• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

ToddBonzalez

The Pyramids? That's nothing compared to RDR2
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
15,530
Probably both intentional and unintentional.

Intentional- keep the visual style and direction pretty basic and pedestrian so that any director can come in and make something that feels consistent with everything else.

Unintentional- they churn out 2-3 movies a year and multiple TV shows. The VFX studios probably don't have the time and resources they need to both keep up with the tight production schedules and makes effects that look great.
 

Cass_Se

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,128
The beginning of Age of Ultron looked pretty bad. The Hydra goons getting thrown around looked like cartoon ragdolls because the way they were animated was like something from an early 2000s Harry Potter film.


Age of Ultron was the first time I remember thinking "man, what an ugly, dull mess" in regards to the visual presentation as a whole. I mean, I thought the same thing about Age of Ultron in general, but that was really the first time the MCU leaned hard into that brown and gray aesthetic.

I think Ultron was mostly due to cinematography, though the original Avengers film was not a visual gem either. Whedon just didn't care much about that aspect of filmmaking.

At the very least, they put more effort into cgi back then. At some point during phase 3 it just completely collapsed and it's shocking how bad the cgi is in most of MCU films
 

Soj

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,732
After Iron Man 2.

Thor looks cheap as shit and it's when they started with the flat piss filter colour grade. I honestly think the entire genesis of it was an attempt to make Hemsworth's awful blonde dye beard in that movie look less unnatural.
 

Operations

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,184
Spiderman NWH production quality was disgraceful. If you tell me the entire movie was filmed with a green screen behind I'd believe you. Ugly CGI to the core.
 

Nephtes

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,554
After watching stranger things 4, which has like 9 hour+ long episodes, there's really no excuse anymore. That show is so many leagues ahead of anything Disney+ has churned out

No lie, Stranger Things 4 is an editing master class.
It's so well paced and cut together, I really wonder if it was all storyboarded that way or if they just found the right frames in the editing room.

To the topic… I think the issue with the Marvel recent Marvel films is the sheer quantities of shots they're asking these VFX houses to crank out.

I don't think there was anything in phase 1 that had that much going on as say in Strange 2 where they're literally inventing other planes of existence from whole cloth for these characters to exist in.

Something has to give.
 

trashbandit

Member
Dec 19, 2019
3,910
They've always looked like homogeneous garbage, probably the price you gotta pay to maintain visual consistency.
 

spad3

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,126
California
People forget that with the growth in scale and ridiculousness of each new story/situation, the CG has to scale to that while still fitting with the consistency of the art style. Everything has to look like it fits within the same overarching universe so some of the more insane and ridiculous CG shots end up looking really wonky when translated into the communal style. DS2 has a bunch of moments where the CG is noticeably bad, the TV shows are using smaller budgets so they can't keep up with the larger scale of the films.
 

happydeer

Enlightened
Member
Aug 4, 2021
974
First noticed it in Civial War and Black Panther. Those two looked pretty bad, imo. But most MCU movies don't look all that great, apart from some exceptions. That's not their strength and people don't seem to care.
 

thediamondage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,345
Post End Game I think there is just so much demand for VFX now across TV shows that quality has declined a lot, everywhere, of CGI. You need a really vet director who has a lot of experience with new techniques to make it work well, Mandalorian comes to mind whereas Boba Fett and Obi-Wan to a lesser degree show the issue of when you get directors who aren't as experienced in this new "you COULD CGI a lot... but should you?" world.
 

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,209
I'd say it never did, especially as it finally moved past the bland color grading that used to plague it (Phase 2 is by far my least favorite visually speaking). Phase 4 has, in my opinion, been the most visually interesting so far.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
10,795
Toronto, ON
If recent Marvel movies all look the same, it's by design. If Marvel wants to keep a consistent narrative voice through all of their films, they also need to keep a consistent visual voice. Marvel has developed a "house style" that makes sure that all of their films have the same visual tone, approach to cinematography, editing pace, costuming and art direction, and style of special effects. This visual model has been mostly patterned on the style of Anthony and Joe Russo; they have a clean, streamlined, sharp take on action and atmosphere that is easily digested and replicated.

There have been a few deviations from Marvel's house style, but they are rare, and even then, the deviations are relegated to a few individual scenes or specific shots and not so much the overall film (Thor Raganarok, for instance, has some cool battle shots that look like something out of a Baroque war painting, but other than these shots and some funky '70s album cover art design choices, the film looks and plays pretty much like all the other Marvel flicks).

It's difficult, and maybe even impossible, to differentiate between a shot from Infinity War and a shot from Civil War or Doctor Strange. These films look and feel the same, to give the audience a comfortable and consistent experience as they go from movie to movie. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is sort of like a TV series; you'll need to watch the previous entries to understand the latest release, as if they were episodes in a serial show, so you want the viewing process to be smooth. If Iron Man 3 bore a specific director's fingerprint, showcasing his or her particular imagination, and then the next Iron Man film had a completely different look, feel, and visual tone, they wouldn't seem to all be part of the same overall continuity.
 

XaviConcept

Art Director for Videogames
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,946
There isnt an infinite number of quality CGI studios, growth cant keep up with demand.

Also, its kind of a known thing that MCU fight scenes are boarded, choreographed and CGI'd by a separate crew, so like a movies director has very little to do with them (which is why most MCU fight scenes land so flat and feel so samey)
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,672
Somewhere after phase 1 when they changed to their immensely bland all-digital pipeline that seems to be used as-is for everything they produced.

I'm not like in love with what their 35mm content looks like but there's such massive difference between something like Iron Man and Iron Man 3.

587_5_1080p.jpg


587_9_1080p.jpg


587_4_1080p.jpg


Then you have Iron Man 3

8741_6_1080p.jpg


8741_15_1080p.jpg


8741_17_1080p.jpg


On one level or another, most of their movies follow a very similar template now.

If you're talking just VFX, the quality has been all over the place for while but I would say Black Panther was the first time you could really notice that they just weren't hacking it.
 

shintoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,163
I'd say Thor was the one last one which had a real nice look to it, largely thanks to Branagh and MCU still finding its footing. It was all downhill after the Avengers set the template for all films to follow.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
53,326
Aside from a few things in the D+ series it hasn't declined at all.


If anything it's gotten better as time has gone on.
 

BigSkinny0310

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account.
Banned
Dec 7, 2017
2,940
As they go cosmic with F4, it better start looking more dynamic. A flat and lifeless looking F4 movie would kill me
 

Instro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,071
It's always been a bit hit and miss, post Phase 1. I imagine there's just incredible demand for CG content for both film and TV shows now that probably pulls from Disney/Marvel's ability to deliver, particularly when they are often working on very tight schedules for their films/shows. That said, people are probably being a bit too critical right now about films and shows that would have been very impacted by COVID.
 
Oct 30, 2017
3,295
I've noticed it for sure,n but it hasn't really spoiled my enjoyment this far.

I think the most egregious shitty one that actually annoyed me was Shang Chi which I really enjoyed until the moment he got fired through the water causing a massive wake. It looked AWFUL. Completely snapped be out of the rest of the film.
 

Gunny T Highway

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
17,055
Canada
To me as each MCU phase has come along they are getting worse and worse in terms of visual quality. Not to say the newer movies are bad or anything, they are still entertaining. They just all have this samey look to them that the earlier movies did better at being diverse.

Somewhere after phase 1 when they changed to their immensely bland all-digital pipeline that seems to be used as-is for everything they produced.

I'm not like in love with what their 35mm content looks like but there's such massive difference between something like Iron Man and Iron Man 3.

587_5_1080p.jpg


587_9_1080p.jpg


587_4_1080p.jpg


Then you have Iron Man 3

8741_6_1080p.jpg


8741_15_1080p.jpg


8741_17_1080p.jpg


On one level or another, most of their movies follow a very similar template now.

If you're talking just VFX, the quality has been all over the place for while but I would say Black Panther was the first time you could really notice that they just weren't hacking it.
The perfect example of what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:

Cuburger

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,975
$$$$

Why spend more when the movies are going to be wildly successful and most of the audience doesn't care anyway? Wring as much profit out of the stone before fatigue sets in.
It's not like the movies are exactly cheap though, they just error on the conservative side to not overspend, and it's smart since Ant-Man isn't The Avengers (though I hope Quantumania has a big budget).
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,846
I think it's more oversaturation.

I remember being wowed by Avengers 1 including the iconic spinning camera shot of the heroes in act 3. Now we've seen the formula repeated so many times at a high frequency it loses its lustre. Even End Game was basically a CGI war that was eh for me. As a kid I would have lost my mind seeing it on tv or a comic because it was so rare.

It's kinda like eating a lot of sugar. Eventually, it loses all taste.
 

fertygo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,585
err wasnt the phase 1 and 2 easily the ugliest period?

The Avengers iwas looking really bad for 2 billion+ gross movie
 

TheOMan

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,138
lol this is hilarious. I worked at one of the studios mentioned and basically, there was not enough people put on the team at first. A lot of people were on Endgame which got the 5* treatment at the multiple VFX studios working on it. IIRC a lot of Black Panther got farmed out to India initially.

I remember a lot of people at the time within the departments saying that Disney was treating Black Panther as not a massive priority but to get things done as well as they could, and then they saw that this movie was picking up speed and as studios love to do they asked for more complex work with less time to go.

To this day I don't think Kevin Fiege and Disney had as much faith in that movie as revisionist history would have us believe and were kinda caught off guard by how much people connected with it.

They were probably thinking an Antman level hit. Not the billion-dollar monster it turned out to be.

This is what I was thinking and makes complete sense.
 

Fancy Clown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,410
Somewhere after phase 1 when they changed to their immensely bland all-digital pipeline that seems to be used as-is for everything they produced.

I'm not like in love with what their 35mm content looks like but there's such massive difference between something like Iron Man and Iron Man 3.

587_5_1080p.jpg


587_9_1080p.jpg


587_4_1080p.jpg


Then you have Iron Man 3

8741_6_1080p.jpg


8741_15_1080p.jpg


8741_17_1080p.jpg


On one level or another, most of their movies follow a very similar template now.

If you're talking just VFX, the quality has been all over the place for while but I would say Black Panther was the first time you could really notice that they just weren't hacking it.

Yeah I don't even think the first couple Iron Man movies are particularly good looking, but this is a pretty stark (literally) example of how much richer they are than what followed. There's so much more depth and visual interest in the early Iron Man shots that the combination of film stock, higher contrast lighting and grading, and practical sets afforded than the desaturated (almost to the point of looking like raw log footage), green screen composited stuff that now makes up the bulk of these movies' standard coverage. I'm sure there's some variance based on the director and whichever sub-series it is, but I think it holds pretty true for the most part.
 

Yams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,861
The Avengers. Whedon's non-existent eye for cinematography shaped the look of everything after that movie
 

antispin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,782
Around Iron Man 3. The colors, the CGI, the almost weightless feel of how CGI characters/ suits move.
 

Eidan

AVALANCHE
Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
8,592
Multiverse of Madness is probably the most visually striking Marvel movie since…honestly I'm not sure.
 

Frodo

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,338
I can't remember anything from the MCU being consistently great in regards to cinematography, but the first few movies seem to be more colorful, at least.

The Eternals gets close to being good with some really nice composition and outside shots, but even that has that low contrast greyed out look of the other movies bringing the finished product down.
 

Noisepurge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,529
My main gripe is the use of particle effects as costumes for everyone now :(

Used to be cool and constructed with "real life" rules,
original.gif


now it´s just magic?
ironman-mark85.gif
 

gerg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,348
My main gripe is the use of particle effects as costumes for everyone now :(

Used to be cool and constructed with "real life" rules,

now it´s just magic?

Eh, Iron Man's suit in the first film is still made of a magical material that prevents the wearer inside from being turned to jelly, so this doesn't really bother me. It's all magic with a veneer of science regardless.
 

mute

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,177
My main gripe is the use of particle effects as costumes for everyone now :(

Used to be cool and constructed with "real life" rules,
original.gif


now it´s just magic?
ironman-mark85.gif
I guess specific to Iron Man but is this just following the progression of the comics or is his suit becoming less "real" over time just an MCU thing?
 

Bengraven

Powered by Friendship™
Member
Oct 26, 2017
26,934
Florida
I remember how bad the forest scene with the big 3 looked in the first Avenger movie. After that being such a huge film I accepted that they're going to have some super awkward CGI and I've never seen anything different. Every movie has one horribly obvious green screen scene.
 

Noisepurge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,529
Eh, Iron Man's suit in the first film is still made of a magical material that prevents the wearer inside from being turned to jelly, so this doesn't really bother me. It's all magic with a veneer of science regardless.

I guess specific to Iron Man but is this just following the progression of the comics or is his suit becoming less "real" over time just an MCU thing?

yeah but i liked that there were some restrictions in how to get into the suit and it was made from clear pieces of armor :D now it´s just nanobots without any restrictions :D same for Spidey and everyone most of the time. I like the little details of removing a mask for example.
 

Gunny T Highway

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
17,055
Canada
I guess specific to Iron Man but is this just following the progression of the comics or is his suit becoming less "real" over time just an MCU thing?
Nah, in a lot of the Iron Man comics he goes from the more traditional full metal armor suits to more nanomachine metal based suits overtime.
 

Newlib

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,822
Black Widow is just embarrassing looking at times. The explosion with Yelena is some budget mid 90s green screening.
 
Oct 30, 2017
15,278
My main gripe is the use of particle effects as costumes for everyone now :(

Used to be cool and constructed with "real life" rules,
original.gif


now it´s just magic?
ironman-mark85.gif
Everything about the suit in Iron Man was perfection. It had weight, it looked bulky, its interactions with the world felt real. Ever since then it's become a contest to see how close Stark could come from generating a weightless suit out of thin air.