[ SECRET POST #6081 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6081 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 13 secrets from Secret Submission Post #869.
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]

01. https://i.imgur.com/FchzCdy.png

[(Anonymous)]

Different things, bad comparison.

Stylized cartoons do not even try to mimic reality or go for ultra-realism and don't risk hitting the uncanny valley.

[(Anonymous)]

The 40s Superman was Kirk Alyn, not George Reeves.

[(Anonymous)]

That brief failure of research aside, I agree though.

[(Anonymous)]

True. I did want to give credit where credit was due, though; IIRC George Reeves' flying scenes were done with rear projection.

[(Anonymous)]

So, your standards for CGI are perfect, and everyone else's personal preferences should be lowered accordingly or they're "snobby"? Yeah, that seems logical.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah imo the anti-aging stuff looks kinda weird but still better than like, most bad makeup. I feel like the aversion has got to be something beyond "it just looks bad" like people are weirded out by the whole concept? Or maybe I just don't get other people's tastes? idk

Nope.

[(Anonymous)]

That is a weird comparison, given there are so, so many different ways of doing special effects available today. One of the problems with CGI is that many studios don't want to pay enough or give enough time for it to get to a level of quality that isn't off-putting, so it's rushed work by a lot of stressed people for a special effects house that may go bankrupt.

[(Anonymous)]

That's like comparing rocks to chewed-up bubblegum.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I'd rather see them have a cartoon episode like Fringe did with Leonard Nimoy! (Or, way back, Madonna did for some scenes in her video for "Music", to disguise that she was pregnant at the time.)

The de-aging stuff (or bringing back dead actors) is always creepy.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd take a stylistic choice done well over rushed and poorly executed CGI any day.

[(Anonymous)]

Nope.
1) different technologies
2) stylistic choice
3) you actually don't know if people in 1940s were in such a awe of this effect
4) this exact problem can be solved with hiring different actors. Which is good. Actors should be fucking hired, especially older actors instead of old-make up or younger less known actors. "but they are not as goooood as this famous actor". This famous actor also isn't good with CGI erasing their face

[(Anonymous)]

The reason I'm against Hollywood CGI-ing anything and everything, including making older actors look younger is it is actively harming the system/art in itself.

A refusal to let the passing of the torch to new talents keeps the system stagnant and eventually there is nothing/no one new to replace and evolve the system and the art.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes yes yes this!