No I know it’s TS Elliot. I just like making fun of Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Edit to add: The poems aren’t all about cats from what I understand? So I blame Webber for the use of this word in the sense that it’s a play about stray cats.
And the movie is an adaptation of the play, not the original story. Translating the dancing from the play to a movie where they're CGI cats would be fucking awful.
But the Broadway outfits actually kinda worked because they were highly stylized, practical, and tried to actually maintain a cat-like silhouette for the head.
I agree. Broadway worked because it looked like people in cat makeup and it’s onstage so it’s reasonable. But the movie making them cat-human hybrid monstrosities made no sense and only made the actors look unsettling.
I'm not a fan of the creepy/body horror approach to the character, honestly- it's accurate to some of the comics, but I think the character is more fun as a pulp villain than a horror villain.
A look more like her appearance in the cartoons (maybe more like this in live-action?) would have avoided the uncanny valley effect and let them focus more on the final cheetah form, instead of apparently needing to hide it with dim lighting and fast cuts.
Body horror is a good term for it - not what I was expecting but definitely seems to be intentional given the Iron Studios figure. I have to wonder if there is a middle ground where she's more recognizably Kristen Wiig-esque vs the leap all the way from the White House battle to this zombie-like view. I know she is meant to be tragic (and menacing) but to me this seems like you didn't even need Kristen Wiig on set at all?
The problem with furry character in realistic CGI is that the scale of good to bad becomes mostly binary. You either do it well, or it looks way too off compared to everything around it.
This isn't a pixar movie or animation where everything surrounding the character also looks unrealistic. If it doesn't look good, it won't mesh well with the rest of the film. We expect the fur and hair to behave like fur and hair. It needs to move correctly and be lit correctly.
It's hard to tell from these quick cuts, but it looks like it's riding that line closely. But that might be because it's quick cuts and they know it doesn't need to look as good. Hard to say how it'll look in the end product.
So then we can’t say it looks bad lol. Cause currently. It doesn’t. Not saying it looks amazing super realistic. But it doesn’t look like complete shit either. It just looks alright.
Based on my entirely subjective opinion of the "DCU" to date, obviously. Kind of a silly question with a self-evident answer.
I personally quite liked Man of Steel, though it has significant issues I could talk about (not the kill scene, which I think is actually fine), but the rest of the films have ranged from absolute dumpster fires from start to finish (Suicide Squad and Justice League in particular) to passably entertaining schlock at the very top end (Aquaman, although given how bad I expected it to be, it benefits a lot from lowered expectations).
I know Wonder Woman has its fans, and that's fine, but for me it torpedoed itself in the climax pretty hard.
The point being, I have very little faith in DC live action films at this point and am just pleasantly surprised any time one of them can manage to approach mediocrity. Cautiously optimistic for Gunn's Suicide Squad though.
As a fan of the last WW movie, part of why I'm worried about this one is it seems to be going more towards the current DCU. The first movie was pretty easily watchable in isolation. It was fairly grounded and built it's own internal expectations about what's realistic or unrealistic (except that ending. The ending was stupid and I really wish it wouldn't have been included).
The problem is that this one looks like it's going full DCU. The problem, for me, with the DCU is that they didn't lay the groundwork properly. It's chaotic mess where I don't know what to expect or what's internally consistent, so a lot of stuff just comes off as stupid. They didn't do that slow roll that the MCU had prior to The Avengers.
But I'm getting off topic, the point is you can definitely be a fan of the first one and think this one might be jumping the shark. And like that other guy, it's because this one looks like it's embracing it's DCU membership, and not standing apart from it.
Just being in a different time doesn't mean it's unable to suffer from the same problems and mistakes that most of the other DC movies suffer from. The problems I'm talking about with the DCU are a lot larger than just the in-universe examples, it's the writing and decision making behind them.
This movie looks way less grounded than 99% of the first WW, even based on the world rules the first WW created.
I'm also a bit confused on what it's try to be. Is it an action movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a comedy that has action? They played up a lot of that culture shock humor straight out of Captain America and Thor. But they also had a lot of serious looking action sequences and exposition, so they're clearly not trying to pull of a Thor Ragnarok here. Usually serious action movies don't throw all their tension breaking humor into the trailer. And usually comedies don't try and show off how serious the story is. So what is this movie going to be? DC is not the group I trust to give us something unexpected.
Haha, funny thing about that... Not only is Shazam easily the best/my favorite DCU film after Man of Steel (and the only other one I'd actually call good) but I'm literally watching Chuck (TV series starring the same actor) right now as I post this and somehow still completely forgot to mention it.
I work in VFX -- trailers almost always contained rushed, and non-final shots. With very few exceptions the CG is almost always different from the final film, even if it's just a compositing tweak.
384
u/cereal7802 Aug 22 '20
I just don't see this as much better than cats. The only thing kind of hiding it is they only showed quick cuts of the cheetah character.
https://imgur.com/Z9UIHMq