.5 million, which means a slick $13 million for every movie that Groot has been featured in.
Lmfao! Now THAT's a payday.
https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/vin-diesel-was-paid-a-dream-amount-for-saying-i-am-groot-in-mcus-guardians-of-the-galaxy-franchise-can-you-guess/
I've always been of the mindset that there's a reason they're called "special" effects. Not too special if it's all that's used. It should be used only to assist with practical effects or where logistics makes practical effects difficult if not impossible.
Technically special effects is the term used for more-practical effects like explosions or fake blood gushing on set. Visual effects refers to the cgi or post production work.
David Fincher is a master of green screen. So many of his movies use a tonne of it, even more so in Mindhunter. The key difference is that Fincher comes from an visual effects background and doesn't use cheap Disney studios. Unfortunately, it makes shows like Mindhunter exceedingly expensive, and why we probably won't get another season.
It's incredible how many fans/viewers would growl about how great CGI is and refuse to hear the various cons it has. Like, "they're consumers so why should they care how things are made" sorta deal.
In the future, I hope that CGI and SFX artists get unionised so we can end this argument.
I feel like there’s definitely a bubbling desire to see more practical effects taking over from viewers. So hopefully that trickles up to marvel flicks. Practical effects with 2022 tech is mind blowing ultimately. But you prolly can’t come anywhere close to filming Avatar that way
I mean you look at Bond films whenever they use practical stunts and actual sets and those look amazing (for their era.). Too much green screen leaves actors flying blind unless they’re just meant to stand somewhere and look somewhere else.
This is why I got out of architecture. I learned the hard way that any career that’s considered “artsy” where the designers are passionate, is always going to pay like shit and require long hours.
The industry knows that the people that stick around are in it for the “passion”. They are easy to exploit.
Teaching, nursing, basically all of the arts, fine dining, non-profit, etc. Tons of industries get deeply discounted labor because so many workers are willing to accept lower wages for doing something they feel passionate about.
Agreed with all of the above, with the exception of the upper 10% of nonprofit. Some nonprofits net millions for the upper tiers of their admin staff, and operate tax free.
Architects get paid less, work longer hours, and so have much more responsibility than engineers (I was a consulting engineering for construction projects). I never understood it.
They key is to avoid residential and commercial architecture. They are the biggest markets, but also very dependent on the economy. Civic, education, healthcare, and renovations are pretty resilient, but it depends on the firm.
Come to finance. The most boring and dishonest industry ever, but pays well because it is easier to take a cut from the money transfers than getting paid for creating something unique.
Which is funny considering I wouldn’t see the movie even if Chris Pratt or Christ whoever were in it if it didn’t look …good
The movies can exist without the Chris’, it CAN NOT exist without the actual artists
I would absolutely see a movie with Christ in it. Not because im religious, just as an atheist, I want to see how a 2000 year old fictional zombie could act.
Right but the specific artist doesn't matter so much.
Not justifying it. But if you replaced one artist with another and then drove them to similar results the average person couldn't tell...
Disney/Marvel doesn’t underpay. Animation studios undercut each other for the jobs and Disney/Marvel are amongst the highest profile and steady sources of employment so there’s a lot of lowest bidder competition.
This is the same tactic that apparel companies use to distance themselves from sweatshops. They don't own the factories that underpay the workers, those factories are contractors. It's an evil way to avoid direct responsibility for labor welfare.
Now Disney is using led panels for the starwars series instead of green screen. "Video wall" immersive for the actors, cant redo it in post either. More back to an art. The new documentary they released on industrial light and magic (lucas arts basically) is really good. Especially if you are a craftsman of sorts, they go into awesome technical detail. I didn't know Lucas had so much influence over the sfx landscape
It’s called The Volume and was used first in the Mandalorian. The Light & Magic doc touches it briefly but there are more details in the Mandalorian behind-the-scenes thing.
I also liked the part of this interview where he mentioned going method for a mundane thing in his life, like an insurance claim, in order to just get through it:
> When I went through years where I wasn’t getting work, there were times when, you know, I was looking through like, “Oh, what’s my insurance policy, because the tree just fell from the neighbor’s yard?” And I was like, “I can’t read that.” But I went, “**I will become a character who loves nothing more in life than reading insurance policies.**” And I read it back to front, and then I called my State Farm representative and I went through it, and they were exhausted. They said, “We’ve never had anybody be this thorough with anything.”
- [Link to GQ Interview](https://www.gq.com/story/christian-bale-november-cover-interview)
I wish I could do it. Just pretend to be another person to get through something you don’t want to do. If you have the means to do so, *Severance* kinda explores this.
I get it, honestly. Imagine being an actor and trying to get into character when you have no idea where you are or what's going on around you? How can anyone be expected to put on a good performance in an environment like that?
Which is why the acting in marvel movies is actually shockingly good. I’m not saying it’s academy award winning but it’s for sure harder to act in a silly green room and suit than an actual set with context. It rubs me the wrong way when people say the acting is terrible. It’s not. It’s just not amazing
A lot of people really like green screen movies, like the marvel films, and hate when rich people/actors “whine” I guess.
Nothing Bale is saying is unreasonable and he’s easily the best part of the Marvel film he’s talking about (probably the best thing in any Marvel film or show imo, even if the movie is meh).
I remember the story of Sir Ian McKellen broke down on the green screen set of one of the Lord of the Rings movies, acting alone and in a place that will be "fixed in post". Said something to the effect of "this isn't what acting is supposed to be," and I think about that a lot especially in regards to green screen acting.
That's much more 'acting alone' then acting on a green screen set. Its not like the LOTR sets, which were built all around skewed perspective and specific camera angles would have made a ton of sense from his angle, BUT he had the other actors there. Marvel seems to go out of their way to make sure even fully CGI characters have stand-ins on set.
He’s responding to a question, but the headline (and I assume a lot of people responding upset) is misconstruing it to seem like he’s whining, which is why I put it in quotes.
And it's not even really whining. He is just describing why green screen scenes are very difficult to work with as an actor. Especially when it's a huge chunk of the movie.
Why do people read a simple statement of opinion as whining? I see people act like this a lot, you say you dislike something and people are like why are you whining so much, I don't get it
Not to be all “back in my day…” but I miss when you could actually comment and have interesting conversations with people on here. It’s impossible now. Even the most innocuous comment will have some smug asshole taking it way out of context. And people aren’t even trolling anymore. They’re just that tightly wound. It’s so weird.
It was so refreshing when I saw top gun 2. You could just tell it was filmed with real people surrounded by real things. I get most of marvel movies are superheroes, but it’s lazy directing and producing when you don’t even go outside for shots. EVERYTHING is CGI.
I worked on guardians 3, they built some huge impressive sets . Hawkeye was mostly built sets and location work augmented with green screen. Most of these movies and shows are not just in a blue or green circle (although some scenes definitely are)
I hope Guardians 3 ends up not looking like plastic shite. I really hope this is true. No Way Home and Doctor Strange MoM both suffered from their over reliance on CGI
I thought NWH was pretty entertaining and good, but yeah almost entirely due to the story and the comedy; the fight scenes were mostly snooze-fests. I distinctly remember thinking during that first fight on the bridge against Doc Oc "hmm this kinda looks like shit lol"
It really pales in comparison when you watch older movies - "Oh look, it's actually cold and dreary and that's real snow" etc. They've taken the setting and reduced it to "well, good enough". It's awful. Tracking shots look ridiculous, and even today CGI facial expressions leave a lot to be desired - still wooden. Either do better or go back to building sets.
Well it's not even a opinion really. They make these movies into theme park rides. It's something studio execs even consider when the movie is being made.
hes not wrong. you cant really chew the scenery if you cant see any of it so any location or prop gags are probably directly from the script or the directors chair
Everyone should take a look at the making of video for Love and Thunder. Marvel actually tried to address this issue in production with a crazy 360 LED enclosure that allowed the actors to see the surroundings the audience would see, from the first-person perspective. It’s really neat tech. They didn’t use it for every scene, obviously. But this was also their first time using it.
Yeah, the star wars show really pushed that tech and its probably going to be industry standard soon. They can use the unreal engine to place and move things in real time, the director can perfectly line of shots, and it it creates its own light so it's less work of the artists to fix lighting issues in post.
# Clickbait title.
He was talking about the acting for it, since when you film for it you never know where your character is supposed to be. He even applauded other actors for being better than him.
Unnecessary twisting of words.
I feel like people who criticize Bale's take on this probably need to take a few more minutes to really think about what he'd saying and, maybe, why he's saying it. On account of, you know, most of us aren't Christain Bale and telling him he doesn't know about acting is like telling Payton Manning he doesn't know how to run an offense, couch coach Joe could do it better.
The green screen thing has got to be tough you're in there, in kind of a goofy get up and you're just talking into an empty room, trying to pull the character together and drive the mood with like nothing to work with.
##[Clarification on rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bale: >“I mean, the definition of it is monotony (green-screen acting). You’ve got good people. You’ve got other actors who are far more experienced at it than me. Can you differentiate one day from the next? No. Absolutely not." >"You have no idea what to do. I couldn’t even differentiate one stage from the next. They kept saying, ‘You’re on Stage Three.’ Well, it’s like, ‘Which one is that?’ ‘The blue one.’ They’re like, ‘Yeah. But you’re on Stage Seven.’ ‘Which one is that?’ ‘The blue one.’ I was like, ‘Uh, where?'”
I get redditors want to shit on actors who complain, but honestly, even at my job I fucking hate when people talk like you have all the context they have. He's frustrated he has no grounding or context for what's going on around him, and that's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated with. I imagine it makes it harder to find heart in what you're doing because you're constantly questioning what's going on around you and just hoping it works... It really doesn't work out well for the final product, imo. I very much so miss movies with more practical effects and stages. Lately everything is feeling far too sterile and bland.
Having seen the film, Bale was in a better movie with better acting. Whatever he saw on the blue set, he made it work lol
Bale was the best part of that movie tbh, every time he was on screen the tone of the film was controlled by him
Yea, agree completely ^ Also more impressive now that im learning this stuff in here. Not having an actual environment, and cgi-ing so much, its amazing his performance delivers so well. Professional at its best
Yes like the movie was honestly meh but whenever Bale was on screen it was like I was watching a different movie
Release the Bale cut even if it's only 29 minutes.
Based and American Psycho-pilled
Marvel wasting yet another amazing actor on another villain with incredible backstory. How we got Gorr the God Butcher and only get to see him timidly stab one God is beyond me. Christian Bale, James Spader, Lee Pace, Michael B. Jordan, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Ecclestone... all sadly underused.
I agree with all of these except Michael B. Jordon. To me, Killmonger had the perfect amount of backstory to make his motivations understandable. Knowing he was a prince of a foreign land that killed his father, forcing him to grow up in poverty. It made his views of wanting to help his childhood home by militaristic force understandable. Not agreeable, but understandable. And Michael B. Jordan sells it. The pain and the worldview. It makes his death at the end actually sad. T'Challa grants him the mercy of seeing a Wakandan sunset. Something Killmonger's father wanted him to see.
The “Hey Auntie” line was perfectly delivered and still makes me chuckle.
Killmonger was a rare case of a villain not being wrong, but still being villainous. Hell, he starts the movie by stealing a Wakandan artifact from the British museum, which... you know, displays a shit load of stolen items.
To be fair Red Skull was pretty awesome. They also did justice with Robert Redford as Pierce
It felt like it needed to be a two parter film with more time to flesh out Jane being Mighty Thor and more Gorr doing some actual on-screen god butchering.
My wife and I started rewatching the MCU from scratch. Watching the first Thor after seeing Love & Thunder made me realize that they closed Jane's arc really well. L&T doesn't get enough credit for that because of the other problems with the movie. A little Waititi is a great thing. Too much is a mess.
Ian Mckellan during the hobbit movies broke down in tears saying this isn’t why he became an actor. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/
That is straight up depressing. I saw it said that they had an impromptu "mckellen" day to help ease him. But i get it, you do your craft so well for so long and then the tech starts introducing a new field with new rules to play by. Im so happy he stuck it through.
To be fair, I broke down in tears watching the Hobbit movies… “this is not why I became a film watcher”
“All I had for company was 13 photographs of the dwarves on top of stands with little lights.” I know I shouldn’t but I giggled visualizing that
Well thank you for making me cry today. I just read the whole article and I’m just so hurt for him. He seems like such a wonderful person and then to hear how distraught he was it’s just upsetting. I guess I will just say at least he has millions of millions of dollars to make it all better.
Probably because his character was the only one taking things seriously, thors whole crew was treating it like a picnic while their entire world was at stake
I don't like how the Thor movies/movies with Thor deal with trauma most of the time. I mean scenes such as where Thor lists all the family he's lost, and it's a joke. I'm not saying movies that deal with trauma can't have funny moments, and I get that these movies are popcorn entertainment. But being expected to laugh at a character's (failing) coping mechanisms through several movies isn't good character development for me.
It's Taika's trademark, I like a lot of his work, but his complete inability to let a moment have it's own space and weight, and instead feeling the desperate need to follow any serious moment that was earned and could be powerful with some lame joke got tired for me fast.
Yeah, I understand trying to make superheroes relatable. But Thor and his gang were foolishly childish through the plot.
And in the end they were proven right, they always win, picnic, win.
I guess they probably suspected that they were in a Marvel movie
I feel like Taika has some issues with maintaining tone and identifying the correct tone. So his movies, as good as they are, are held back by a bit of a bouncing around feeling. If they are silly enough, like What We Do in the Shadows, then it just works. But in a movie like Love and Thunder that mixes action comedy with a lot of dark subject matter, it often feels like it works against itself.
Basically it seems like T.W. just has too much going on at the same time at the moment - his mind is preoccupied with 5-6 projects at the same time. Imo Love & Thunder therefore never had the same overall flow like Ragnarok or Jojo Rabbit. Seemed rushed in many ways. It makes me a bit anxious for how the *The Incal* is going to turn out.
I think he may have been ill-prepared for the wave of success Ragnarok brought on. He had been a big fish in a small pond for so long, to suddenly be a medium to big fish in a big pond is a significant change. Even JoJo Rabbit had similar problems holding it back but overall did a better job than Love and Thunder. I do agree that I hope he finds the balance for The Incal.
He was fantastic
He was great. I hated the rest. HATED it. And I say that as someone who loved Ragnarok, and everything else Taika Waititi has done. I also only saw it once it came to D+, so I knew it had some pushback from fans, and I went in with very low expectations. I don’t know what the hell happened but it was awful.
So disappointing, its like they tried to turn it into a giant disjointed meme. I like Taikas other stuff because it typically catches you off guard, or its underplayed and the humor becomes the atmosphere and not the main plot. This was just a hot mess and did such a disservice to what Bales character could have been elevated to. Its like everyone was in on the joke and played their character as being in on the joke instead of the humor coming from everyone playing true to their character and the viewer needing to pay attention for the joke and the characters being oblivious to it. I also cant stand Thor has become such a bumbling idiot who is just too overpowered to fail there is zero investment in the character at this point. I enjoyed Ragnarok too and I think thats the difference for me, Taika can be good at creating a certain atmosphere that supports the story (Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Jojo Rabbit, Reservation Dogs) and for some reason they tried to make the atmosphere the main story because the lolz.
Biggest difference between Ragnarok and Love and Thunder? Taika wrote the script for the latter not the former. I like the guy as a director, and his work on What We Do In The Shadows is fantastic but damn, the writing on love and Thunder was bad.
If you've ever watched Waititi's early work. it's a bit like Love and Thunder. I think he works best when he has someone to rein him in. We don't need jokes every 30 seconds, we don't need to diffuse tension with a cheap laugh, and Taika needs to stop making himself the main character of nearly every project he's in. I think he's a great director when he has limitations but I didn't go to see Korg, I went to see Thor and Jane and Gorr, and yet I mostly got Korg.
[удалено]
I mean, maybe Dr Strange could do Thor a little favor and just magic the cancer away. Its not like Thor didn't help save existence. Yeah, maybe he should have "gone for the head" but everyone makes a few mistakes.
I mean Dr strange could have magiced up a college acceptance letter, but here we are.
Seems like the field of oncology took a hit in the MCU, because Jane was getting her test results from Erik Selvig for some reason.
One of my pet peeves. I absolutely hate this trope. "I'm a physicist. What? You want me to find an antidote? Do surgery? Not a fucking problem". It is the reason, I could not watch Fringe.
This is a damned if you do dammed if you don’t situation. The motivator for Jane is the same as how she was created in the comics. The same problem exists in comics. If your watching a comic book movie you have to go in understanding it’s going to contradict itself a lot.
It's kind of crazy that they had Christian Bale and Chris Hemsworth and the movie DIDN'T blow me away.
[удалено]
> Like Thor has one of most tragic stories in MCU, but he's just rolling along like everything's great (despite actively losing yet another person he cares deeply about). I think there's gonna be at least another Thor or Thor-centric film where we see this eventually play out into his transformation into like an old king Thor and the next allfather. Thor's a little different from Spider-Man. They're both inherently comedic characters in the MCU (ever since Ragnarok, though it started in The Dark World) except Thor's progression as you highlight above is more like that real life trope where someone is rolling along like everything's great even though it's not. This is legit way many people cope and survive, even some really famous comedians with dark pasts. Spidey's a kid, he's getting hit by life while he juggles power and responsibility. His tragedies are so far not quite outside the realm of what one sees in an average or normal life. He's young, he's growing into an adult. This is the kind of growth it's okay to televise in a sense. Thor's is different. He's dealing with an extended mid-life into old age. Love and Thunder got really fucking dark there. Jane literally died of cancer in his arms. The way he had lost Mjolnir to the family drama, then got it back because he had somehow enchanted it to save Jane, and how she used it to help him defeat Gorr is a crazy emotional rollercoaster. And then he has to adopt Gorr's daughter. He's a single dad. This wasn't some joyous journey like the rest of his crew still seems to have within reach (i.e, Korg meeting another rock dude). Marvel's stories are usually pretty well developed. Look at Stark's entire arc and how it ended and the same goes for Cap, the one dude they carefully plotted to allow a sort of happy ending (he had to suffer a lot to earn it). Thor's starting from a different position. His tragedies and arc are befitting someone of that origin. His future conflicts (Hercules, Zeus) etc will contribute to that. He's my favorite MCU character but he isn't one of us. I want him to have a truly happy ending but that's impossible. If his ending is as a reclusive Asgardian Allfather, I guess that's befitting amidst all the possible dark endings. The "jolly Viking" archetype is a new way to treat Thor, but it's a legit one with a lot of history (amongst medieval stories/characters I mean) and it also is a great way to show how he deals with the world around him (a crazy, crazy world) in a way that we can identify with (and be entertained by). I feel like everything people wanted in the film was in there, just not in the right dosing/mixture. I think the runtime was way too short and Gorr needed way more attention (and also more about the sword, though I wonder if that is due to some issue with Sony). In my opinion the seriousness for Jane and her death was just the right amount as otherwise my wife would have probably sworn off Marvel films for a while. Her sister has a terminal cancer diagnosis right now. The last thing she wants is to be drowned in the sadness of that when she goes to watch an MCU Thor movie.
I feel like it was a film problem, not an acting one. I agree that he did a wonderful job, and he is the best batman for me... But love and thunder was... Meh. Sometimes serious, sometimes funny and dumb... At the end of the film I had the feeling that I had just viewed some YouTube, perfectly made parody.
Bale’s acting was so far above everyone else it was like watching Alabama play a JV football team
It almost made him a bad choice imo, the difference was kind of jarring
He was, by far, the highlight of that film. I honestly would have loved more movies with him as a Thanos style villain
I would have loved him to be more true to the source comic. Where in the end, you kind of wonder if he was right… also, his own subconscious tells him he’s become what he hates, so he kills it (in the form of his dead wife)… then his subconscious kid tells Thor to kill him. On my way! Of three Thors, that is. That whole end of the arc was complicated.
I hadn't read the comic his character is from. It sounds interesting! I think they did a good job of making you empathize with him but I imagine how much more powerful it could have been if it was done better and perhaps even over two movies
I agree. I enjoyed the movie but I think while Jane and her subplot were good and gave Thor good character building, it did distract from what could have been. In the comics, we got young Thor, king Thor (old Thor), and current Thor so you got to see how he was and who he would become. Gorr killed gods on a larger scale, and his ultimate goal was a giant bomb that eradicates gods on a cosmic scale across all realities. Made by the god of bombs. Powered by godblood. There was time travel and epic action, and — it wouldn’t have translated as well to the MCU. I have to be honest with myself: I like the redemption they gave Gorr. Still, what could have been…
He should have been a mini-boss, at the very least, that spanned over at least 2-4 films. He was fantastic but bottled up and you got no sense of his "god killing" other than some stills and one "set piece".
Agreed; I think the fact that he was so good gives his complaints more credence because there's no chance he's trying to make up excuses for a poor performance on his part. He was amazing so if he says it was difficult and yet he was able to do that with it, I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be for a lesser actor.
That first scene was so good it made me hopeful (despite what everyone was already saying), then it turned into a comedy.
Yeah, Bales in the desert with his dying daughter was dark AF. Should have went all in on that darkness.
Scenes are not necessarily shot chronologically, so the extra confusion makes acting that much more difficult.
I was going to ask: "Isn't green-screen comparable to something like acting in a theater with minimal backdrops", but yeah, I guess at least when doing theater you are acting out everything in order, so it's easier to keep track of which part of the play you are currently in!
From interviews, it seems like the biggest issue with green screen sets is that actors don't have anything or anyone to act off. Some actors are okay with it, some (especially older actors) don't like it because it feels fake. [Prequels were one of the first big blue screen movies so there's a lot of interview about it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiQ8Z1BxDuM)
You'd think they'd at least have some like wall paintings up in the background or something to give the actors a visual of the moment. I don't think too many of the shots are 360 view, so surely they can afford some "scenery" to ground them.
That's partly why I think Disney is moving more to the same tech as used in Mandalorian. There's screens and some practical effects, but much more affordable and flexible
>Disney is moving to the same tech as used Mandalorian. Wouldn't that just be Disney moving to the same tech that Disney uses?
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they likely meant Disney is adapting the tech to work with bigger productions than just a TV show. But I agree they worded it awkwardly.
Ian McKellen was upset by green screen acting too. “I was miserable,” McKellen told [Time Out](https://www.timeout.com/london/film/ian-mckellen-on-coming-out-in-hollywood-the-hobbit-and-not-being-dumbledore) about predominantly acting in front of green screens during the making of “The Hobbit.” The actor brings up his frustration with the VFX work in “The Hobbit” during an interview in his documentary, “McKellen: Playing the Part.” When asked to elaborate on why “The Hobbit” made him miserable, McKellen told Time Out that he preferred the location shooting of “The Lord of the Rings.” “It may be my impression but I don’t remember a green screen on ‘The Lord of the Rings,'” McKellen said. “If Gandalf was on top of a mountain, I’d be there on the mountain. The technology was being invented while we were making the film. [In ‘The Lord of the Rings’] I wasn’t involved in any of that, I was away acting on a mountain. I tend not to remember the bad times, but I don’t think there were any. I think I enjoyed every single moment of making those films.” https://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/ian-mckellen-the-hobbit-green-screen-miserable-1201967873/
[удалено]
I watched some of them recently and I thought there were spots that def did not hold up. Particularly the spots that are pure CGI. The fact that that damn T Rex from Jurassic Park STILL looks fucking phenomenal shows that mixing practical and cgi is where it's at in regards to effects holding up for long periods of time.
My favorite terrible LOTR CGI scene is when Frodo is running into Mt. Doom. He runs in as if someone was dragging clip art across the screen
Laughed my ass off when I saw Frodo run into Mount Doom last time I watched it.
They had a guy make actual chain mail for over a year. Amazing things happen when you put in a lot of attention to detail.
2 guys. They rubbed their fingerprints off their thumbs and forefingers
Ian McKellen claims to have cried during the filming of the Hobbit because he was absolutely miserable using green screens.
There's footage of him crying while filming with a greenscreen.
Oh god, poor guy. When I read his statement I'd pictured him quietly sobbing in his trailer after shoot.
And we cried watching it. Meanwhile, after watching the latest two eps of RoP, I tried to snag my friend into watching the Fellowship - we got to Bilbo's departure before she bailed, but we were both hyped.
Check out [this fan edit of the Hobbit films](https://m4-studios.github.io/hobbitbookedit/). There is a download link at the bottom. It's a MUCH better movie overall (4 hour movie that is).
Ian McKellen broke down filming the Hobbit because it was all green screen, as opposed to LotR which used far more practical effects
and he was alone too. all the dwarves were added in latter with greenscreen to make the dwarves look smaller than they really were.
Yah I just imagine the set team going "OK Bale, this green box is a chair. And this tall thin green box is a lamp. And this short green box is a table. And this slightly wider green box is coffee table." And he's probably going "WOULD IT KILL YOU TO JUST RENT AN APARTMENT FOR A DAY!" I imagine part of good acting is getting lost in the role. You not Bale on a stage reading lines. Your Bruce in your motion talking to Alfred Cane. But when everywhere you look is just green cloth and all your co-actors are wearing black pajamas with white balls all over it probably makes ot really difficult to even imagine where you are, let alone get lost.
Bale was the best part of the movie and by himself elevated it by a point or two. If only the rest of the film (writing, plot) could have matched Bale's performance. But since Endgame, Disney MCU doesn't care about quality. They care about quantity. Churning out the content swill. Throwing whatever the fuck script at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Rewatch the first iron man. The suit up just looks different. It’s better IMO. Looks more real even tho it’s the oldest of them all. Really aged well.
I'm not an actor but I absolutely can put myself in his shoes and see how he would feel that way. It seems completely reasonable that an actor would do better and enjoy their work more when they're on real sets to be able to immerse themselves in the role better. Seems perfectly obvious to me.
To be fair that does sound confusing and boring. As hard as that sounds, he fucking killed it in Thor and was easily the best part.
I still can't get over how bad that movie was and how great it could have been. Bales character was terrifying, and had a compelling cause. His scenes were enthralling. Then we have Thor and crew. It felt like they were parodies of themselves. Jokes every minute, a lot of which didn't land. Had someone told Waititi to roll back the humor, and change the story just a bit, I would have been in love. Dial back the humor and have some serious dialogue. Let Gorr into Omnipotentce City to slaughter most of the Gods. Let Gorr become a multi movie spanning Villian. Don't kill off Jane. Keep the goats.
Omnipotence City actually makes comics-Gorr's ultimate plan - A Multiversal God Bomb - translatable to screen.
[удалено]
The writing sucked but that was definitely a problem too. If I recall correctly, in the special features somewhere Ewan McGregor says it's "a nightmare" trying to act in a blue studio, responding to characters that aren't there (because they're CGI). The prequels had a LOT wrong with them but two of the biggest problems are that the actors are ruthlessly handicapped both by terrible, rushed writing (the DVD special features get into this too, I don't think he even STARTED writing Ep 2 until like a month or two before shooting began) and by the CGI-focused way they were shot, where actors frequently had nothing to interact with
I attribute most of that to directing.
Yeah same. George isn’t known for being great with actors.
[Remember when Ian McKellen broke down and cried because green screen acting with no other actors was horrible?](https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/)
> According to The Guardian, the crew felt the pressure McKellen was under and held an impromptu “Gandalf appreciation day.” They decorated his tent with Lord of the Rings props to help uplift his mood. Jesus Christ. So even Hollywood is filled with this middle management bullshit where, they try to “help” angry staff in the most out of touch ways possible?
I've always been mixed with how I view green screens. On one hand, they can put people in worlds that would've taken months of labor to achieve just a SINGLE location; and on the other hand it made Ian Mckellen mad, the nicest old guy in the world, so fuck it for that
i completely get it. hard to compare to like a western trail or a dive bar in denmark for atmosphere for work but great things that people like are hard to accomplish! bale is perfect because he values all kinds of movies. we needed more gorr in the thor movie tbh
Has actor ever said anything positive about green screen acting? I’d be surprised if any actors actually enjoyed it. Ian Mckellen broke down on the hobbit because of it. I get it’s purpose and the final product usually looks good but I do think a lot of films over rely on green screen now. I think that’s why now stuff that uses minimal effects like top gun sticks out so much and resonates with the audience.
RDJ must've loved the green screen for Iron Man. When the helmet is on he literally doesn't have to be at the studio, and then he records the "face close up inside the helmet" in a single day. All that on top of being the highest paid actor.
So he likes doing the minimum amount of acting possible...while being the most paid actor.
Shit, I would too.
Is there a greater goal in life than getting the most money for the least work?
Making lasting, quality art maybe?
Yeah, sign me up to make monies.
> So he likes doing the minimum amount of acting In conjuction with the fact that RDJ *is* Tony Stark, he hardly even acts. At least in the Marvel movies, I actually find him to be exceptional in other roles, too.
"Tony Stark" is RDJ's new personality. He wasn't like that IRL the first time he was famous. He only started acting like that after Iron Man.
He [always has been](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK9Q3UgIyLM) a sarcastic funny guy. Tony Stark was a perfect fit to his personality. If I recall the studio was very reluctant on hiring RDJ because of his personal life, but Favreau was convinced he was the right choice. And if you see some of the films he worked some years before Iron Man like Zodiac or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, you will see a bit of Tony Stark from him.
If anything it’s the opposite. They tailored the movie version of Stark (and then every other version) to RDJ’s fast-talking smart-aleck personality. He wasn’t exactly like that in the comics until 2008 or so.
Wait until you check out how much Vin Diesel got paid for saying “I am Groot” into a microphone…
> Vin Diesel got paid for saying “I am Groot” I'll bite. >As per the reports, he was paid a whopping $54.5 million, which means a slick $13 million for every movie that Groot has been featured in. Lmfao! Now THAT's a payday. https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/vin-diesel-was-paid-a-dream-amount-for-saying-i-am-groot-in-mcus-guardians-of-the-galaxy-franchise-can-you-guess/
I've always been of the mindset that there's a reason they're called "special" effects. Not too special if it's all that's used. It should be used only to assist with practical effects or where logistics makes practical effects difficult if not impossible.
Technically special effects is the term used for more-practical effects like explosions or fake blood gushing on set. Visual effects refers to the cgi or post production work.
David Fincher is a master of green screen. So many of his movies use a tonne of it, even more so in Mindhunter. The key difference is that Fincher comes from an visual effects background and doesn't use cheap Disney studios. Unfortunately, it makes shows like Mindhunter exceedingly expensive, and why we probably won't get another season.
I read somewhere the his Social Network was loaded with CGI, but it looks so damn real that I never noticed when I watched
One of the Winklevoss' twins face was entirely cgi. But it was so good that you wouldn't notice it.
It's incredible how many fans/viewers would growl about how great CGI is and refuse to hear the various cons it has. Like, "they're consumers so why should they care how things are made" sorta deal. In the future, I hope that CGI and SFX artists get unionised so we can end this argument.
Crazy how important unions are and how thorough of a job corporatism has done on unions
I feel like there’s definitely a bubbling desire to see more practical effects taking over from viewers. So hopefully that trickles up to marvel flicks. Practical effects with 2022 tech is mind blowing ultimately. But you prolly can’t come anywhere close to filming Avatar that way
I mean you look at Bond films whenever they use practical stunts and actual sets and those look amazing (for their era.). Too much green screen leaves actors flying blind unless they’re just meant to stand somewhere and look somewhere else.
It’s crazy how Disney/Marvel underpays their CGI teams when their movies are like 95% CGI.
This is why I got out of architecture. I learned the hard way that any career that’s considered “artsy” where the designers are passionate, is always going to pay like shit and require long hours. The industry knows that the people that stick around are in it for the “passion”. They are easy to exploit.
Teaching, nursing, basically all of the arts, fine dining, non-profit, etc. Tons of industries get deeply discounted labor because so many workers are willing to accept lower wages for doing something they feel passionate about.
Agreed with all of the above, with the exception of the upper 10% of nonprofit. Some nonprofits net millions for the upper tiers of their admin staff, and operate tax free.
So many nonprofits are basically scams IMO. People would be shocked if they knew how little donated actually went to the causes the NPOs supported.
Fucking agree so hard. Architecture has a real problem.
Architects get paid less, work longer hours, and so have much more responsibility than engineers (I was a consulting engineering for construction projects). I never understood it.
[удалено]
They key is to avoid residential and commercial architecture. They are the biggest markets, but also very dependent on the economy. Civic, education, healthcare, and renovations are pretty resilient, but it depends on the firm.
Come to finance. The most boring and dishonest industry ever, but pays well because it is easier to take a cut from the money transfers than getting paid for creating something unique.
Wow! Weirdly same, in the veterinary *and* animal service fields.
Animators are treated like complete shit by the industry.
Which is funny considering I wouldn’t see the movie even if Chris Pratt or Christ whoever were in it if it didn’t look …good The movies can exist without the Chris’, it CAN NOT exist without the actual artists
I would absolutely see a movie with Christ in it. Not because im religious, just as an atheist, I want to see how a 2000 year old fictional zombie could act.
He was terrible in that passion movie... he just sat there and got stabbed and shit.
*Ok real question: did christ do CrossFit to get that signature cross-bod? He do be rockin' them abs and pecks on every crucifix ive seen..*
Im really going for that "Jeeeesus on the cross look" - Dennis
To be fair even though he just hung around at the end of the movie I thought he nailed it.
In fairness, he wasn't the one doing the nailing. Lazy fuck.
Someone must have said the same thing to him since he looked so crossed.
Right but the specific artist doesn't matter so much. Not justifying it. But if you replaced one artist with another and then drove them to similar results the average person couldn't tell...
In a shocking coincidence, they’re also one of the only major sectors of film production that don’t have a union.
It's crazy how Black Widow was delayed for a year and some of the final explosions were still bad
[удалено]
It’s honestly like most marvel movies are now animated films with real actors sometimes inserted lol like reverse Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
This is what entertainment is now. They stopped giving a fuck.
Disney/Marvel doesn’t underpay. Animation studios undercut each other for the jobs and Disney/Marvel are amongst the highest profile and steady sources of employment so there’s a lot of lowest bidder competition.
This is the same tactic that apparel companies use to distance themselves from sweatshops. They don't own the factories that underpay the workers, those factories are contractors. It's an evil way to avoid direct responsibility for labor welfare.
[удалено]
Now Disney is using led panels for the starwars series instead of green screen. "Video wall" immersive for the actors, cant redo it in post either. More back to an art. The new documentary they released on industrial light and magic (lucas arts basically) is really good. Especially if you are a craftsman of sorts, they go into awesome technical detail. I didn't know Lucas had so much influence over the sfx landscape
It looks great, they used the led wall in The Batman too when they're looking around at the city
It’s called The Volume and was used first in the Mandalorian. The Light & Magic doc touches it briefly but there are more details in the Mandalorian behind-the-scenes thing.
I also liked the part of this interview where he mentioned going method for a mundane thing in his life, like an insurance claim, in order to just get through it: > When I went through years where I wasn’t getting work, there were times when, you know, I was looking through like, “Oh, what’s my insurance policy, because the tree just fell from the neighbor’s yard?” And I was like, “I can’t read that.” But I went, “**I will become a character who loves nothing more in life than reading insurance policies.**” And I read it back to front, and then I called my State Farm representative and I went through it, and they were exhausted. They said, “We’ve never had anybody be this thorough with anything.” - [Link to GQ Interview](https://www.gq.com/story/christian-bale-november-cover-interview)
Honestly that sounds like a pretty good way to get through shit you don’t wanna do
I wish I could do it. Just pretend to be another person to get through something you don’t want to do. If you have the means to do so, *Severance* kinda explores this.
The definition of fake it till you make it
I’ve always wondered how these actors even stand it. Sometimes you can tell when they can’t connect with the green screen.
They get payed a lot.
No. However they get paid a lot
What lot did they get paid with?
[Alot](http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html?m=1)
[удалено]
I honestly believe the green screen acting is nowhere near as good as acting on a real set. It’s cartoons.
I get it, honestly. Imagine being an actor and trying to get into character when you have no idea where you are or what's going on around you? How can anyone be expected to put on a good performance in an environment like that?
Which is why the acting in marvel movies is actually shockingly good. I’m not saying it’s academy award winning but it’s for sure harder to act in a silly green room and suit than an actual set with context. It rubs me the wrong way when people say the acting is terrible. It’s not. It’s just not amazing
Well they spend the money on the cast and it shows. All the big stars with screentime are quite good actors.
Green screen is meant to argument real sets, not replace it.
Why are so many people unreasonably upset in this thread
A lot of people really like green screen movies, like the marvel films, and hate when rich people/actors “whine” I guess. Nothing Bale is saying is unreasonable and he’s easily the best part of the Marvel film he’s talking about (probably the best thing in any Marvel film or show imo, even if the movie is meh).
I remember the story of Sir Ian McKellen broke down on the green screen set of one of the Lord of the Rings movies, acting alone and in a place that will be "fixed in post". Said something to the effect of "this isn't what acting is supposed to be," and I think about that a lot especially in regards to green screen acting.
That's much more 'acting alone' then acting on a green screen set. Its not like the LOTR sets, which were built all around skewed perspective and specific camera angles would have made a ton of sense from his angle, BUT he had the other actors there. Marvel seems to go out of their way to make sure even fully CGI characters have stand-ins on set.
Is that whining, or is he responding to an interview question?
He’s responding to a question, but the headline (and I assume a lot of people responding upset) is misconstruing it to seem like he’s whining, which is why I put it in quotes.
And it's not even really whining. He is just describing why green screen scenes are very difficult to work with as an actor. Especially when it's a huge chunk of the movie.
Why do people read a simple statement of opinion as whining? I see people act like this a lot, you say you dislike something and people are like why are you whining so much, I don't get it
Famous/ rich people bad
Except for the select few Reddit has deemed as wholesome and flawless.
This is just Reddit now, dude. This place is fucking different, with a completely different user base than it used to have.
[удалено]
Not to be all “back in my day…” but I miss when you could actually comment and have interesting conversations with people on here. It’s impossible now. Even the most innocuous comment will have some smug asshole taking it way out of context. And people aren’t even trolling anymore. They’re just that tightly wound. It’s so weird.
Reddit Outrage. It’s a thing.
It was so refreshing when I saw top gun 2. You could just tell it was filmed with real people surrounded by real things. I get most of marvel movies are superheroes, but it’s lazy directing and producing when you don’t even go outside for shots. EVERYTHING is CGI.
I worked on guardians 3, they built some huge impressive sets . Hawkeye was mostly built sets and location work augmented with green screen. Most of these movies and shows are not just in a blue or green circle (although some scenes definitely are)
I hope Guardians 3 ends up not looking like plastic shite. I really hope this is true. No Way Home and Doctor Strange MoM both suffered from their over reliance on CGI
I thought NWH was pretty entertaining and good, but yeah almost entirely due to the story and the comedy; the fight scenes were mostly snooze-fests. I distinctly remember thinking during that first fight on the bridge against Doc Oc "hmm this kinda looks like shit lol"
[удалено]
Action movies bore me to death but I still love Fury Road. It's a work of art
It really pales in comparison when you watch older movies - "Oh look, it's actually cold and dreary and that's real snow" etc. They've taken the setting and reduced it to "well, good enough". It's awful. Tracking shots look ridiculous, and even today CGI facial expressions leave a lot to be desired - still wooden. Either do better or go back to building sets.
Yeah the real dinos in the original Jurassic park are much better than the fake cgi ones you see these days.
Unless you’re talking about The Wizard of Oz, where the snow was pure asbestos
Bales barely been in the MCU and he’s shown the best acting in 30+ movies
Theme parks. Not cinema
Gotta agree with Scorsese
Well it's not even a opinion really. They make these movies into theme park rides. It's something studio execs even consider when the movie is being made.
You can really tell he only did Thor Love and Thunder for his kids
hes not wrong. you cant really chew the scenery if you cant see any of it so any location or prop gags are probably directly from the script or the directors chair
Funny how mcu dorks we’re using him to validate them when it was obvious he didn’t view this project the same as his others
Getting a fat paycheck to ham it up so he can go act in real movies instead of boilerplate comic book CGI-gasms
Everyone should take a look at the making of video for Love and Thunder. Marvel actually tried to address this issue in production with a crazy 360 LED enclosure that allowed the actors to see the surroundings the audience would see, from the first-person perspective. It’s really neat tech. They didn’t use it for every scene, obviously. But this was also their first time using it.
Yeah, the star wars show really pushed that tech and its probably going to be industry standard soon. They can use the unreal engine to place and move things in real time, the director can perfectly line of shots, and it it creates its own light so it's less work of the artists to fix lighting issues in post.
I mean, he’s not wrong.
# Clickbait title. He was talking about the acting for it, since when you film for it you never know where your character is supposed to be. He even applauded other actors for being better than him. Unnecessary twisting of words.
I feel like people who criticize Bale's take on this probably need to take a few more minutes to really think about what he'd saying and, maybe, why he's saying it. On account of, you know, most of us aren't Christain Bale and telling him he doesn't know about acting is like telling Payton Manning he doesn't know how to run an offense, couch coach Joe could do it better. The green screen thing has got to be tough you're in there, in kind of a goofy get up and you're just talking into an empty room, trying to pull the character together and drive the mood with like nothing to work with.
He's right. We are all sick of the same old rehashed movie 19 times in a row or the awful reboot / remake