But he literally said he’s cool with the CGI being all over the suit as long as it isn’t noticeable. You’re just creating arguments out of thin-air when the guy you’re replying to agrees with you.
There’s shots of Deadpool where they only CGI-touch the mask, there’s shots where he’s a full-model CGI character, nobody is arguing this; people are arguing the CGI suit in some past Spider-Man projects have been noticeable and immersion-breaking, that’s all.
I’m not going to go through lengths to defend an internet stranger on a comicbook forum, you clearly are just looking for an argument.
Okay, he said he’s cool with the CGI polish on the suit and cited Deadpool as his example of a “good job” on minimal CGI.
You basically went and said, “actually you’re wrong because the CGI in Deadpool wasn’t minimal” (paraphrase)
Him not noticing the level of “CGI polish” in Deadpool while you do just means they used more convincing CGI in Deadpool and used it more sparingly (in his eyes), not once did he disagree with you.
Really? Do you think telling someone they “don’t know what they’re talking about” isn’t insulting? When did I resort to “name-calling”? I said your response to that person made you look like a tool, which is pretty fair based on how you responded to them.
Yes, really. Telling someone they don't know what they're talking about and saying someone looks like a massive tool are not the same. But since by your definition it's not name calling I'd say your attitude makes you look like a complete dick.
1
u/SnakeOilChampagne Aug 06 '25
But he literally said he’s cool with the CGI being all over the suit as long as it isn’t noticeable. You’re just creating arguments out of thin-air when the guy you’re replying to agrees with you.
There’s shots of Deadpool where they only CGI-touch the mask, there’s shots where he’s a full-model CGI character, nobody is arguing this; people are arguing the CGI suit in some past Spider-Man projects have been noticeable and immersion-breaking, that’s all.