Batman To Have Mostly Practical Effects In Batman V Superman

CB: Man of Steel (2013) relied on a lot of computer-generated imagery but for Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice director Zack Snyder wanted to "up-the-ante" by utilizing more practical effects and with the introduction of Batman (played by Ben Affleck) he was able to do just that.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Porcelain_Chicken1138d ago

That's good to hear. Practical effects always age better. I hope they can apply as many practical effects to Superman and Wonder Woman as possible while only enhancing specific things with cgi. The audience will thank them in 20 years. Some of the cgi in MoS already looks off and the cgi in the first Avengers has begun to look terrible.

RetrospectRealm1138d ago

I don't agree with only using CGI to enhance things. CGI looks amazing these days. People only say CGI messes things up because of the Star Wars prequels, even though the CGI in the prequels was not the problems. It was fantastic.

Porcelain_Chicken1138d ago

I guess It really depends on where you look. And as amazing as it looks it'll never look as good as practicality. Green Lantern learned that the hard way. And as I've said already. The Chitauri look like crap already and will look even worse in a few years. The only cgi I've ever seen that holds up really well is in the first Jurrasic Park.

By enhancements I mean stuff like in Watchmen for example, Rorschach's mask was an actual balaclava with eye holes and they added the inkblot effect later which completed the look and made for a better finished product as opposed to using cgi on entire head. Wearing an actual mask helped Jackie Earl Haley emote which made for a better performance. Same with Dr. Manhattan. They used motion capture and attached lights to the motion capture suit and he looked all the better for it as opposed to how it would probably look with cgi doing all the work.

1136d ago
RevXM1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

CGI in Jurrassic world doesnt look that good.
IMO CGI should only do things practical effects and models cant do or cant do well.

Star wars VII looked mostly brilliant. it cleverly mixes and overlaps between the two even sometimes in the same shot.

It is possible to have CGI all over and have it look allright if not awesome, but that is rarely the case.

Yeah the prequels look like a cartoon, I like some of the CGI scenes, because they are so rich and sprawling, but they dont look good they look off, like cartoons and sometimes just really terrible like a part of a room being a flat image being streched as the camera pans or swaps angle.

thekhurg1136d ago

MoS and Avengers CGI look incredible.

Only people actively trying to find faults do so.

Porcelain_Chicken1135d ago (Edited 1135d ago )

The cgi does look great in both. I agree. Most of the backgrounds were cgi and I never even noticed. I didn't mean both movies as a whole looked bad. Or bad enough to get me out of the experience either. But certain things are beginning too age. During the final fight in MoS is were the cgi gets a bit shoddy. A tiny itty bitty bit. Which doesn't really bug me but it stands out since the cgi in the rest of the movie was amazing. You get segments where it is very obviously a cgi Cavill or Shannon. As for the Avengers, like I said the Chitauri look awful already. They look and "move" (if that makes sense) in a very cgi. Especially when making them fight actual actors. It's a giant segment in a movie where using more practical effects would have gone a long way. Look at Hulk. He walks and breaths as if he's actual there! That's good cgi to compare them to.

Mikefizzled1135d ago (Edited 1135d ago )

As great as it looks I still have a strong dislike for CGI, it always feels cheap and all the effects have the same fake feeling to it. Maybe it's because my favourite films as a kid was Alien and Jurassic Park. The chestburster scene and the scene with the animatronic T-Rex head and the prowling velociraptors still wow me today.

acemonkey1135d ago

lol im not the biggest man of steel fan, but CGI was good ( besides the speedy fights) and what scene in Avengers CGI that was terrible?

and i believe this movie is going to have alot of CGI

Porcelain_Chicken1135d ago

Read my reply to thekhurg up there! ^^^

acemonkey1135d ago

The final fight and the one before that does look shaky and weird due to Zack wants to be either super fast or slow mo, but the Avengers Chitauri is your only complete with the CGI? i think they looked fine as far as an army that nobody really knows anything about look at the comic book versions. every movie you can nit pick bad cgi when your trying to look for it

Scrivlar1135d ago

LOTR vs The Hobbit is a good example. The Hobbit is already looking older due to the extent of CGI used compared to LOTR which tried it's best to use as much practical effect as possible.

Porcelain_Chicken1135d ago

Hit the nail on the head! ^^^ Personally I have no issue with Cgi myself. It never takes me out of a movie (unless it's really bad I guess) and I'll never outright complain that there was too much. But I really appreciate when filmmakers decide on practical as opposed to cgi. The movie ages much more gracefully. And makes for repeat viewings more enjoyable.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1133d ago
MilkMan1136d ago

No cgi. Practical 100%

RetrospectRealm1135d ago

That would make for a TERRIBLE movie.

LightofDarkness1132d ago (Edited 1132d ago )

People who say crap like "practical effects are always better" have no clue. Those people often have no idea how much CGI is added to a scene that they think is real. Practically every vehicle on the streets or in the skies in modern movies is CGI, even if the scene is just two people walking and talking in NYC. Buildings are added, removed or altered dramatically as well, and people think they're looking at the real deal. We have excellent capabilities for representing non-living objects in films now. Even modifications and additions of living creatures or people is excellent, so long as the proper care and attention are applied. What about Harvey Dent's face in The Dark Knight? The burnt half is all CG, and it looks extremely believable. As cited above, the effects used in the original Jurassic Park still stand up, simply because the artistry was spot on.

The reason a lot of CGI looks terrible is usually down to time and budget constraints, as CGI studios are over-worked and underpaid because of an extremely competitive market, often promising ridiculous delivery schedules for ridiculously low sums, with many vying voraciously for any studio contracts they can get (which leads to overburdening and thus poorer results). Often the artists willing to work in these stressful positions aren't as experienced as well, which ultimately leads to lacklustre results.

Ultimately, CGI can look almost indistinguishable (if not entirely so) from the real thing in the right hands. It's the lousy Hollywood culture of cheaping out and abusing the industry that results in the oft-cited crap (looking at you, Scorpion King).