Why would they make X-23's claws look like this when it seems to be a mistake?

You’re literally the only person who ever noticed it, so demonstrably it wouldn’t be worth the time or money to fix it in post

Most ppl aren’t neurotic or annoying enough to notice or care

Probably because they went from props in wolverine to cgi for deadpool. More comic accurate look vs something to hold.

Dude, it's a movie. Go outside and enjoy real life

Because filmmaking is hard, expensive, and imperfect.

The invention of HD video and theatre quality home experiences has made the art of disbelief and movie magic a losing arms race.

Sometimes they just hope something like this will slide (as it did for years) because the overworked, underpaid VFX artist was better off spending their time on a different shot.

I see slide 3 that you’ve mentioned, but where is slide 4 that you also mention? Seems like an obvious oversight in my opinion

who watches the movie at 2 frames per second to notice?

Oh no! The movie is completely ruined because of one tiny, insignificant oversight!

Literally nobody has noticed this or cared until now

Find more important things to care about

I can’t even tell what you’re noticing so it must not have been a big deal.

God damn, i remember when people used to like little movie goofs like this. NBD

Personally, I’m offended that she’s able to bend her wrists when her claws aren’t out. And that there aren’t two claw-shaped bulges in her arms. Hugh Jackman? Sure. With three claws, not having that makes perfect sense. But with her two claws? TOTALLY unbelievable.

It's probably because she's holding the claw prop in her palm and the blades fit between her fingers. We all remember how bad the claws can look when they're fully CG.

Ok. Anyway...

Dude can't upload the 4th picture he mentioned in his post, and complains about a CGI fail that you probably see for half a second.

This reminds me of the story Neil Degrasse Tyson had with James Cameron and the Titanic movie. He mentions the scene after the ship goes down and the night sky not being correct cause of star placement and time of the night. James Cameron just responded “imagine how much more box office the movie would’ve made if the night sky was correct”.

It's good that you have knack for noticing thing that others don't. But to genuinely ans your question - it probably was a mistake and it happens as others have already pointed. Someone might have noticed too we don't know but ultimately it was allowed to be in the movie. Interesting catch hope you enjoyed the movie. I have been having a bad day today so it didn't feel right to bash you even if it is a post a as joke. I hope you have a good day. Also I am not pointing fingers at anyone else. I am sorry if it seems like that.

While I understand that many people here don’t notice or care about the kinds of details OP is pointing out, everyone has their own way of engaging with movies.

I don’t really get why telling someone to “get a life,” “go outside,” or “it’s just a movie” is considered okay. Maybe OP genuinely cares about films and enjoys noticing small details and inconsistencies. Just like others might care deeply about cinematography, acting choices, lore accuracy, or completely different hobbies altogether.

I’ll admit I also tend to overthink minute details in movies or books sometimes — and I know I’m not alone in that. There are clearly others who enjoy engaging with media on that level too 😊

@OP
With budgets this high, it’s not unreasonable to expect that visible props or details would be handled carefully — even though mistakes obviously still happen. 🫡

Jesus Christ go outside

It's because it's a zoomed in frame, you can't observe this at normal speed.

Even after you point it out i still cant see the issue ngl

In that incredible forced perspective shot in Fellowship of the Rings with Gandalf and Bilbo sitting at the table, Gandalf bumps the table and subtly reveals the illusion.

Not everything in films is polished to perfection. In fact, a lot of things don’t stand up to intense scrutiny. Typically, filmmakers aim for these types of things to not be noticed on a first viewing. Any CGI touch-ups for things someone might notice after watching a film multiple times has a pretty low return on investment.

Dont be this guy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQH2rmQ5-vk

I'm not saying it's some huge issue I just don't understand why a movie with a half a billion dollar budget wouldn't correct something like that. I only noticed because it's the main promo image of her from the film.

I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder


because you kiss your dad on the lips

i would say, slide 2 is a bad AI made pic of some random guy from the internet