Indeed. Ant-Man is one of the ugliest looking MCU films there are, which is funny because they all look alike. And Deadpool was made for a relatively low price for a CBM. However, it didn't look good.
I'm so glad DCEU films are being shot on film. They look better than most if not all CBM films shot digitally.
War, what is it good for?

Was it shot digitally? I didn't see them, just the trailers and they look just like every other film today.,

Not bad. Ugly.
I'm the thing that keeps you up at night, the evil that haunts every dark corner of your mind

Did they look bad?

Because shooting "digital crap" on digital cameras makes the final result look almost cartoonish. See deadpool and ant-man.
I'm the thing that keeps you up at night, the evil that haunts every dark corner of your mind

It is clearly stated in the Code of Conduct that one shall not take dumps on such things that do not yet exist in tangible or consumable form.
DRRROOOPPP OUUTTTT OFFF LIFE WIIITH BOOOOONG IN HAAAAANNND.

Why is he not allowed to do that?
Porch Monkey 4 Life

You pre-judging the film before it's released.

for anyone looking for part of the reason why he does what he does.. here:
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/life/movies/2016/03/22/82131764/
IMDB taught me: cynicism is praised. optimism must be stamped out wherever it can be found.

Nolan's films are teal and orange too.

I'm not using him as a standard. I'm just saying it's clearly night and day to how Nolan and Snyder shoot their films

Why do you use Snyder as a standard though?

I've seen BB and Dark Knight recently. I can tell you, that Nolan DEFINITELY understood Batman better than Zack Snyder and makes better looking than films than Snyder trying to ape Fincher in BvS

BB and The Dark Knight are very boring now and each has their own set of plotholes, on top of the drab aesthetics and boring music. I honestly don't know how they are so well loved when what came before was Batman Returns. Yes AT THE TIME the Nolan universe was refreshing but it's been years now and we can see it with objectivity and let's be honest, those films suck. I also don't think Nolan had any real understanding of the characters, otherwise Alfred would never have gone away in Rises. It sucks that he also felt the need to insert or recreate scenes from iconic comic stories into his movies but with no of the depth, action or development that surrounded those scenes in the original stories. Now we are unlikely to see a Knightfall or Long Halloween on screen thanks to him.

Dark Knight Rises was and still is a mess. BB and Dark Knight are paced well, whereas BvS just sputtered 90 sec scenes at you without coherence. with BB and Dark Knight, things seem to have consequence, whereas in BvS, even a Congress bombing felt like an afterthought in the 2.5hr miasma of scenes without closure. and most, MOST importantly, Nolan understood his characters a whole lot better than Snyder did with his characters, Superman especially.
Nolan might have, on the record, "hand-picked" Snyder for MoS, but i still believe that was only for PR purposes to boost the film.

what's so much better about the dark knight rises than any of snyder's films?

Hey, i like Nolan, and even i admit his overuse of Hans Zimmer's overbearing music, similar to Kubricks use of overbearing classical pieces, as well as penchant for overexposition can be grating. Objectively, he's still better at story and character than Zack Snyder could ever be, Same with Fincher.
Although im pretty glad Fincher never did a CBM. Cause he'd probably fear being tied up by the studio like he was with Alien 3

Seriously, Nolan is not all that, his films are always full of plotholes and they are most akin to gimmicks and fads than classics. He's the new M. Night Shyamalan.

They might have similar looks, but that doesn't mean Nolan is as dumb and crass when it comes to Zack Snyder's abilities. If anythingm, i'd say that Nolan, to me, comes across as less subtle, not as refined Kubrick, and Zack Snyder comes across more immature, less polished and generally more unfocused David Fincher, whose camera style also comes across as "sterile"

There is nothing wrong with the CGI though, one can use CGI, the point is that Nolan's films are as sterile and disposable as Snyder's.

But atleast Nolan is more subtle with his use of visual effects, which is why his style comes across as more realistic and in-camera, as opposed to Snyder, who, with Sucker Punch, MoS and BvS especially, just threw a whole bunch of nonsense CGI spectacle, which felt very artificial and empty. Nolan still uses traditional camera techniques when it comes to effects

Nolan's films are teal and orange, they have the digital look which Snyder's do too, it's the same thing.

And also, whatever you might say about the lighting of Nolan's films(most of which IS done in-camera), atleast it doesn't have that gray sterile, ethereal look that Zack Snyder overlays in his films ever since Dawn of the Dead. As if that effect makes his direction more compelling and arty

Not really but Nolan's films are not good to be honest. They worked at the time but now they are unwatchable to me.