For a Snyder film the visuals look quite bad
I'm not a Snyder fan, but one thing I can say about his films is that visually they look great for the most part. This looks like any generic Sci-Fi film that's been released over the past decade.
shareI'm not a Snyder fan, but one thing I can say about his films is that visually they look great for the most part. This looks like any generic Sci-Fi film that's been released over the past decade.
share$166 million for both Part 1 and Part 2, or whatever subtitles they came up with for them.
We've seen how INSANE amounts of money are required today for even passable CGI effects, like in the latest "Indiana Jones." $300 million for that one. So, half that for two movies is going to result in some rougher stuff, to be sure. These directors should instead carefully choose what shots to have CGI in so that they can get good effects out of it, instead of having tons of shots that come out iffy looking.
No kidding. Look at how good The Creator looks and it cost less than half the usual summer tentpole release these days. Of course, it flopped.
shareVisuals are certainly generally Snyder's strong point.
shareAll Snyder movies are mostly CGI abuse trying to look like XBox games.
shareNot sci fi, futurist war movie. Visually this is more Marvel than Star Wars, especially the fight scenes.
share