CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-16-2013, 03:38 AM   #61
JoeyP88
PRO
portfolio
Joey
Hampton, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethule
They should have spent more then as the sequence where he flies across various terrains around the world looked really bad, blurry and fake.

And to various post houses, i say this: We get it. You guys can do debris and smoke very well. You didn't have to include it in every single scene...talk about overload


Folks have to realize, I suppose, that this movie was coming right on the heels of Star Wars. This movie in 78, for as bad as some of those effects were by todays standards, were light years ahead of everything in that day. Speaking strictly FX, it was a significantly well done product for its time.

I did feel the same way about the debris. At one point I got a real "Independence Day" feel about it all.

Joey
 
Old 06-16-2013, 06:21 AM   #62
treedee
Frequenter
 
treedee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Just got out from the theater and wow, I mean WOWOWOWEEE! I was impressed. Very entertaining movie, not sure what the critics were smoking. Loved every moment of this film even with the fact the glacier scenes with Lois lane was suspect...But action...dude, had me all over the place the moment the movie starts...okay gonna hop off Superman's jock and just say go see if you haven't very good super hero flick, up there with the Batman series!
 
Old 06-16-2013, 08:08 AM   #63
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyP88
Do the people in Hollywood have that much control over everything creative? Really?


Well basically my point is that comics were treated as juvenile literature in the 70s--it was lucky that a serious adaptation was made at the time.
Frankenstein and Dracula are considered classics of literature and even they have never been translated faithfully either. Cant expect comics to get better treatment.

I dont consider Superman a mythology anyway--certainly not like Hercules or Achilles.
It was created as juvenile entertainment and restricted by that focus. It still is.

The movie was meant to a general version of Superman as the general public understood. They didnt care about comic fans at all back then.
Its fine if you dont like that but I am just expressing the reality. I dont particularly like the Spider-man films because they eliminate dramatic aspects of the character's first 30 or so stories that i think would have been more dramatic than what they did in the films (and because it came from the character's creator I think its more canonical than what they did in the 80s like having him get married). And unlike the 78 Superman film they didnt go through a laundry list of Spider-man activities that I would have expected to see like him swinging around the city casually. With Superman 78 they did show him outrunning trains, saving airplanes, helicopters, trains, buses, stopping speeding bullets, stopping various criminals, stopping missiles, fixing the san andreas fault etc and going for casual flying. And they didnt have digital technology back then.



Even with Marvel movies they have altered the canon--made Tony Stark more of a comedian. Turned one of his main villains into a fraud (worse than what they did to Lex Luther in the 70s). I am sure we will see lots of changes in coming Marvel movies dictated by whim or actor demands or whatever.

Anyway if you think they could have done a much better version of Superman at the time then great. But I only think that would have been possible had you financed it yourself and then the realities of filmmaking and compromise would have become apparent.

Last edited by kelgy : 06-16-2013 at 08:20 AM.
 
Old 06-16-2013, 08:36 AM   #64
teruchan
Skeleton Man
 
teruchan's Avatar
portfolio
Terrence Walker
The Last King
of Scotland
Shanghai, China
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 893
I haven't seen the new Superman yet, but i am very skeptical that it could possibly be better than the 1978 movie with Christopher Reeve (there is no S!!). Even if just from all the reviews which claim it is following in the footsteps of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, being dark, gritty and overly serious. That is just not Superman to me.

Also, Christopher Reeve made me believe a man could fly. The wirework in those films was fantastic, but it is because of how he moved his body that made it jump to the next level. I doubt any amount of plastic looking CG doubles flying around will match that. No one has done it yet. The only recent movies I can think of that have decent flying is OZ and Hansel and Gretel, both of which use real actors on wires.

The Greatest American Hero had better flying than most modern movies.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 06-16-2013, 01:50 PM   #65
JoeyP88
PRO
portfolio
Joey
Hampton, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
Christopher Reeve (there is no S!!).


I did that didn't I? Guess that happens with us old folks who grew up watching the television version with George Reeves. Apologies to Christopher Reeve.



Quote:
Originally Posted by teruchan
reviews which claim it is following in the footsteps of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, being dark, gritty and overly serious. That is just not Superman to me.


I don't know. After the Death of Superman and CRISIS I think they altered the story to be more dark. They injected lots of internal conflict and I didn't like any of it. It eventually turned me off of comics in general, I haven't purchased a comic since CRISIS. But I accept that it is part of the canon.

Joey
 
Old 06-16-2013, 02:17 PM   #66
trevanian
Expert
Kevin H. Martin
freelance writer
USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyP88
Folks have to realize, I suppose, that this movie was coming right on the heels of Star Wars. This movie in 78, for as bad as some of those effects were by todays standards, were light years ahead of everything in that day. Speaking strictly FX, it was a significantly well done product for its time.

Joey


There were some good shots, but by and large the FX really yanked me out of the movie back then. After seeing CLOSE ENCOUNTERS so many times in a theater, seeing SUPERMAN in one just once felt like amateur hour a lot of the time. Good example of how putting several fx shots in a sequence that are all over the place quality-wise is not a good thing compared to using just one or two good ones.

That one shot where his suit turns green as he flies toward the dam was so godawful there was outright laughter when I saw it (notice they fixed that on the dvd.)
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 06-16-2013, 02:24 PM   #67
webhead
Expert
 
webhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelgy
Well basically my point is that comics were treated as juvenile literature in the 70s--it was lucky that a serious adaptation was made at the time.
Frankenstein and Dracula are considered classics of literature and even they have never been translated faithfully either. Cant expect comics to get better treatment.

I dont consider Superman a mythology anyway--certainly not like Hercules or Achilles.
It was created as juvenile entertainment and restricted by that focus. It still is.

The movie was meant to a general version of Superman as the general public understood. They didnt care about comic fans at all back then.
Its fine if you dont like that but I am just expressing the reality. I dont particularly like the Spider-man films because they eliminate dramatic aspects of the character's first 30 or so stories that i think would have been more dramatic than what they did in the films (and because it came from the character's creator I think its more canonical than what they did in the 80s like having him get married). And unlike the 78 Superman film they didnt go through a laundry list of Spider-man activities that I would have expected to see like him swinging around the city casually. With Superman 78 they did show him outrunning trains, saving airplanes, helicopters, trains, buses, stopping speeding bullets, stopping various criminals, stopping missiles, fixing the san andreas fault etc and going for casual flying. And they didnt have digital technology back then.



Even with Marvel movies they have altered the canon--made Tony Stark more of a comedian. Turned one of his main villains into a fraud (worse than what they did to Lex Luther in the 70s). I am sure we will see lots of changes in coming Marvel movies dictated by whim or actor demands or whatever.

I think you make some good points here. And, I feel exactly the same as you regarding the Spider-Man movies.
It's also interesting that Spider-Man's sense of humor transferred to Iron Man when they went Hollywood.
I was also disappointed about the Mandarin, but have to acknowledge that he would be one of the more difficult villains to bring to the screen without having to go through some serious alterations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013...a-film-industry

http://rt.com/news/china-censorship...strictions-471/
__________________
"“By far the most dangerous foe we have to fight is apathy...not from a lack of knowledge, but from absorption in other pursuits" - William Osler

Last edited by webhead : 06-16-2013 at 07:47 PM.
 
Old 06-16-2013, 03:08 PM   #68
JoeyP88
PRO
portfolio
Joey
Hampton, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelgy
Well basically my point is that comics were treated as juvenile literature in the 70s--it was lucky that a serious adaptation was made at the time.
Frankenstein and Dracula are considered classics of literature and even they have never been translated faithfully either. Cant expect comics to get better treatment.

I dont consider Superman a mythology anyway--certainly not like Hercules or Achilles.
It was created as juvenile entertainment and restricted by that focus. It still is.



In the 60's, without a doubt, most comic literature had a juvenile focus. In the 70's it began to evolve. It started to take a very serious focus. By the 80's they were knocking off characters. It was disturbing at that point.

But by 78 I would not put DC comics at the same reading level as Archie comics. Not even close. They were dealing with serious social issues, introducing characters such as Black Lighnting and Cyborg. Both the art(largely due to Neal Adams) and the writing was becoming more sophisticated and dealing with more and more things than just capturing super villians. All one has to do is look at the super tabloid of Superman vs Muhammad Ali to see where things were going and the topics they were dealing with. This was not a juvenile product. Then what about R'as A Ghul, Sgt Rock, and Green Arrow? Sgt Rock routinely dealt with starkly disturbing things such as the Holocaust. Oliver Queen was angry, arrogant, and anti-establishment. He was a dark character underneath.

I don't disagree that the vast majority of the general public probably viewed comics as juvenile or of having a juvenile character, but the reality at that time was very different from public perception.Yeah, Plastic Man was juvenile. Ambush Bug was juvenile. Super Friends was juvenile. Justice League however was not.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kelgy
They didnt care about comic fans at all back then.


That was perfectly clear. I never understood how DC and Warner, supported by every quarter we could scrounge to keep their product moving off the shelf, felt it was simply Ok to ignore us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kelgy
I dont particularly like the Spider-man films because they eliminate dramatic aspects of the character's first 30 or so stories that i think would have been more dramatic than what they did in the films (and because it came from the character's creator I think its more canonical than what they did in the 80s like having him get married).


But yet how well did Spiderman do over the first Batman even? The first Batman, though not nearly as bad as Superman(78), had some of the same canonical problems. Most of it was corrected in Batman Begins. Almost every Marvel franchise holds close to their canon and that caused absolutely no problems for their success. How is that for Hollywood logic?

You see I think Hollywood had been looking at this the wrong way. They thought they knew better. When they didn't. They chose not understand the audience. Hollywood in the late 70's was a wreck. With exception of Star Wars, the movies were horrible. Everyone was talking about how Hollywood's best days were behind them. It wasn't until Spielberg and ET in 80's that Hollywood got its footing again. ET stayed in the theatres, what, over a year?

Contrary to what they thought, for super hero movies the core audience is the avid comic book reader, not the average movie goer which is the secondary audience. The question is, and it must be answered by Hollywood, is this. If the movie by itself is a good movie, but angers or turns off the core audience do they not understand that the core audience is passionate about the product, and if angered or disappointed will just not participate?

The math is simple, core + secondary OR just secondary? The secondary audience may indeed carry the bulk of sales, may be the larger audience, may even allow the studio to make a profit. If its a good movie you are going to get them anyway, regardless canon. But the core audience, the one that stands in line for hours on opening night, is the difference between successful and mega blockbuster.

They are the ones who will return again and again, be the first in line, the first to buy the DVDs or Blu Rays, the first to buy the action figures and apparel. If they spoil it for them with "Hollywood knows best" arrogance then they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I think Stan Lee got this.

For what its worth, I'm considering seeing Man of Steel again but this time in IMAX. I've not seen a movie in the theatre twice in over thirty something years.

Joey
 
Old 06-16-2013, 03:20 PM   #69
JoeyP88
PRO
portfolio
Joey
Hampton, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevanian
There were some good shots, but by and large the FX really yanked me out of the movie back then. After seeing CLOSE ENCOUNTERS so many times in a theater, seeing SUPERMAN in one just once felt like amateur hour a lot of the time. Good example of how putting several fx shots in a sequence that are all over the place quality-wise is not a good thing compared to using just one or two good ones.

That one shot where his suit turns green as he flies toward the dam was so godawful there was outright laughter when I saw it (notice they fixed that on the dvd.)


You know I think this is an interesting observation. I can't disagree with your assessment.

Close Encounters was definitely a better movie FX wise. But I observe that Close Encounters has a lot in common with the lighting style of these darker super hero movies. Most of the effects were at night when wires and other things could be masked. The contrast and luminance levels were very different. On dark backgrounds it was easy for CE to get high contrast imagery but maintain high levels of control. CE had very clean dramatic lighting. Superman's lighting was ridiculously overlit. Maybe they were trying to make it look like a comic page, I don't know.

But I think there is more in common with the way CE and Man of Steel are lit. And that's ironic.

Joey

Last edited by JoeyP88 : 06-16-2013 at 03:31 PM.
 
Old 06-16-2013, 03:26 PM   #70
Stankluv
Lord of the posts
Martin S
USA
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 723
I thought it was awesome, can't wait to see where the franchise goes now

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...an-steel-569519
 
Old 06-16-2013, 03:42 PM   #71
teruchan
Skeleton Man
 
teruchan's Avatar
portfolio
Terrence Walker
The Last King
of Scotland
Shanghai, China
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyP88
Almost every Marvel franchise holds close to their canon and that caused absolutely no problems for their success. How is that for Hollywood logic?


But that's not Hollywood logic. Iron Man is really an independent film in the literal sense. Up until the Disney buyout, just about everything they made is free of any studio control. It almost makes me wish Marvel could have gotten back Spider Man from Sony.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 06-16-2013, 04:05 PM   #72
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyP88
You see I think Hollywood had been looking at this the wrong way. They thought they knew better. When they didn't. They chose not understand the audience. Hollywood in the late 70's was a wreck. With exception of Star Wars, the movies were horrible. Everyone was talking about how Hollywood's best days were behind them. It wasn't until Spielberg and ET in 80's that Hollywood got its footing again. ET stayed in the theatres, what, over a year?


This is where I have to strongly disagree. Hollywood made good movies in the late 70s without any help from Spielberg and Lucas..
Superman is superior to Star Wars is in the characterization and dialogue.
Richard Donner is a better director of actors than Spielberg or Lucas.
He treated the fantasy subject seriously.
By contrast both Spielberg and Lucas inject a fair bit of comedy into their fantasy films(before Spielberg got an oscar and decided that his summer films were too juvenile without linking it to a respected name like HG Wells or Kubrick).
I liked Raiders as a kid but there's no denying it is wafer thin in characterization and plays more like a stunt musical.
I cannot say that about Superman or the Omen.
The characters are given personality and there is emotional stakes built into the story.
 
Old 06-16-2013, 04:23 PM   #73
Boone
Lord of the posts
portfolio
-
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,167
Despite some niggles this was a good stab at Superman. Probably the one with the best story as well. General Zod isn't just a pantomime villian this time round and in his view he is doing the right thing, even though he is acting like a complete shit bag.

This was definitely better than the Reeve sequels and...a bit better than the Brandon Routh movie. Saying that though, I'd still have to go with the 1978 original, because Reeve really nailed the part and Kidder was definitely the strongest Lois Lane. Amy Adams is indeed spanking gorgeous, but it did seem like script writers were trying to fit her in somewhere simply because she has to be in it. But she is bloody gorgeous and we can't complain...because she has a nice bum. And that's all that matters.

So, Man of Steel...thumbs up.
__________________
Silo, 3D Coat, Blender
C, C++, Java

Currently working on...HCR #42
 
Old 06-16-2013, 04:55 PM   #74
nickmarshallvfx
Expert
 
nickmarshallvfx's Avatar
portfolio
Nick Marshall
Lead Environment Artist / Matte Painter
Double Negative
Central London, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,151
Send a message via MSN to nickmarshallvfx
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyP88
The Marvel franchises handle this so well. They respect the canon. Why can't the DC franchises do the same? Why do DC superheros and their canon have to be so mutilated by Hollywood? I've blamed Warner Bros for this for decades, they shouldn't let these things get made if the studios can't have the decency to produce a respectful portrait. With Green Lantern I really started to think this was beginning to change.


So as a comic book fan, was Green Lantern a good direction for Warner Bros to take their DC comic movies?
I've never read a comic in my life (except Extremis many years ago) but Green Lantern from a moviegoers point of view was far inferior to both the Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel. If breaking from the comics is what is needed to produce better movies, that's fine by me...
 
Old 06-16-2013, 06:20 PM   #75
cookepuss
Lord of the posts
Rob
NYC, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,268
I loved the movie and hated it at the same time. There was some really awesome stuff, but there was some really terrible stuff too. They got so much right, but got pretty sloppy too. I have a feeling that, in 35 years, people will look at this move and say....

... Good costume redesign.
... Good casting, mostly.
... Great Jor-El.
... Great Krypton
... Lumpy and lopsided CG, especially the digital doubles.
... Tragically bad, non-Superman ending
... Dark because it was basically "Superman by way of Nolanverse Batman"
... Goofy and obvious plot holes or flaws in logic.
... Awesome, yet repetitive fight scenes.

Honestly, as much as I like this movie, I don't think that it'll age as well as the 1978 one has. The Donner original was terrible when it came to its random bits of camp, the inaccurate portrayal of Luthor, the depiction of Clark as bumbling, and the time reversal ending. However, as an origin story, it really set the bar pretty high. It still stands as a high watermark in that regard. The Director's cut is still amazingly watchable. I think that a I might wince and groan a bit more in a few places when it comes to MoS 30 years from now. Just a sneaky suspicion.

Overall, I think that DC/WB could still stand to learn a lot from Marvel. With a few exceptions, I've generally loved much of Marvel's output, even if it came from other studios. With DC/WB, I really feel that only TDK was truly great. TDKR and BB were mediocre at best, imo, and Green Lantern was just a wasted opportunity.

For me, when it comes to rating Man of Steel, my heart wants to say 9/10, but my brain tells me 7/10 at most. Good start, but ultimately flawed. Not the best action/adventure movie I've seen this year so far. If WB's looking to start fresh and create a shared universe, Man of Steel isn't a bad place to start. However, the series some fine tuning for it to become the first real piece in a master plan.

For one thing, it needs to remember that Superman is NOT Batman or Punisher and his world is supposed to represent hope and optimism. MoS didn't convey that well enough. As a first contact story... pretty great. As a Superman story... it's .... okay.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.

Last edited by cookepuss : 06-16-2013 at 06:28 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.