Shazam! 2 is jank in a good way? maybe... let me explain
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
Blender Dumbass👁 5
https://mastodon.online/ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 1
Shazam! Fury of the Gods is another David F. Sandberg film that has an issue with it's opening. I just reviewed his film Until Dawn and if you can survive the not so good dialogue of the first couple of scenes, you are in for a very good movie. This film has a similar issue.
Being a $100+ million production I was impressed with how bad the visual effect were in the bridge collapsing sequence. What I suspect happened was an unfortunate thing which scares me personally as a filmmaker.
Sandberg got famous enough for Hollywood through horror YouTube short-films that he did with his wife Lotta. All of them were produced basically on no budget at all. Which means Sandberg had to learn how to make all of the effects himself. This guy knows Blender and shows how he uses it on his YouTube channel ( ponysmasher ). He is not bad at Blender. So he understands visual effects and how to make them. That begs the question: so what exactly went wrong then?
It seems like he knew that the climax of the film will be very expensive to make. It has multiple monster designs, a destruction of a city, and more stuff that is expected from a super-hero movie. So the budget for the visual effects was spread unevenly throughout the production. He probably correctly estimated that a scene in the beginning of the film where the bridge is collapsing ( with a lot of cars on said bridge ) is possible to do almost entirely on a computer to save costs. And more than that, because those cars are all real cars, and not some special designs for the movie, they could get away with using downloaded assets of those cars from the internet. And technically he was not wrong.
This would be a perfect way to do this if he did that sequence for a YouTube film. But that is supposed to be a blog-buster. And those assets they download are not good enough for a blog-buster. The bridge itself, as far as I can tell is not bad actually. Probably because it was a custom bridge made specifically for the movie, by people who understand how to make visual effects for those movies. Yet they populated the bridge with a lot of very bad car assets, that would look good maybe in a video game, but not in a shot that wants to be perceived as realistic. For example, you can see topology mistakes in the reflections of some of the cars. And it feels like they even went with using the default shaders that came in with the asset. Some of which didn't have basic things, like proper fresnel. That ended up looking very stupid.
The whole bridge sequence was a horror film for me specifically. I wanted ( and still want ) to make a live action film, primarily with dialogue, which would not require any CGI work what so ever, and then in the end of the film, when the audience already thinks its a drama film, suddenly shift gears into action with a car chase.
I thought of pitching this project to an Israeli studio ( where I live ) who might not have the money to shoot any of it for real. So I made The Package, The Car & Time Is Running Out hoping that it would be enough to prove to the Israeli studio that it would still be possible, despite not having money for it. But if you see the short, it is almost as bad ( it is actually a lot worse, but it reminds the same level of jank ) as the bridge sequence of Shazam! 2 ( when it comes to how cars are rendered ).
If I'm such a bad director that this idea of a fully CGI cars ( made by me, not even assets from the internet ) I think is a good idea, for a climax of the film. Then who the hell am I to think I can do a movie? Like, that sort of jank would be perfectly fine for a movie in the 90s. That would be at least "impressive CGI". But today, it would just make the movie stupid and kill any and all dramatic potential of it.
The funny thing is, if you look at the bridge sequence more as like a proof of concept type storyboard animatic, then the scene is actually not too bad. Sandberg is a good director. And the shots / camera moves he chooses are actually kind of awesome. I really loved, for example how he uses his overacting wife Lotta Losten in the scene with a comedic Spielberg reference with a shot of her face singing through the reflection of the car's mirror. Like if she is oblivious to the carnage that is about to take place. And then suddenly she overacts into fear. Which is just really funny and silly and kind of perfect for something as hilarious as Shazam!.
Though I don't get this choice from a continuity standpoint. Lotta was also shoved into the first film, because come on, it's Sandberg and he really loves his wife. But in the first film she died in an almost horror-esk scene very brutally. But apparently he loves her so much that he almost kills her in this movie too. Was it her twin sister, or something, in the movie's universe? Or is Sandberg just pulls a Sam Raimi on the audience as Raimi does with Bruce Campbell references.
Though for Campbell in the Spider-Man films, it makes more sense actually. He doesn't die at the fight ring in the first film, and doesn't die as a theater entrance guy in the second, so it is possible he just changed professions between the films. And ended up being a waiter in the third movie.
Actually if you think about, it is kind of tragic and though out. And maybe is even related to the iconic part in the first film where Peter Parker lets the guy run away with the money stolen from the ring's boss. As in the ring's boss couldn't pay Cambell's character, so he fired him, which lead him to pursue theater, but he was denied acting, since he is not actually an actor, so he agreed to a lower job at the entrance. But then decided to quit it, and got hired as a waiter. With Lotta, on the other hand, it makes very little sense.
Before the bridge scene there was a much better, much more promising opening sequence in a museum. There were those two costumed ancient warriors type characters that come into the museum, making people think they are just two people dressed for the occasion or something. But then they start acting all strange. And try to steal this staff ( from the first movie ). This is some really good tension building / mystery building stuff. Kind of reminiscent of the opening of the first Transformers, with this presence that is otherworldly, weird and hostile. And you don't really know what to do with it.
But then the movie decides to unmask them, revealing Kalypso ( Lucy Liu ) and Hespera ( Helen Mirren ), which immediately start dumping exposition dialogue to each other, in English. What a waste of a good setup!
If you survive the beginning of the film, the film starts to get better. There is still a bit of shit in the first half of it, and the shit becomes less and less noticeable by the end. In the end of the film, you ready fucking dig it. Like Sanberg was accelerating or charging himself or something. And by the end he was totally in the groove.
I still didn't watch the very much hated Disney picture Snow White which is a second collaboration between hating each other stars Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot. Sandberg snapped Zegler right from Spielberg's West Side Story remake. Probably because Spielberg worked with her. And her character is an attempt at something good that ends up being a mess. Gal Gadot ( Wander Woman ) though is a bit better. Like I literally fucking loved how Sandberg introduced her.
There is anti-ageism theme going on with the Shazam! brand. It's about children with super-powers. And a lot of the film makes a huge effort to show that children even without super-powers are actually kind of awesome. Like the little girl Darla ( Faithe Herman ) which makes a deal with a scary monster, despite not having access to her superpowers. Lovely shit. The one ageist thing that I have a very bad issue with is the fact that when the kids scream "Shazam!" they end up being adult versions of themselves. That would have been so much cooler if the kids themselves had super-powers. Like Robert Rodriguez did many times.
In any case, being an anti-ageism movie it touches on pedophilia. Yes! It does. Both Shazam ( Billy ) played by Zachary Levi / Asher Angel and Freddy ( Jack Dylan Grazer / Adam Brody ) are lusting over girls much older than they are. Freddy is lusting over Zegler's character. Which appears to be the same age as Freddy, but ends up being 6 thousand years old, or something. And Billy is attacked to, you guessed it, fucking Gal Gadot's Wander Woman.
There is even a fucking wet dream of Billy ( as Shazam! ) on a date with Wander Woman. And they are almost going for a kiss. Now... Here is a little bit of movie trivia for you.
In the first Shazam! there was supposed to be an appearance of Superman ( Henry Cavill ), but Cavill was not available, forcing Sandberg to come up with some clever bullshit. He shot the scene anyway, but he positioned the camera in such a way that you don't the face of Superman. Making it possible to shoot it with a double.
In Shazam! 2 they had access to Gal Gadot but Sanberg, being Sandberg he still shot her in the same exact way in Billy's wet dream ( actually it could have still been a double in that scene ). Like you never see her face. And then suddenly there is a face-reveal. And she is played by Djimon Hounsou aka the Wizard dude. Because to stop the scene just before they kiss ( to avoid it being too unsettling for ageist audience or something ) the movie had to interrupt it with some hilarious exposition dump. And putting a black guy's face onto Wander Woman's body is actually kind of hilarious.
So here you go. You think this self-aware joke is over and that is the extent of how they are going to do Wander Woman. But suddenly bam! There she is again. Shot the same way, no face. But the camera goes up, to her face. And guess what? It's Gal Fucking Gadot! I fucking loved that moment. Like he knew, I knew, he had no access to Cavil. So he fucking manipulated the fuck out of me with this move. Lovely stuff.
Gadot, by the way, friend-zones poor Billy. Even though he did tell her, he will be 18 in like a few months. What an ageist!
Just before you think the film is actually ageist, Sanberg let the youngest one in the team, as her actual little girl self, to scream the word "motherfucker" in the heat of a battle. I fucking loved that part too!
In any case I kind of loved the movie in the end of the day. It is jank. It is really bad at times. The dialogue is stupid ass. It has a few ageist things I don't like, because they are still figuring out how to make this kind of movie properly. But overall it was very enjoyable.
Happy Hacking!!!
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
Troler
c:0I never saw any Sandberg's movies, but I had seen his posts on Twitter. The picture of him I received was positive. He loves classic, monochrome films. That is a good sign for a cinophile!
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/out-trash.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/danisrace_2025-03-17.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/malware/addiction.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/danibox.png)