What is the lawsuit against BetterHelp? The class actions follow BetterHelp's $7.8 million payment to the FTC to settle claims that BetterHelp violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by revealing sensitive consumer data, including mental health information, to social media companies for targeted advertising

She Hulk looks so plasticky and 90s CGI.. Disney wasted that TV show, no wonder it flopped

remember they don't care about keeping your private information private

Hi Ihave a request! i really like your videos and want to buy your website membership, but cant. i wanted to ask you so you may add a crypto payment method too, so i cloud get access to your content by pay tether from my crypto wallet. 🤗HOPE this reach you, and i get happy news from ya 🤗

​@@cullenherrera3976thank you I don't understand how so KZfaqrs are still accepting sponsorship from this company when this company people personal medical information

Who is to say they haven't already?

just swap their heads in deep fake.

that would be so much work to look realistic...

No. They replace one person. At a time. And it changes which one it is throughout the show.

Given that all their projects look subpar because they do it in a week, I doubt it. It would need to be a Corridor Digital video, but that wouldn't fly because that wouldn't be a "buzz catching" video.

Could you please explain the joke? I thought it was a play on words as poor/pore sound alike, but im too dumb to get it 😢 Edit: just saw what you were referring to, sorry -_-

"I give that joke a C-plus." No, I give that joke a Ce-Na!

And more importantly: it was mandatory

great bingchiling moment.

I think we just discovered Jordan’s burner account. 😂

I agree, but bear in mind that this film is almost 4 years old, so the technology will be even more advanced now!

They DID look like high quality video game NPCs.

Agree with everything you said. Just think though what other shots you've seen and had no idea it was a CG character. Maybe you've seen better and didn't notice. That is what the artists are aiming for no?

@@EGOS42 Yes. Ive seen films that seemingly had no CGI, then discovered they had lots. The effects were invisible and completely seamless.

It was definitely the "most" convincing, but personally I could still tell it was CGI. He moves too easily for that position, the muscles aren't giving the same details. The heada/shoulders in relation to the arms also seem a bit off. These may just be subconscious notices but it's there. Definitely very, *very* impressive though. They did great!

Frame rates over 30 fps sends EVERYTHING into either uncanny valley or the "soap opera" look. I remember seeing The Hobbit in a movie theatre (ok, it was the sequel) and it just looked like a bunch of guys running around in the woods playing wizard.

Bet your lying

@@Dhakadice That's because it didn't have the LoTR budget to properly build the props and hire a bunch of extras. Also, too many stupid videogame elements.

I had the same problem with a movie called Noble House. It starred a younger Pierce Brosnan aged up with makeup and gray hair to look like an older version of himself. But it doesn’t match how he actually has aged, as seen in his many films.

​@@grutarg2938not the same at all. Youre talking about a reference that didnt exist until decades later and the discussion is about facial references from decades earlier....

Just like they said in the previous episode, these guys are scientists

Like, immediately naming off the terminology for the bird's anatomy. That shit's nuts!

Don't forget though that behind every cutting-edge modelling, texturing, and rendering technique, there are a bunch of programmers coming up with the algorithms and making sure they run as smoothly and quickly as possible. _They_ are the unsung heroes IMO. I was really excited when they had Paul Debevec on the couch the other week - a proper hero of mine he is.

They probably just google “what are feathers made out of” and then just do a little bit of research but the scientists still do the science work.

@@milanhilferink4051Tell me you know nothing without telling me you know nothing

If you want to make something look like real life, you gotta know how real life works. I just learned things about melanin and eye structure. :p

The “Poor Man approach” line was also unreal

I believe they took the "Pore Man's" approach

There are videos about the research paper

And Red Chillies VFX. Those are always fun

I agree, and this film is almost 4 years old, so the technology is even more advanced now.

all that work for a dumpster fire of a show. we often forget they still work hard in the background, regardless of the final result.

​@@kruleworldit was a good show. Yall were crying that the cgi was bad. Now that profcinals tell you its good you just move your goal post

@@theendofitthey just glazing the dude cuz he worked on it obv don’t be naive

@@theendofit cgi was never the issue. it was the bad writing. Hulk lost everyone he loved is equal to she-hulk got a cat call...

@@theendofit The show was utter garbage.

yet they fail, Will Smith looks like an game cut scene character and eagle look like a stock cgi eagle with some bad acting from John Cena who's not even looking at it when they are close in the garage

it should be about how badly Marvel treats their VFX artists.

Well yeah, even as a 2D artist you need to learn anatomy, this is not something new lol. Takeaway should be more that they need time and tolerance to reach stuff like this, two things that big companies are giving less and less of.

@Osama-KIN_TMZ01 I know way too many people who try to draw and have zero knowledge of anatomy. My comment wasn't for me, it was for people who want to be an artist who see my comment.

​@@kylecarter1599 And I know way too many people who try to model and have zero knowledge of anatomy. Obviously, I wasn't talking about you, I was saying that it is not something to boast about as it is the bare minimum you should be learning in most artistic mediums, anatomy I mean, same with learning perspective. I'm talking in the professional setting, but you can never be called a true visual artist if you don't understand the real thing.

Also I never skipped intro.

Dude john cena was well done more ! We actually got to see him. Props to weta

*The eagle looked fake.* They keep doing its movements in slow motion. Compare that to the eagle that slapped Wren which is moving naturally fast.

@@hulkhatepunybanner Yes and if you've been watching Corridor for any length of time you'll know that realism isn't and shouldn't be the goal most of the time

@@zeikjt *It is art and we suspend disbelief all of the time with motion pictures. But it's very evident, by modeling each and every single feather on Eagly, that realism was the intended goal here.* All I'm saying is making small animals move in slow motion makes them appear less real.

I could imagine it would be bad business for the guest if they criticise stuff openly

@@nikolajjensen4453 Sure, but it could be about old stuff, or low-budget stuff, and it could be nice to see good stuff too (the show is literally titled "reacts to Bad and Great CGI" after all)

Like Gemini Man maybe?... That movie looked rough.

It's rare but it has happened. The Mummy scene with the Rock as the scorpion king comes to mind in which the guest said that the Rock was in a different project at the time so they couldn't get any reference and such, so they just had to make do with what they had in the time they had.

Y'know with the unerring feed of negativity through the Internet, I like seeing good work. It's good being away from the "haha that was so bad" part of KZfaq for the most part. This is a nice ratio of good and bad on this channel.

Honestly I think the ILM documentary "Light and Magic" is a good resource.

​@@Hajfena63 I don't want to hear it from ILM though, I want to hear it from them.

They do, every week, It's called VFX artists react

While I like this idea, I feel that concept is better served in a video essay, which corridor crew doesn't seem to do

@@brian728 Um no, what OP described is not what they do for VFX artists react.

Terrible movie but agreed, has some nice stuff in it

@@Elias6233 how is it a terrible movie? It's one of the best from the early 2010s

God yes, a fantastic movie!! Please do an episode on Scott Pilgrim

That movie blows tho. Just because it had a few video game references doesn't make it good.

Just because you say it blows doesn't make it bad ;)@@yomammasaurusrex9571

The animatronics in that show were amazing. As was the show itself. Very underrated too, it's hardly ever mentioned in any of the sci-fi rundowns.

Farscape is one of the best sci-fi shows ever made. You could feel the love that was put into every character. I really wish I could one day watch a remake movie directed by James Gunn. He already said he was inspired by Farscape to make GotG.

@@brunobertoline3003 Sorbo was on Tim Pool last week talking about Farscape so this is super relevant lol

I dont understand the pun...

That was the moment that earned my like on the video. :)

@@ZeroPrimeSigma they were talking about pore-stretching and he said the solution was a "poor man's version." Think "poor" vs. "pore." Or were you talking about the Cena joke? That one wasn't a pun.

@@rome8180 ohh ok. ye that was the one. Ty

Absolutely. Pore them I’m

pore.

@@thomasbecker9676 Not VFX? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Haha honestly? Compared to most of phase 4 & 5s dumpster fire it was like a solid B, obviously Spidey/moon knight/guardians/Loki were the only quality exceptions, but it wasn't neeeearly as bad as black widow/multiverse madness/secret invasions garbage nonsense writing. I swear after endgame it's like they fired anyone with writing skills and brought in 11th graders using AI.. quantumania? That was his FIRST SCREENPLAY. It's insane how far the quality dropped.

some of the issues in that movie visually had a lot to do with the decision to use 120fps. watching it at 60fps it makes the movements look too rapid and makes the CGI stand out way too much especially during the chase scene.

It really is i could rewatch that scene for hours

There was no computer generated imagery in movies in the 1960’s. I believe “Westworld” was the first one to implement some, in 1973.

@@cineturon not in movies, but there were videos demonstrating very early forms of computer graphics in the 1960s, way before they would be implemented in film eventually.

Where’d all the colour go? The final product looks like moving concrete. All the colours are washed out. I swear every marvel movie has this cheap look since Disney took over. The visuals have been abysmal since they took over marvel, let alone the story telling.

The technology behind it could be as afvanced as it ever could be but if at the end of the day it looks like shit then it looks like shit. The high end generative models are some of the most complex things humans have EVER made in terms of technical and data prowess yet at the end of the day people still bash it, because off the results are still not great.

Yeah...the thing people don't get is that different things (also depending on context) bring different levels of challenge. Making a rigid cube look real is not the same challenge as making a human look real, and making a human *who talks* look real is so much more complicated than making one who doesn't, etc.. And lighting, hair, it all contributes to how challenging it is to reach perfect photorealism. It's not like Iron Man's suit is equal to She-Hulk's face in terms of difficulty of making it look passably realistic. Or even the Hulk vs MODOK. MODOK being more human-looking inherently raises the threshold. The sheer amount of footage needed is also a factor, because the work gets spread thin if there are a lot of shots to do. What people call "bad CGI" is so often a misunderstanding of how different the thresholds are for different things.

@@Swenglish dont mention ..you dont have reference for hulks but you can build reference for ironman suit

@@xmatobujnakx That too. The closest reference you have for hulks is...the actors playing them. And matching all that detail, not just of form but of movement, is...a lot. And then you have to solve the color problem, which is affected by lighting and, again, movement, as well, because a hulk isn't supposed to look like a human with green paint on. The green is supposed to be under the skin, and there's no perfect reference for that. Dp you treat it as green melanin? Green blood? Those are different effects (and I'm sure they tried both while experimenting just to see what looks better). And then that has to work in low light scenarios as well as bright lamps, natural sunlight, diffuse sunlight, etc... And personally, I think the only lighting scenario where they didn't quite get there was inside the GLK&H building (which had big windows PLUS reflective interior PLUS electric lights, so that's just a whole shitstorm of complicated lighting to match). So of course people zero in on those specific shots (or worse, unfinished shots from the first trailer) to say that She-Hulk looks notably bad in the entire show, when that just simply isn't true. There were plenty of shots where she looks about as good as I've ever seen a CGI human look, and that's especially remarkable for a TV show, considering just how many effects shots it had to have. Comparing it to for example the Martian Manhunter in the Supergirl TV show, it's a huge difference, and a big part of that is how little time that show had to spend on post production per episode.

The haters couldn’t even make 20 seconds of these shots. I know the CG is sometimes not perfect, but that’s okay. That’s how technology advances thru progress and mistakes along the way.

They need to compare the narnia movies to the old BBC versions in visual effects.

would be cool if it was a superman and lois and smallville double episode to truly show what the CW alone was able to achieve with superman within 20 years time

I remember being very impressed with the effects on Smallville, now they look like a PlayStation game.

I will say the only effects I still like (only because no other effect has done this and is the effect is still dated) are the heart vision. I love how he just shoots heat and not laser.

That means alot. The Stunt Coordinator on this film that shot the previz that layed the blueprint for the Hallway Sequence also worked on Sucker Punch. Has a very similar vibe, but also its own thing.

that would be more stuntmen react. They used very few CGI effects in Xena.

@@FablestoneSeries there are lots and lots of optical and other visual effects used during the episodes. Especially for monsters and stuff.

@@Shaki123 I'm a visual effects artist and i've worked in film for 30 years. Their effects were largely practical. The monsters were almost exclusively costumes and makeup. A few stop action miniatures. If you look through the fandom directory you will be hard pressed to find enough CGI shots to fill an episode. The phoenix, a hellhound, a fire beast, maybe the occasional lightning bolt. Remember the show came out in 1995. Rendering the simplest of CGI effects would have literally taken months. Having rendered effects back then I promise you i'm not exaggerating. It would have taken MONTHS. So there isn't much there to talk about. However you could fill hours and hours of content on stuntmen reacts.