All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - Part 13

[Scarecrow_King]

Yeah like an alien with superpowers....oh wait that's already in the film. Superman and most of his villains aren't realistic, and everyone knows that. The goal is to treat the world and characters in a serious manner and to make things somewhat relatable to the audience

Then why do film makers insist on saying things like "grounded" and "realistic"? They're words that mean nothing in this genre, but people gobble them up for some reason.

Making things relatable to the audience doesn't make something grounded or realistic. That just means the story tellers did their job. Even saying something is relatable isn't necessary—I can empathize without having to relate, which can be just as effective. Especially when you're handling a character like Superman that really nobody can relate to.

 

[Wheels]

Then why do film makers insist on saying things like "grounded" and "realistic"? They're words that mean nothing in this genre, but people gobble them up for some reason.

Making things relatable to the audience doesn't make something grounded or realistic. That just means the story tellers did their job. Even saying something is relatable isn't necessary—I can empathize without having to relate, which can be just as effective. Especially when you're handling a character like Superman that really nobody can relate to.

They're just buzz words that Hollywood people use to let you know that they intend to do a serious superhero film.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

And I think that's dumb.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

And I think that's dumb.

Well, if you don't like it, then stick to Marvel Studios' more light-hearted and fantastical approach. I personally want to see more 'grounded' and serious superhero flicks, and I love that WB is taking part of Nolan's formula and running with it.

I prefer to see the genre have DC and Marvel go down their own creative paths.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

Well, if you don't like it, then stick to Marvel Studios' more light-hearted and fantastical approach. I personally prefer the more grounded and serious superhero flick, and I love that WB is taking part of Nolan's formula and running with it.

The thing that worries me about that is that if WB does decide to go ahead with other superhero movies, they're gonna use the same formula even if it doesn't fit. Like with the Flash. Superman is on the border.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

The thing that worries me about that is that if WB does decide to go ahead with other superhero movies, they're gonna use the same formula even if it doesn't fit. Like with the Flash. Superman is on the border.

WB going 'grounded' doesn't mean they'll treat every comic book movie like The Dark Knight. Flash could have a more 'realistic' atmosphere and still feature fantastical elements.

Ex. Iron Man.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

For Superman I think you have to be willing to blend the fantastic with the realistic. One without the other is like bread with no butter.

Exactly, which is why I like a more grounded approach and am not personally fond of the superpowered, unfocused circus that a multiverse tends to be.

 

[ElDuderino]

"Grounded in reality" means "What if this fantastical thing actually happened in real life?"

It doesn't make the fantastical thing not fantastical. It just views it through a different lens. How can people actually not get this? It's a pretty simple concept.

Take the movies Signs and Independence Day. Could everything that happened in Independence Day also have happened in Signs? Yes, absolutely. Would it have made sense in the context of the movie? Absolutely not. If you can't appreciate Signs because it's "too realistic" and not as fantastical as Independence Day, the problem isn't with the movie, it's with you.

 

[Mindreaper21]

"Grounded in reality" means "What if this fantastical thing actually happened in real life?"

It doesn't make the fantastical thing not fantastical. It just views it through a different lens. How can people actually not get this? It's a pretty simple concept.

Take the movies Signs and Independence Day. Could everything that happened in Independence Day also have happened in Signs? Yes, absolutely. Would it have made sense in the context of the movie? Absolutely not. If you can't appreciate Signs because it's "too realistic" and not as fantastical as Independence Day, the problem isn't with the movie, it's with you.

 

[Rust]

Imo we havent really seen much of the "grounded reality" in CBMs people keep refering to. At least not the way the Nolan-verse approaches it.

I personally think it will lend very well to Superman namely because of the fantastical element within a "real" world setting. We havent really seen that before in a CBM.
MOS has tons of potential scenes that could come off really interesting with this approach, not to mention the dramatic angle from a very capable cast.
With Spielberg's War of the Worlds vaguely in mind I cant wait to see scenes like Supes' first rescue, Supes's first public reveal and Zod's initial strike.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Well, if you don't like it, then stick to Marvel Studios' more light-hearted and fantastical approach. I personally want to see more 'grounded' and serious superhero flicks, and I love that WB is taking part of Nolan's formula and running with it.

This.

 

[ElDuderino]

Imo we havent really seen much of the "grounded reality" in CBMs people keep refering to. At least not the way the Nolan-verse approaches it.

I personally think it will lend very well to Superman namely because of the fantastical element within a "real" world setting. We havent really seen that before in a CBM.
MOS has tons of potential scenes that could come off really interesting with this approach, not to mention the dramatic angle from a very capable cast.
With Spielberg's War of the Worlds vaguely in mind I cant wait to see scenes like Supes' first rescue, Supes's first public reveal and Zod's initial strike.

Agree completely. Nolan's trilogy is all we've had. So any criticism about realism being overdone is misplaced.

War of the Worlds strikes a pretty good balance between an Independence Day and a Signs.

 

[Rust]

The intersection scene with the tripod rising out of the ground is a good reference for the kinda of "realism" that'd work well for the action-scenes in MOS. Mostly up-close and personal. The first part without the music works really well and sucks you in. The soundside is great

Sorry, cant find the better quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_U_gWtO6NM&feature=related

Just imagine the same approach though on a larger scale with Zod's invasion. Kinda difficult with that quality though...

 

[Shorshie]

Then why do film makers insist on saying things like "grounded" and "realistic"? They're words that mean nothing in this genre, but people gobble them up for some reason.

Making things relatable to the audience doesn't make something grounded or realistic. That just means the story tellers did their job. Even saying something is relatable isn't necessary—I can empathize without having to relate, which can be just as effective. Especially when you're handling a character like Superman that really nobody can relate to.

Of course they have meaning. The approach is to try and realistically portray how people would react if presented with an unnatural situation. In this way it is no different from any other good movie you should not be questioning the actions of regular. You should not be questioning accepted laws of physics. You should be suspending your disbelief only for the purposes of accepting that a superman arrives.

 

[BigThor]

Well, if you don't like it, then stick to Marvel Studios' more light-hearted and fantastical approach. I personally want to see more 'grounded' and serious superhero flicks, and I love that WB is taking part of Nolan's formula and running with it.

I prefer to see the genre have DC and Marvel go down their own creative paths.

I wouldn't call Marvel Studios films "lighthearted", I'd call something like Green Lantern or the Fantastic Four "lighthearted".

They aren't as serious as Nolans films, but they're serious when they need to and the characters are handled in a mature manner.

 

[TheBat812]

Marvel films are made to feel more 'fun,' and tend to be more tongue in cheek than the better DC films. I prefer the DC characters, so I'm glad they're getting films that take their characters a bit more seriously, but I definitely enjoy the Marvel variety as well. Glad we get both.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I wouldn't call Marvel Studios films "lighthearted", I'd call something like Green Lantern or the Fantastic Four "lighthearted".

They aren't as serious as Nolans films, but they're serious when they need to and the characters are handled in a mature manner.

In comparison, Marvel Studios' films are definitely more light-hearted, for a legitimate reason. Regardless, yes, they also carry dramatic elements when the story calls for it. At times though, it's ruined by colorful dialogue or quirky mannerisms. Films like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and even Thor (for a few scenes anyway) nailed them perfectly, in my opinion. Yet, that's why I appreciate Marvel Studios' style. It's embracing that fantastical and 'fun' world that's become the signature for Marvel films.

It's why I'm an advocate for Marvel Studios and WB/DCE to have different angles, tones, atmospheres, etc to their titles and characters.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Incidentally, I always believed that it would be Marvel Studios going the more 'grounded' route, not WB/DC.

It's strange how things played out.

 

[ElDuderino]

In comparison, Marvel Studios' films are definitely more light-hearted, for a legitimate reason. Regardless, yes, they also carry dramatic elements when the story calls for it. At times though, it's ruined by colorful dialogue or quirky mannerisms. Films like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and even Thor (for a few scenes anyway) nailed them perfectly, in my opinion. Yet, that's why I appreciate Marvel Studios' style. It's embracing that fantastical and 'fun' world that's become the signature for Marvel films.

It's why I'm an advocate for Marvel Studios and WB/DCE to have different angles, tones, atmospheres, etc to their titles and characters.

Agree, the diversity is good.

Plus, I don't think characters like Iron Man, Hulk and Thor really lend themselves to serious or realistic tones. Ang Lee tried that approach with Hulk, but it didn't work out well.

On the flip side, I'm not sure how it will work with Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern or Aquaman.

 

[Wheels]

Green Lantern would have been more interesting if they just threw us in the middle of the action and allowed us to learn about Hal through watching him do his job and interact with the other characters. Something like just following around this supercop on his misson. Like Training Day in space.

 

[Showtime]

Marvel films are made to feel more 'fun,' and tend to be more tongue in cheek than the better DC films. I prefer the DC characters, so I'm glad they're getting films that take their characters a bit more seriously, but I definitely enjoy the Marvel variety as well. Glad we get both.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Rust]

I agree. I dont have a problem with the less "serious" approach, but the makers sometimes seem to think that means the story doesnt have to be taken seriously too, which I do have a problem with. The stories are just too compromised.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I'm very curious just how detailed WETA is going to create Cavill.
Up till now , we still haven't had a photorealistic CG human. The closest thing so far is Hulk but he's just a big green monster. There is always that level of disbelief..if you want to call it ...where humans can easily accept something that just isn't human.
Davey Jones , the Na'Vi , Gollum , Hulk...all characters which are the pinaccles of CG animation.
But none of them are real humans. And CG animation that SPI did for Superman Returns was hit/miss. At times the shots looked very good and at times really obvious CG.

 

[Dr.]

I'm very curious just how detailed WETA is going to create Cavill.
Up till now , we still haven't had a photorealistic CG human. The closest thing so far is Hulk but he's just a big green monster. There is always that level of disbelief..if you want to call it ...where humans can easily accept something that just isn't human.
Davey Jones , the Na'Vi , Gollum , Hulk...all characters which are the pinaccles of CG animation.
But none of them are real humans. And CG animation that SPI did for Superman Returns was hit/miss. At times the shots looked very good and at times really obvious CG.

Yes. In those cases, the cg versions of the characters are the only ones presented to us. So perhaps we (subconsciously?) conceptualize them as artificial constructs and, for that reason, are more willing to suspend our disbelief. Moreover, there’s wiggle room because we’re never required to judge (for example) how good a cg Hulk is in comparison to the “real thing” (the latter doesn’t exist). But a cg Supes would invite instant scrutiny with the actual actor shown in different shots. Even if it was done well, it wouldn’t be perfect - and the suspension of disbelief would be lost.

The safest bet is to reserve the cg stuff for long shots (where they’re absolutely necessary) and always use the real Cavill for closeups.

 

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

I'm very curious just how detailed WETA is going to create Cavill.
Up till now , we still haven't had a photorealistic CG human. The closest thing so far is Hulk but he's just a big green monster. There is always that level of disbelief..if you want to call it ...where humans can easily accept something that just isn't human.
Davey Jones , the Na'Vi , Gollum , Hulk...all characters which are the pinaccles of CG animation.
But none of them are real humans. And CG animation that SPI did for Superman Returns was hit/miss. At times the shots looked very good and at times really obvious CG.

I think that whoever handled the special effects for Watchmen did a fantastic job with Doctor Manhattan. If he wasn't glowing blue, but instead had a skin-tone, he could easily pass for an ordinary human being.

The film Beowulf from a few years ago had Uncanny Valley written all over it, though.