Man of Steel (2013)

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 4:23:17 GMT -5 Melv said:

Kris's old sig is my favourite so far, when he flies towards camera and we see the shadow, then watch him go off into the canyon.

Don't know how anyone couldn't like that. Never had a shot like that before, showing his shadow below, then he kind of pulls his other arm back for a second before accelerating even more. Which fits in with what Snyder said about how they wanted to show that flying does actually take effort, but that it always seems like he's got another gear to go up.

[SGB]

May 15, 2013 4:35:42 GMT -5 @kris said:

Even the small number of flying shots released so far piss all over the majority of what we got in the Reeve films. I think anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves on.

Way to insult the Reeve films' flying crew.

In the Reeve films that was done with a plastic figurine whizzing by (approaching the Eiffel tower and flying towards to catch the spire during the Metropolis Battle). If you think those shots are better then you need to lay off the glue.

Admittedly, I don't care for almost all of the figurine/model flying shots. Never liked them. The flying shots I like most are the majority of the take-offs and landings, and a number of front/rear projection shots.

The only shots in STM that for me still look absolutely fantastic are the New Mexico flying scenes he he's flying in front of the camera. Reeve looks fantastic.

So, you dislike every other flying shot in the film then?

What about the FoS take-off or the fantastic Daily Planet rooftop take off?

I genuinely don't think people want to see someone dangling in front of a green screen, rather something new that can give you a feeling over the power of his flying.

Regardless of what kind of flying scene the script calls for (whether it be zipping past something or taking off or landing), I want to see the ACTOR in the flying scene, not a CGI rendering of the actor. CGI bores me. Not only that, it's cheating the audience and any fans of the actor.

In Superman Returns the flying is actually one thing I thought was really well done, aside from 2 or 3 really horrible fully digital shots.

You must be joking. Most of the flying in "Returns" was awful. It was piss-poor CGI most of the time, and whenever it was Routh, it was relatively boring due to Routh's inability to sell flying.

For me this is as good as anything i've seen on film thus far

That's the only MoS flying shot I like thus far, but I do have issues with it. The obvious CGI cape, for starters. So unnecessary.

[EnriqueH]

May 14, 2013 17:40:19 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

Well, if Jenny Olsen is in the movie as a photographer working for the Daily Planet, and there's no Jimmy Olsen to be found, what would you call that? ;D

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

I wonder what the point of this is.

Jenny dies and Jimmy honors her by taking over her profession?

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 6:25:49 GMT -5 SGB said:

May 15, 2013 4:35:42 GMT -5 @kris said:

Even the small number of flying shots released so far piss all over the majority of what we got in the Reeve films. I think anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves on.

Way to insult the Reeve films' flying crew.

It was great for the time, but it's 35 years old now. So yeah, the modern version of it shits on most of that stuff, and from a great height.

Admittedly, I don't care for almost all of the figurine/model flying shots. Never liked them. The flying shots I like most are the majority of the take-offs and landings, and a number of front/rear projection shots.

You didn't care for those but your favourites are take offs and landings? Well we've seen one take off in MOS so far and that's it so how you're drawing your comparisons I have no clue.

So, you dislike every other flying shot in the film then?

No, they're still very watchable. Just because I think the newer ones are much better doesn't necessarily mean I dislike the older ones. But there are a lot of shots in key moments that simply don't hold up well. Flying out of Luthor's layer before turning etc etc.

What about the FoS take-off or the fantastic Daily Planet rooftop take off?

Both done brilliantly, but again I didn't realise we were limiting it to take offs and landings now.

Regardless of what kind of flying scene the script calls for (whether it be zipping past something or taking off or landing), I want to see the ACTOR in the flying scene, not a CGI rendering of the actor. CGI bores me. Not only that, it's cheating the audience and any fans of the actor.

Wait so using CGI is cheating the audience but using little plastic models isn't? Haha!

You're not always getting a CGI rendering anyway, you're getting Cavill, in some scenes CGI will be necessary. But it's still brilliant that you hate the idea of CGI but are deeply offended by my criticisms of older films that used a fucking lifeless bit of plastic.

You must be joking. Most of the flying in "Returns" was awful. It was piss-poor CGI most of the time, and whenever it was Routh, it was relatively boring due to Routh's inability to sell flying.

Routh might not have been great but for the most part I thought it was fairly well done. Through the plane rescue, his take off out of the elevator shaft. Only things I hated were full digital Routh at the very start of the plane rescue, and fully digital Routh at the very end of the film, both awful.

That's the only MoS flying shot I like thus far, but I do have issues with it. The obvious CGI cape, for starters. So unnecessary.

Well first off, I don't think it's obvious. I think because people know they CGI'd the cape in some parts they go looking for it. Secondly, it's not unnecessary. They get movement on the cape you couldn't get otherwise. The lack of movement on Reeve's cape when he's supposed to be moving at great speeds might be seen as a flaw. As a STM buff like the rest of us I'm sure you'll know that the cast and crew had great difficulty getting Reeve's cape to flow as they wanted.

Times have changed, technology has gotten better. If you think using the methods of the Reeve era would sell this film you're high off your ass.

But like I said

[Valentine Smith]

Kris...you just don't get it.

ALL new things, whether they are movies, comics, or cartoons, are INFERIOR to those that came in the past. Because new things are all "edgy" or "trendy" and the actors are all "too young" or "too good-looking" or there's too much of this "CGI" stuff (which, I might add, the crews of those old films would have probably committed MURDER to get their hands on), and that any changes made were done merely "for the sake of change."

Oh, and don't even get me started on the music! Remember when films had MEMORABLE scores not this "generic" stuff? Lord, those were the days. I mean, really, there's only one or two people who should ever be allowed to score ANY movie, even if they're 100 years old, senile, or dead, or whatever. Because nobody will EVER be able to touch that stuff. Why bother trying? When they croak, we can just re-splice their old scores into new movies. But we have to do it by hand from the original master tapes, because doing it with digital technology would be an abomination...

[SGB]

May 15, 2013 7:15:32 GMT -5 @kris said:

But there are a lot of shots in key moments that simply don't hold up well. Flying out of Luthor's layer before turning etc etc.

Yes, I do concede that. Most of the optically composited flying shots I don't like due to the compositing quality. I know Donner wasn't too happy with them, either.

Both done brilliantly, but again I didn't realise we were limiting it to take offs and landings now.

No, I was talking about flying scenes in general.

To be clear, my criticisms of the MoS flying shots thus far are because of unnecessary CGIing and the fact that the shots lack the awe, wonder, magic and majesty of being able to fly.

Wait so using CGI is cheating the audience but using little plastic models isn't? Haha!

I'll clarify a bit on that point. I dislike the use of CGI in general because when it comes to on-screen objects like ships or buildings, CGI lacks the weight and presence (and not to mention detail and texture) that physical models can bring, depending on what the model is of and how well it's been crafted.

And as CGI is not a live-action element, you cheat the audience whenever you use it in a live-action film. Sounds crazy, I know, but it's how I feel.

As such, I'll take models over CGI any day. (Though I have no qualms saying if certain models look like crap, such as the falling Dick Jones model in "RoboCop" -- always hated that model!)

But despite my general dislike of CGI, there have been some instances where I haven't minded it's use for certain things. TNG Remastered springs to mind.

Through the plane rescue, his take off out of the elevator shaft.

The elevator shaft scene, which I'd totally forgotten about until now, was actually okay, except for the fact that his feet weren't pointed downwards, making it look like he was standing on an invisible box. May sound like a minor quibble, but it's a distracting one.

Well first off, I don't think it's obvious. I think because people know they CGI'd the cape in some parts they go looking for it.

Yeah, except I didn't go looking for it. It stood out like a sore thumb to me.

The lack of movement on Reeve's cape when he's supposed to be moving at great speeds might be seen as a flaw. As a STM buff like the rest of us I'm sure you'll know that the cast and crew had great difficulty getting Reeve's cape to flow as they wanted.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Oddly, I've never been bothered by the lack of movement.

If you think using the methods of the Reeve era would sell this film you're high off your ass.

I never said Reeve-era methods would sell this film. I just don't want Superman to be a CGI rendering all the time, especially in flying scenes. I want it to be Cavill, particularly for take-offs and landings.

[eccentricbeing]

A couple of you guys talk like you were there in 1977, building the sets and painting the matte backgrounds for Superman.

[Valentine Smith]

daaaaahahhaahahaaaaaa!!!!

[atp]

CGI is not the villain here.

[Jor-L5150]

May 15, 2013 1:08:14 GMT -5 atp said:

Does anyone else get the feeling that if anything lets the movie down, it will be Zod and the villains?

Everything I have seen just looks so overdone. Weird armour and robot suits... helmets that look like the Space Jockey from Alien... huge robot spiders... a mob of villains that looks like vampires... wolverine-style knives that shoot out of someone's wrist... Zod with a cut on his face looking like Frankenstein...

May 15, 2013 1:23:28 GMT -5 SupermanUF said:

Performance wise? Not worried. The only aspect I'm worried about is that they took Krypton TOO sci-fi, like gross Alien/Prometheus biotech where everything looks like it's covered in snot. I expected a more sterile, chrome-plated Krypton. But hey, if it all makes sense and there is some aspect of the plot that informs the design, great.

in comics and films the "look" of krypton has always been different. byrnes krypton was even more "out there" from the silver/bronze age comics than was S:TM.

for MOS the look is gothic/medieval. snyder said that the people are highly evolved, and the technology is very advanced- but as a civilization their society is on its last legs and their structures, attire and so forth are very old/"traditional" and Jor is trying to shake them from complacent dogmas.

it will look very beautiful- is a bit fantasy like.

May 15, 2013 6:25:49 GMT -5 SGB said:

May 15, 2013 4:35:42 GMT -5 @kris said:

Even the small number of flying shots released so far piss all over the majority of what we got in the Reeve films. I think anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves on.

Way to insult the Reeve films' flying crew.



.

no, i dont think its an insult to acknowledge a new (arguably better) way to do it.
what they did in S:TM was amazing, and in the context of a 70s sci-fi film its brilliant. blue-screen and rear progection got the job done.
but its not to say we cant do better now. in the dvd docs tom mank said "superman had never flown before....except in STUPID ways..."
was he insulting "the adventures of superman" or the kirk alyn serials?
no. and frankly- the "flying" on the serials is awful. i like the serials, theyre fun- but the cell-animation shots take you right out.
(the SHAZAM captain marvel serials actually had a cool rig for some of the flying shots that looked better than the superman shots).
look here at the end of this preview for the serial sequel (1:30) :

[Jor-L5150]

i want an action figure of THIS

[crazy_asian_man]

Asgard in Thor is the right look for Krypton.

I'm thinking mix that with part of Coruscant from the prequels, and/or the top of the mothership at the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and that'd be my preferred look for Krypton.

Something that would pop out at your eyes right away at its beauty and scale that you might not have seen before and hints at something that just feels like a utopia. Thus, when Krypton is about to explode, it evokes even more of a tragedy.

Snyder's choices so far definitely signals Krypton as an alien world, and it looks like it'll work, but I'm not sure I'd want to dream of living there. That's what I'd want from a movie Krypton--- and it's just a touch disappointing that we have the fx tech and the budget there to get a full-out utopia Krypton, but probably won't be here.

Oh, well. Small potatoes if the movie is great.

[Jor-L5150]

THIS is my favorite image for a poster- LOVE that shot, his expression..the stance.
backgrounds just ok.

[Valentine Smith]

May 15, 2013 11:09:11 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Asgard in Thor is the right look for Krypton.

I'm thinking mix that with part of Coruscant from the prequels, and/or the top of the mothership at the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and that'd be my preferred look for Krypton.

I was kinda hoping for that Coruscant/Asgard look, myself. Krypton was originally conceived as a Flash Gordon rip-off (and those early panels are lifted directly out of Alex Raymond strips...practically traced), and Coruscant definitely looks like that stuff, too...so I thought it'd be cool to do a big-budget version of THAT.

On the other hand, in terms of the outside environment (not the tech), when I was watching the opening minutes of Prometheus, all I could think of was "this would be a perfect planet look for Krypton."

Regardless, it does look like some thought went into these designs. It's unique. It's interesting that everyone on Krypton seems to wear these drab colors, but Superman's suit is Kryptonian and brightly colored. It obviously means something.

[eccentricbeing]

I think Kris will cream his pants over that Russell Crowe picture. ;D

[ChrisM]

May 15, 2013 7:15:32 GMT -5 @kris said:

Times have changed, technology has gotten better. If you think using the methods of the Reeve era would sell this film you're high off your ass.

I'll be the first to admit I've had dreams where "they" revisited STM and enhanced or replaced many of the flawed effects shots. I've even had a dream or two where they removed or replaced Otis and created a more believable hijacking sequence.

I'll never defend STM as a perfect film... because it's not. I wish I had the time or skill to "upgrade" some of the FX myself because I hate the unevenness. One shot looks fantastic, and the next is iffy.

I'll go back to what I said earlier. I think there are very few people who will watch a movie from start-to-finish years after it has been released and the novelty has worn off. Films stay relevant if they contain enough key "moments" that resonate on an emotional level. The helicopter rescue has an unfair grip on my brainstem, and for total strangers who see it, they can't help but get caught up in the "moment". It's a truly rare achievement in film-making when a scene has such an ability to captivate. I'm not ashamed to admit one of my guilty pleasures is rewatching the rescue on youtube when I have time to kill. It's like a drug. It's rare enough that a film has one GREAT, timeless moment, and STM has several. That's why it's loved and cherished and we so willingly overlook the flaws.

It's pretty clear Man of Steel will have less "defects" from a storytelling and technical aspect. Snyder will deliver some really great FX, no doubt. It all comes down to those signature "moments" - how they resonate emotionally will dictate the film's legacy. That remains to be seen because we can't judge any of this in trailers and 30-second clips. Snyder's downfall to date has been moving beyond a great visual and giving us great characters to invest in. Maybe Goyer and Nolan's influence will help strike the right balance.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 11:47:00 GMT -5 eccentricbeing said:

I think Kris will cream his pants over that Russell Crowe picture. ;D

You know me too well ;D Guys class, one of my favourite actors so I'm over the moon he's Jor-El. Incidentally he saw the film last week and has started plugging it on twitter

Russell Crowe ‏@russellcrowe 3h
Just contemplating how massive the change in life young Henry Cavill is about to deal with. @manofsteelmovie is excellent

Chris, SGB, you don't need to defend STM to me. I love it, it's arguably my favourite film of all time. I'm just highlighting the flaws in your arguments here. I know some people don't want any Superman film that isn't the one they have had for years. I know some even see any other Superman film as almost a threat to the original and don't like that. But you should honestly try to have an open mind and just enjoy it, nothing will change, the original will still be there.

But feck it, I just find criticizing the flying when it is clearly superior to what we saw in the Reeve films and then narrowing it down to landings and take offs when we've only seen one in total from Man of Steel, a little silly.

There are several people who don't look at these clips and teasers to enjoy them, they simple go through them looking for flaws, I don't understand it really, but it's clear that's what happens. I wish everyone could just enjoy the build up of a new Superman film and have fun with it.

Eccentric, genuine laugh out loud moment at the Wonka meme ;D

[Valentine Smith]

I'm not looking for this movie to replace STM for me. STM will ALWAYS be my favorite movie, for all kinds of reasons. It is the single most important movie in my life for so many reasons. Star Wars is a close second (even though I prefer ESB as a "film").

But...MoS COULD become my favorite SUPERMAN movie. There's a distinction. STM has passed beyond the realm of just being a superhero movie for me, and exists on another plane. All I want is for MoS to be something I return to over and over (the way I have with Captain America or Dark Knight) for different reasons.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2013 12:42:39 GMT -5 Valentine Smith said:

I'm not looking for this movie to replace STM for me. STM will ALWAYS be my favorite movie, for all kinds of reasons. It is the single most important movie in my life for so many reasons. Star Wars is a close second (even though I prefer ESB as a "film").

But...MoS COULD become my favorite SUPERMAN movie. There's a distinction. STM has passed beyond the realm of just being a superhero movie for me, and exists on another plane. All I want is for MoS to be something I return to over and over (the way I have with Captain America or Dark Knight) for different reasons.

[eccentricbeing]

I'm looking to be entertained and have fun watching the movie. I have no doubts in my mind right now that I'm not going to enjoy this movie. Even if it's horrible, I'm still going to have fun ripping it to shreds here. It's really a win-win situation for the summer. Long term, not so much...but I'll worry about that when I cross that road.

[Deleted]

(clark in the background)


Concept art!

[Gandy]

STM has been a great performer for WB for the last 35 years. Like what Vale said, STM exists on another plane, it's beyond criticism, it nestles in the heavens.

But, I would love to see MOS ascending to the skies and joining its brethren. I think it's going to be amazing. BUZZ is great. Everyone I know, and that's a lot of people who don't know my association with Superman, are jazzed for it. It's SUPERMAN!

[Valentine Smith]

Holy crap, that pic of him standing on the spaceship!!!!

[Deleted]

Agree with you and Val 100%

Wish you'd chime in more Gandy

[Deleted]

regarding the art Val. Probably not a spoiler but i'll hide it anyway :-

Way way back I did read a rumour about Zod throwing a train at Superman