this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
102 points (96.4% liked)
movies
3329 readers
271 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Saw it this weekend. The acting was good, but the movie in general was boring and anticlimactic. Definitely a snoozer.
The fact that you saw it after seeing clips makes me question your ability to reason.
The fact that you assume everyone to take the same stance as you makes me question your ability to be open-minded
The trailers were absolute trash. The main character didn't even look like CGI, it looked like AI slop.
That... that's called lighting effects... films have been using them since, well, the very beginning of film. Now I have zero proof that no AI whatsoever was used to make the movie, but you can't be mad because it LOOKS like they did. If nothing else that's just going to strengthen the link in people's brains between "AI art" and "(over)polished"
It definitely isn't lighting. If it's not AI then it's really bad CGI.