[ SECRET POST #3997 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3997 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Neil Gaiman, Good Omens]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Tonya Harding, Nancy Kerrigan / I, Tonya]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #572.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/WZ1ZFKL.png
[Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2]

[(Anonymous)]

....they are supposed to be. They are supposed to look like store manikins.

[(Anonymous)]

Having not seen the movie-- do they move or something? Because if they're just still props, they probably ARE mannequins. I've seen plenty like that.

[(Anonymous)]

They move.

[tabaqui]

I thought it just highlighted Ego's...Ego, and his disdain for anything 'real'.
*shrug*
To each their own.

[ninety6tears]

Yeah, I know some people thought the planet generally looked fake (I don't know, it was pretty to me) but those weren't supposed to look realistic.

[(Anonymous)]

Did OP complain that it didn't look realistic, though? The secret mentions that it looks cheap, which isn't the same thing.

[ninety6tears]

LOL, ok. If they actually meant "meticulous CG has a differently styled lack of realism" hopefully they'll be along to clarify.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but... isn't that true? Something can be obviously CGI and not real but still amazingly well done, just like how something can be a real, hand built set or prop but still look like crap. OP doesn't look like they're complaining about there being CGI or unrealistic special effects, they're complaining about poorly done CGI and special effects.

[ninety6tears]

It may be true, but I just don't get that from the secret, which paired "plastic" with "cheap" when obviously "plastic" was the look that scene was going for. And nothing that I said implied that I thought they were complaining about the decision to use CGI rather than the quality of it.

[(Anonymous)]

Those things weren't supposed to look realistic at all. And I thought Ego's planet perfectly captured a very specific/purposeful sense of "not quite right".

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen the movie, but just looking at this picture, it seems like cheap and plastic is the exact intent.

[(Anonymous)]

Bad CGI usually doesn't look like plastic, it looks like a drawing with wonky lighting and colors superimposed on the film. If this looks like plastic, and it does in the pic (I never saw the movie), then it's probably supposed to.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I thought it was a Disney self-reference. Of course a guy named Ego would have an entire theme-park feature of animatronic mannequins devoted to his sexual history.

[(Anonymous)]

Nice catch! I didn't think of that.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought it looked kind of weird in an intentional way - Ego's planet sort of looks like the cover of my Lisa Frank trapper keeper! I didn't care for it particularly, but I figured it was a purposeful stylistic choice.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that was my impression too. The whole thing had a Lisa Frank meets Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory vibe, but that was the point.

[(Anonymous)]

That's the perfect way to describe it, honestly.