Superman effects

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

http://youtu.be/d7M98F_HZJQ

good animation and i like the cape.

but this clip shows the biggest problem in hollywood and everyone who wants to make movies. shaky cam. it needs to go away.

[Rust]

Saw TRANSFORMERS: DOTM yesterday. My eyes are still hurting from it. IMO it's still just a big ole pile of cgi-mess. At some point, maybe even before the climax, my brain just switched of. You just become immune to the crazy imagery and end up not caring about the visuals actually. You're just staring numbly at the screen which is a sad counter-effect unforunately.
The movie still had gorgeous picture and composition-quality and if it's really the same cinematographer I can see crazy potential here. It looks insanely epic and I wouldnt mind the same type of effects, just played down a GREAT deal of course. At least amount-wise. Otherwise I'm not gonna give a **** before it's all over. Fewer effects, but just as big.
Another thing. Newer noticed Bay was such a sucker for slo-mo. He's even worse than Snyder, man! But again, this has potentiale for a Superman-flick. MOS has so much potential here it's ridiculous.

[Astrodust]

Transformers was not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be and no way does Bay overdo slow-mo more than Snyder. Certainly not based on last films. I would say that Bay uses slow-mo for effect while Snyder uses slow-mo as the effect like most of 300, Watchmen, and the entire beginning of Sucker Punch.

Also most critics agree that the cgi in Transformers was great. Bay manages to blend giant robots in real environments seamlessly while making use of as much practical effects as possible. If you've seen any of the interviews, most of the stuff in the background is real. It's ambitious and most directors would fail if they tried to keep up the pace that Bay does. Actually I can't think of another director that would use as much real effects as Bay. No my problem with Transformers was that it was way too long. They could of cut out 20-30 min easily.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by KrypJonian

I disagree... Just look at Reeve's eyes as he stares at the krypyonite. He's never felt pain before, and it scares the sh** outta him.

But the problem is that's ALL you saw. Fear.

I watch that scene and I don't see any pain on his face. I see fear nausea and dizziness.

Now I'm not going to argue the finer points of how Kryptonite works, or how radiation poisining would effect the body.

All I'm going to say is that I prefer it when the effect of kryptonite is a little more tangible.

Not something that just makes him weak in the knees and scares the big red pants off him so you can literally pull him by the chain like a dog and drop him in the water with no resistence.

I'd like to see a Superman visibly clenching teeth against pain, sweat dripping, shaking... But still capable of a little bit of fighting back. I don't mind if they use effects similar to Smallville or just make him appear greeny grey ill colour. Just as long as what he is experiencing is clear to the audience to be very painful.

Defend that STM scene all you want, but I don't think that was clear at all.

[KRIM]

Originally Posted by Astrodust

Transformers was not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be and no way does Bay overdo slow-mo more than Snyder. Certainly not based on last films. I would say that Bay uses slow-mo for effect while Snyder uses slow-mo as the effect like most of 300, Watchmen, and the entire beginning of Sucker Punch.

They both use it for effect, but Bay definitely uses it in a more logical sense for film. Snyder utilizes it for a lot of moments that don't necessarily require slow-mo, but it does give the moving splash page effect. Bay saves it just for those scenes that absolutely need your eyes to take in every last detail.

On that note: the slow-mo of Sam being thrown out of Bumblebee, while BB transforms into robot form and grabs the debri in Sam's way, plucks Sam who's still in mid-air, and transforms back into car form --- JESUS. Talk about a money shot. This Superman film would benefit from moments like that. My entire IMAX 3D audience were just enthralled throughout that sequence and erupted in cheers when it ended. Singer's bullet-into-eye shot was cool and all, but so much money for a quick shot and not that great of a reaction was a waste.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by KRIM

On that note: the slow-mo of Sam being thrown out of Bumblebee, while BB transforms into robot form and grabs the debri in Sam's way, plucks Sam who's still in mid-air, and transforms back into car form --- JESUS. Talk about a money shot. This Superman film would benefit from moments like that. My entire IMAX 3D audience were just enthralled throughout that sequence and erupted in cheers when it ended. Singer's bullet-into-eye shot was cool and all, but so much money for a quick shot and not that great of a reaction was a waste.

You're so right. That's what they gotta come up with. Moments of crazy crowd-cheering Superman-rescues and what not. People will be expecting stuff like that post TF3. Or they will want it. The bar has been raised yet again, even though Bay is hard to top. The GA wont necessarily know or care. They just want that FX-fix. I hope Snyder has seen TF3 and has something equal in store in terms of skull-****ing the audience.

[Brian Braddock]

What I've never liked about the Tranformers is that they've deliberately gone out of their way to make them so intricate to the point that they are hard to follow at times as a result. Technically it's on another level, but it's annoying as hell when you're watching it and you're having trouble decifering what is what.

Too over-elaborate - sometimes less is more.

[KRIM]

Can you name some examples? For the most part I've followed every action sequence just fine.

[Brian Braddock]

To be truthful, I dont have the energy at this moment to go into specifics. I just remember sitting in the cinema for both the 1st and 2nd films (moreso the 2nd film if memory serves) and thinking to myself 'what the hell is going on' at points. It's not a problem confined to myself either, my fiance said the exact same thing and a couple of people that I know found it to be the case too.

[fixxxer1022]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

GL looked amazing, imo.

agreed..if we get the quality cgi in man of steel that green lantern had ill be happy. despite what some say i do not think it was over done.

[fixxxer1022]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

http://youtu.be/d7M98F_HZJQ

love this and the suit!

[Deathlok]

You know, I've been giving this a lot of thought.

If they go with a CG suit like in Green Lantern, and the majority hate it, all they have to do is do a bit of redesigning and re-rendering. Voilà! Instant better costume!

Yes? No? Whaddya mean I'm stupid....?

[pattern40]

Originally Posted by Deathlok

You know, I've been giving this a lot of thought.

If they go with a CG suit like in Green Lantern, and the majority hate it, all they have to do is do a bit of redesigning and re-rendering. Voilà! Instant better costume!

Yes? No? Whaddya mean I'm stupid....?

It wasn't the CGI suit. It was the corny optical machine gun... made movie looked like a live action video game...

[hame4479]

Originally Posted by Astrodust

Transformers was not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be and no way does Bay overdo slow-mo more than Snyder. Certainly not based on last films. I would say that Bay uses slow-mo for effect while Snyder uses slow-mo as the effect like most of 300, Watchmen, and the entire beginning of Sucker Punch.

Also most critics agree that the cgi in Transformers was great. Bay manages to blend giant robots in real environments seamlessly while making use of as much practical effects as possible. If you've seen any of the interviews, most of the stuff in the background is real. It's ambitious and most directors would fail if they tried to keep up the pace that Bay does. Actually I can't think of another director that would use as much real effects as Bay. No my problem with Transformers was that it was way too long. They could of cut out 20-30 min easily.

Snyder definitely overdoes the slo mo but honestly if there is ever a film or hero that needed someone that can effectively use slo mo it is superman. He moves so fast that being able to capture those actions requires slo motion. So I for one am glad that zach is so versed in that style, itll adapt very well to the material and supes powerset Im hoping.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by fixxxer1022

agreed..if we get the quality cgi in man of steel that green lantern had ill be happy. despite what some say i do not think it was over done.

A lot of it looked like a video game, a Sony Imagworks standard.

[moviedoors]

I don't know how anyone can look at the CG character work in Green Lantern and think that it was up to today's standards. It was rubbery, cartoony, and weightless.

[SuperDaniel]

Well...just saw Transformers in IMAX 3D. The movie was a POS. No story, everything makes no damn sense but...HOLY S**** What a visual feast it was. I expect nothing less from a Superman film, really. If Superman delivers an epic destruction of Krypton like the first 5 mins of T3 + Super rescues and super-powered beings destroying a city like the robots did with Chicago, we`re in for something memorable. Bay can write no story but he is hard to top when it comes to action sequences. It was just unbelievable what they did. The special effects are simply flawless. I live in Chicago and feels so weird to drive around the city after watching the City getting destroyed in the movie LOL.

[KRIM]

Not only are his sequences ambitious, but he has a knack for shooting them in a way that no one else does or can. His shooting method is very kinetic, and that sense of randomness lends itself to a unique identity. It's almost to the level that you see in anime, where logistics of the camera are non-existent. That and pure creativity are what holds live-action movies from matching the spectacle you can find in animation.

It's one of the reasons why I really dislike how flight is shot in practically every film. All of them look the same. The two most used: wide shot on an X-Y plane, static frontal/profile on a moving background. Little variance beyond that. It's beyond boring, especially with the capabilities we have now. It's like no one knows how to shoot it in an exciting manner. Even though it involves a FLYING PERSON.

Vaughn added his own type of flair, like with the rotating background behind Banshee. Even little things like that add to the dimension. Gives it some weight and allows the audience to feel (not just view) this superpower as something truly extraordinary.

Here's something I just found on DA:



Give us shots as dynamic and unpredictable as that.

[SuperDaniel]

I'd say that after those guys in wingsuits flying in T3, a new bar has been raised for flying and camera motion in movies. A Superman movie needs to be like that. It needs to be damn fun to see a guy flying. Every action movie looks really cheap now compared to T3.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't want The Man of Steel to take anything from the Transformers movies because I hate them.

I hope it takes things from good hit comicbook movies and something like Star Trek.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

The 3D was good in Transformer 3 but afterwards, I told my friends it doesn't 'enhance' the experience in the long run.

I disagree. I really felt the 3D enhanced the experience. I actually 'felt' the size of those skyscrapers, and that's never happened to me before. It added to the scale and power of the action scenes.

I wish Stanley Kubrick was alive to shoot a movie in 3D. It would be absolutely perfect for his style. Talk about pulling you into the movie.

[SuperDaniel]

3D in T3 was better than Avatar, imo. That was just unbelievable. The scope of the war in the intro, the aerial fights and flying shots over Chicago, Sears Tower crumbling... Absolutely Breathtaking scenes ! Every movie looks really cheap compared to T3 now, imo. Never the destruction of a city look so real like in this movie. I live in Chicago so that was even better to see.

[Astrodust]

The 3D in Transformers was really good. It was the first time I thought 3D worked on live action. I know it works for animation but the real life stuff in Avatar just looked odd for some reason. Same goes for other 3D movies.

[moviedoors]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I don't want The Man of Steel to take anything from the Transformers movies because I hate them.

Technical crews aside, yeah.

[Asgard]

Originally Posted by KRIM

Not only are his sequences ambitious, but he has a knack for shooting them in a way that no one else does or can. His shooting method is very kinetic, and that sense of randomness lends itself to a unique identity. It's almost to the level that you see in anime, where logistics of the camera are non-existent. That and pure creativity are what holds live-action movies from matching the spectacle you can find in animation.

It's one of the reasons why I really dislike how flight is shot in practically every film. All of them look the same. The two most used: wide shot on an X-Y plane, static frontal/profile on a moving background. Little variance beyond that. It's beyond boring, especially with the capabilities we have now. It's like no one knows how to shoot it in an exciting manner. Even though it involves a FLYING PERSON.

Vaughn added his own type of flair, like with the rotating background behind Banshee. Even little things like that add to the dimension. Gives it some weight and allows the audience to feel (not just view) this superpower as something truly extraordinary.

Here's something I just found on DA:



Give us shots as dynamic and unpredictable as that.

If Snyder can replicate this exact shot in a sequence that involves Superman diving down to smash into a giant robot or Zod I will lose my ****.