Man of Steel: The reviews are...

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by teruchan: You are aware that Man of Steel does have some wire work in it, right? There is a great shot where he is holding Lois Lane and slowly descends to the ground. If this is outdated, should this shot be done with digital doubles today? Is that progress?


Ummm... apart from his head, Superman is pretty much all-CG in that shot.

Yes it was shot on wires, but that is a simple move to do with a stunt rig, so it makes perfect sense to use one.
__________________

You can have your characters photoreal, fast or cheap. Pick two.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by teruchan: I wish there was more of THIS! No fancy FX or compositing. Just a real guy on a wire rig making me believe a man can fly.


There is something wrong with you.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by mr.bean: There is something wrong with you.


Hey, this isn't the first time you've thrown these insulting one liners into threads - kindly refrain from this.
 
  07 July 2013
This movie needed SO much more Faora, she was five shades of awesome with three teaspoons of badass.
__________________
My Deviations
 
  07 July 2013
@teruchan: I was actually really put-off by the part in your post that said "no fancy compositing". I assumed this meant that you actually wanted "bad compositing" and "bad color matching" as a kind of retro homage.

Which is of course... just bad. Oh and the first You Tube clip I posted was the infamously poorly composited "Margaux Hemingway in Space" scene from Superman IV.

I do understand (I think) that what you really miss is how paced the old "Super feats" were because they were dealing with FX methods that were physically slower. For example, Superman saving Lois Lane from the falling helicopter in Superman 1. I will admit today's methods allow things to move faster, and they make that decision to convey tension and danger.

This is the scene I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_izM3y2SE44

Today the helicopter would fall blindingly fast and Superman would zoom incredibly fast and the helicopter would inexplicably be half-crushed by Superman "saving" Lois Lane in the most terrifying way possible.

The old way was to let the feats of strength and danger run slower to convey "sense of wonder" because the FX couldn't convey frenetic fast paced danger.

But I honestly think, if that was your intent... you can do the same type of pacing with new FX.... It doesn't merit going back to the old methods.

As much loved as that helicopter scene is, everything we "Modernists" point out to it as limitations apply, there is no force or gravity or weight in anything that happens in this scene, the edit and pacing is partially caused by FX limitations, which we can argue can be made more spectacular, more emotional while maintaining the same pace by intent.

Today you can do Superman setting down the helicopter as a WIDE shot that shows him setting it down and releasing it in a single motion with live occupants appearing to be inside the helicopter.

Isn't that going to be more "super"? Doesn't that call for some "fancy compositing"?

Note: I did not mention "must use digital doubles" above. But to shun it so that we can just limit ourselves to old methods is not the way forward methinks.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 07 July 2013 at 12:35 AM.
 
  07 July 2013
I'm talking about THIS:



That shot ain't getting any better no matter what technology you use. When I say no fancy compositing, it's because there is NO compositing. That's all in camera. What you see is what you get. They SHOT that.

Sadly, I have to say it again, "I wrote that I want to see MORE of this, not that I want to see ONLY this." "I just hope to see the right tool for the right job."

Someone already mentioned earlier. In MOS with the digital doubles they can do this super fast, explosive take offs and have him move at the speed of light. They said wire work looks slow and floaty. Well, clearly most people here like the explosive take offs and fast movements. I DON'T. Apparently no commenters like the slow and floaty movements of wirework. I DO. It is simply a matter of PREFERENCE. I thought I made that clear by putting preference in all caps in my previous post.

It's not fair to post ANYTHING from Superman IV. It had worse FX than the ten years earlier Superman film. They had no money. $17 million vs. $55 million ten years earlier. They also used Blue screen compositing instead of the Zoptic effect from the previous films. It only has like two all in camera wire gags.

Still, my apparently poor attempts at writing have led to the conclusion that I want that. I will, likely foolishly, attempt to clarify. If you take three movies, Superman The Movie, Superman Returns and Man of Steel, and compare the flying FX side by side, Superman Returns wins for me. In fact, if their digital double looked better, I would have no complaints at all with the flying in that movie. Why?

Superman Returns has a lot of all in camera wire work. They use it the same was as was done in the Reeve films. They use it where appropriate. They have plenty of composited shots where the actor is hanging in one place and the background is zipping by. They use that where appropriate. They have digital double shots where he is flying super fast or catching planes, things that could not be done any other way. They use that where appropriate. I believe this is the RIGHT WAY, and I will say again, if the digital double looked better I would not have any complaints to speak of. Considering they had a much more advanced wire rig than the Reeve movies, I think they would have leaned more on the side of wires, but someone, I thought it was you actually, said the actor was constantly flinching from the wind in his face, and it appeared that Superman was afraid of flying, so some scenes that were already shot with the wire rig had to be replaced by the digital double. Either way, the right tool for the right job.

Man of Steel on the other hand uses the double just about everywhere. Sure there are a couple of closeups of the actor hanging in one place while the background zips by. Nearly everything else, though, is the double. They had the one shot of him slowly landing while carrying Lois, but someone here claims even that is the double. Their double looks a lot worse than the one from Superman Returns and sometimes really looks like a plastic toy. In my opinion, and my opinion alone, not to be taken for the ideas or beliefs of any other party throughout the known universe, or any as yet undiscovered universes or dimensions, anywhere extending 0.001 mm outside my own brain, (I know that needs to be stated around here) They use the digital double where they shouldn't! There's a shot where he jumps over a truck. Seriously, who on earth would you need to use a digital double for that?!

I honestly don't know what more I can say on the subject. No matter how many times I explain it, it seems my words will be taken the wrong way or intentionally twisted to arrive at some nonsensical meaning. Quite likely, I have nothing of value to contribute to discussions here.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  07 July 2013
I think I agree with the overall concept of what you're saying, but I still feel even that example GIF you posted can be done better today, with the right level of floatiness, with a CG cape that reacts better to the movement, and maybe even a more complex wire rig (since I think today we can paint out a lot more stuff and get away with it now than back in the 1970's).

Mostly I'd be worried about correcting the "Leg hanging" that is part of this shot, it doesn't look like he can fly.. it looks like he's "hanging". So there would be work using Today's Technology to correct that with either a better rig, or maybe even replace HALF his body with CG.

There's also a lighting issue in that shot caused by Reeves coming near the end of the soundstage, that can all now be corrected - with computers.

And yes, that amounts to quite a lot of "fancy compositing" even if we still use a Fortress of Solitude Soundstage and a Wire Rig. But that's the part where we just have to agree to disagree.

But I definitely agree with a LOT of what you're pointing out - "Right Tool for the Right Job"

On the "explosive" take-offs I was a bit indifferent, but felt that with the "intense" nature of this MOS Superman, the explosive take-off and landings were par for the course.

They obviously didn't happen in any Superman picture before that - but you can bet fans imagined it long ago and it came true in MOS.

P.S.: Fair point that I guess using "Superman IV" is an illegal hit. Should have known that kind of example wouldn't fly (haha! Pun!) with the real Superman cinema aficionados. You really know your Superman movies.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 07 July 2013 at 02:44 AM.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by Michael5188: I'm really shocked anyone could see the way Superman moves in this movie and want to bring back wires for when he flies around... the flying looked so convincing in this.

Sure, wires can work when the movement is stylized, but to me it always looks floaty. A lot of kung fu movies that use it prove my point, especially Crouching Tiger, where sure it looks really neat and works for the film, but definitely looks stylized. Just gives the appearance of the character being lifted into the air, rather than flying into the air. When Superman takes off on wires, he floats into the sky like peter pan. In Man of Steel, you can feel the force, the immense power as we rockets off the ground.

In my opinion, there's no comparison.

Obviously if the shot doesn't require a fast take off or doesn't need to display immense speed or power, yeah wires work, but I felt the flying in Man of Steel is some of the best I've seen in a film.


It looked convincing if you were making video game cutscenes.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by leigh: Hey, this isn't the first time you've thrown these insulting one liners into threads - kindly refrain from this.


Uh, bite me.

If you are that fucking sensitive and cannot handle nuance and minutia in the english language, then you should not moderating any forum.

Ban away, bitch.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by mr.bean: Uh, bite me.

If you are that fucking sensitive and cannot handle nuance and minutia in the english language, then you should not moderating any forum.

Ban away, bitch.


If you're gonna go out that's the way to do it.
 
  07 July 2013
Originally Posted by mr.bean: Uh, bite me.

If you are that fucking sensitive and cannot handle nuance and minutia in the english language, then you should not moderating any forum.

Ban away, bitch.


There is something wrong with you.
__________________
Maestro 2 is out!
 
  01 January 2014
I finally saw this over the holidays.
-I know its 'canon' (but its not the end of the world. Really.)
-I know it made a nice silhouette in the comics.

But seeing Superman zipping around at hyper-realistic mach 16; through buildings a wrestling with General Zod all I kept thinking is:
Wearing a cape is about as smart an idea for what Superman needs to be able to do as a screen door in a submarine!

Zod seemed 'smarter' while Superman seemed 'laughable' because of it. "Did your mother dress you today Clark?!"
Hell Zod even grabs him and chucks him around with it just in case he hadn't noticed.

The wire limitations of the Christopher Reeve films never put this thought into my head. But this film did (in every action scene after he dawns the 'super-suit').

Maybe its time for a new outfit idea.
To quote Edna Mode: "NO CAPES!"
 
  01 January 2014
Originally Posted by circusboy: I finally saw this over the holidays.
-I know its 'canon' (but its not the end of the world. Really.)
-I know it made a nice silhouette in the comics.

But seeing Superman zipping around at hyper-realistic mach 16; through buildings a wrestling with General Zod all I kept thinking is:
Wearing a cape is about as smart an idea for what Superman needs to be able to do as a screen door in a submarine!

Zod seemed 'smarter' while Superman seemed 'laughable' because of it. "Did your mother dress you today Clark?!"
Hell Zod even grabs him and chucks him around with it just in case he hadn't noticed.

The wire limitations of the Christopher Reeve films never put this thought into my head. But this film did (in every action scene after he dawns the 'super-suit').

Maybe its time for a new outfit idea.
To quote Edna Mode: "NO CAPES!"


Capes means majestic, IMHO.
 
  01 January 2014
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



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 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.