Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) How does this make sense? Of course you plan how tall he is in order to communicate the sense of scale you need him to be in digital platform. What kind of logic is this?2) They stated what their scaling is, there is no ambiguity to it and no possible alternative interpretation to it. It is, however, entirely possible that in editing, the director saw that Hulk looked like a flea and it either wouldn't look good or had poor dramatic impact, so they changed it. Or that the original scene with Hulk jumping on Surtur could have been an old clip they made just for the trailer and just re-used the assets before the final size was decided upon (we do this all the time in video editing and yes, I do marketing campaigns, part of what I do has me working with video editing when we do ads). Multiple things could have happened here.
There is no "tremendous error" here. They don't put together scenes with the intention of being 100% consistent just so some retard on a battle board doesn't lowball the character they're portraying, they make it to tell a story with maximum dramatic impact.
3) Again, here it is: Writer's intent quantified and without ambiguity from first hand accounts of people working on the movie. You either accept it or you don't. This will prove if you are a) consistent and credible or b) just one big fat liar who would do and say anything just so that he can lowball some fictional character in an online forum. Make your choice.
This is the typical mental gymnastics you usually go thru just so that you get to lowball character "feats" you don't like and why you have zero credibility. You are given zero ambiguity on writer's intent straight from the animator's mouths and you choose to just ignore it because you don't like it.
I'm not surprised, you've always been disingenouos. Just another one of your usual BS.
1. Well if that's the case then why in the hell make Surtur's head only 4-5 Hulk heights? See the contradiction?
2. It's possible to give a height in an interview AFTER Surtur was created and the movie released. Surtur being exactly scaled to be 800m is improbable for 2 reasons.
a) It contradicts Hulk's height an undoes the scaling. In other words, You can't be doing something and not doing it at the same time.
b) It doesn't take any measures in order to create a being the size of your VISUAL PLEASING.
Originally posted by h1a8
1. Well if that's the case then why in the hell make Surtur's head only 4-5 Hulk heights? See the contradiction?2. It's possible to give a height in an interview AFTER Surtur was created and the movie released. Surtur being exactly scaled to be 800m is improbable for 2 reasons.
a) It contradicts Hulk's height an undoes the scaling. In other words, You can't be doing something and not doing it at the same time.
b) It doesn't take any measures in order to create a being the size of your VISUAL PLEASING.
1. No. No contradiction. I actually had a multiparagraph explanation and you just up and handwaved it without even reading and addressing it. Not surprised.
2. Are you daft? Are you familiar what CGI is? No, it's not possible you nimrod, they literally have to. It's not like hand drawn cartoons where you draw something and add it to what perhaps is a separate non precise environment. CGI requires you to decide on values (number/size of voxels) w/c you, in turn, have to scale against everything else. Without defined precise scaling, it'll be a total clusterfcuk. Especially when there are a ton of different objects (that also need to be scaled) in said shots. They even mentioned the scaling they did (90 million voxels total that ranged from 16cms to 80cms per voxel as he grew).
a) You didn't read what I wrote, stop being a moron.
b) Yes it does, and I already explained it. You're just ignoring it at this point.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. No. No contradiction. I actually had a multiparagraph explanation and you just up and handwaved it without even reading and addressing it. Not surprised.2. Are you daft? Are you familiar what CGI is? No, it's not possible you nimrod, they literally have to. It's not like hand drawn cartoons where you draw something and add it to what perhaps is a separate non precise environment. CGI requires you to decide on values (number/size of voxels) w/c you, in turn, have to scale against everything else. Without defined precise scaling, it'll be a total clusterfcuk. Especially when there are a ton of different objects (that also need to be scaled) in said shots. They even mentioned the scaling they did (90 million voxels total that ranged from 16cms to 80cms per voxel as he grew).
a) You didn't read what I wrote, stop being a moron.
b) Yes it does, and I already explained it. You're just ignoring it at this point.
I read everything you wrote. None of it addresses my proof.
1. You can’t scale exactly and not scale exactly at the same time. You can’t argue around that impossibility.
2. You don’t NEED ANY REAL MEASUREMENTS FOR CGI. Yes you need numbers, but they are not based off real life measurements. Trial and Error is all you need. This is how a typical thought process would go.
“Oh I would like Surtur to be a little bigger. Let me increase it from 43 to 52. That’s looks good. We can keep it there.”
Originally posted by h1a8
I read everything you wrote. None of it addresses my proof.1. You can’t scale exactly and not scale exactly at the same time. You can’t argue around that impossibility.
2. You don’t NEED ANY REAL MEASUREMENTS FOR CGI. Yes you need numbers, but they are not based off real life measurements. Trial and Error is all you need. This is how a typical thought process would go.
“Oh I would like Surtur to be a little bigger. Let me increase it from 43 to 52. That’s looks good. We can keep it there.”
1. You going "it didn't address my proof" is not an argument. You have no rebuttal. That is not how debating works. Do you even know how to debate? Here if you forgot the original post that basically already countered everything you just said above:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
2) They stated what their scaling is, there is no ambiguity to it and no possible alternative interpretation to it. It is, however, entirely possible that in editing, the director saw that Hulk looked like a flea and it either wouldn't look good or had poor dramatic impact, so they changed it. Or that the original scene with Hulk jumping on Surtur could have been an old clip they made just for the trailer and just re-used the assets before the final size was decided upon (we do this all the time in video editing and yes, I do marketing campaigns, part of what I do has me working with video editing when we do ads). Multiple things could have happened here.There is no "tremendous error" here. They don't put together scenes with the intention of being 100% consistent just so some retard on a battle board doesn't lowball the character they're portraying, they make it to tell a story with maximum dramatic impact.
2. Yes you do. And yes they did. Did you read what I wrote? They even gave the measurements. Stop being an idiot. I literally covered this and if I just simply quote what I posted everything you just typed gets rubutted. So your strategy now is just to pretend you rebutted my points without posting a rebuttal? Wheee! H1 debating tactics!
Guess I'll just quote what I typed til you post a rebuttal:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. No. No contradiction. I actually had a multiparagraph explanation and you just up and handwaved it without even reading and addressing it. Not surprised.2. Are you daft? Are you familiar what CGI is? No, it's not possible you nimrod, they literally have to. It's not like hand drawn cartoons where you draw something and add it to what perhaps is a separate non precise environment. CGI requires you to decide on values (number/size of voxels) w/c you, in turn, have to scale against everything else. Without defined precise scaling, it'll be a total clusterfcuk. Especially when there are a ton of different objects (that also need to be scaled) in said shots. They even mentioned the scaling they did (90 million voxels total that ranged from 16cms to 80cms per voxel as he grew).
a) You didn't read what I wrote, stop being a moron.
b) Yes it does, and I already explained it. You're just ignoring it at this point.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. You going "it didn't address my proof" is not an argument. You have no rebuttal. That is not how debating works. Do you even know how to debate? Here if you forgot the original post that basically already countered everything you just said above:2. Yes you do. And yes they did. Did you read what I wrote? They even gave the measurements. Stop being an idiot. I literally covered this and if I just simply quote what I posted everything you just typed gets rubutted. So your strategy now is just to pretend you rebutted my points without posting a rebuttal? Wheee! H1 debating tactics!
Guess I'll just quote what I typed til you post a rebuttal:
1. They didn’t use 800m scaling when Hulk struck Surtur. This is a fact. There is nothing else needed to be said. Surtur can’t be 800m and not 800m at the same time. Stop writing a bunch of irrelevant garbage.
2. No you don’t. I have messed with graphic software and it’s all about numbers, not real measurements. You do trial and error until you get something you like.
3. You need a real object with real height in order to scale something against. Everything around Surtur was digital. Nothing was real. So 800m is meaningless.
Originally posted by h1a8
1. They didn’t use 800m scaling when Hulk struck Surtur. This is a fact. There is nothing else needed to be said. Surtur can’t be 800m and not 800m at the same time. Stop writing a bunch of irrelevant garbage.2. No you don’t. I have messed with graphic software and it’s all about numbers, not real measurements. You do trial and error until you get something you like.
3. You need a real object with real height in order to scale something against. Everything around Surtur was digital. Nothing was real. So 800m is meaningless.
1. Or they scaled Hulk up for that specific shot to make him more visible. You need to learn how facts work. In order for your logic to work (disregarding artist interview on the size because facts contradict it to a point where it is impossible), other plausible explanations shouldn't exist. In order for mine to work (taking what they said at face value), I just have to provide a plausible explanation.
Artists scaled him to 800m, their words not mine. It's plain for everyone to see just how far you're willing to contradict yourself just so that you don't have to admit you're wrong.
H1 tactic: "I can't refute what you said so I am going to call it garbage and not offer any rebuttal". Whee.
2. Like you've "messed around" with martial arts and punch faster than the fastest puncher in the world, right? No one believes what you say.
You're basically trying to convince everyone that a multi-million dollar CGI company "messed around" with their measurements in a multi-million dollar production when there are hundreds of objects in the scene in question. Even tho, they themselves, from their own mouths provided precise measurements. Yeah, sure, we believe you.
3. Are you a moron? Each object in the scene (the Asgard tower, the buildings around it, the trees, the mountains) each have their own measurements and they need to scale them accordingly or everything will look like a big amatuerish clusterfck. 800m is how the artists (and by extension, the writers who gave them the how the scaling is intended to be) said they scaled it.
It is very telling of you to suddenly disregard "writer's intent" when it suddenly doesn't suit you.
But this doesn't surprise anyone.
h1's argument:
"Don't believe Sunny Teich (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2858014/) the lead on the Mega Surtur FX, believe me h1! I know better!"
Since h1 won't stop trolling, I asked the mod about whose word is canon. Imp gave me permission to post his answer.
Silent MasterWhose word is canon in regards to Surtur's height. the people who did the special effects for the movie or h1?
Impediment wrote on May 22nd, 2018 08:40 AM:
Definitely the producers.
When asked about using interviews this is what the Mod said
Impediment wrote on May 24th, 2018 08:06 AM:The MVF Golden Rule is that we must go by on screen feats. When the MVF first began in its chrysalis stage, it was a muddled mess because of “he said/she said” posting without proper backing for movie feats in a versus match. Interviews by the actors or producers may offer some insight, but are still not viable screen feats and don’t hold water.
Feel free to screen capture this post if you wish to.
Let me know if I can help with more.
Out of curiosity, since I’m not participating in this thread, what does Surtur have to do with the match?
Lol @ h1.
Look at how easy he abandons “writer’s intent” the second it doesn’t go his way (and he cannot fudge the interpretation). At this point, he’s claiming he knows the writer’s intent better than the people who worked with the writers/directors.
Apprently h1 is better than quantified explicit expression of writer’s intent from first hand sources.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
h1's argument:"Don't believe Sunny Teich (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2858014/) the lead on the Mega Surtur FX, believe me h1! I know better!"