Superman Returns CG Superman Ragdoll?

Spare-Flair

Sidekick
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
31
2MB VIDEO ATTACHED (might have to wait for it to load):
sr.gif



Anyone concerned about the CG in this film? From the two trailers we've seen, there have been sequences of obviously CG Superman looking very unnatural, like a poor ragdoll physics model that obviously looks artificial.

There's the one where Superman lands in front of Luthor and his arms are stuck to the side like a robot and then in the latest trailer, the CG model of him falling through the air seems to lack realism. You get more of a sense of the lack of physics and motion or even size by watching the actual video. He looks like a miniature mannequin falling through the air. In general, all the CG shots of Superman have been overwhelmingly...looking like a cheap videogame model. It feels like you're watching a videogame cutscene rather than a feature movie.

Why couldn't they have had Routh actually hooked up to a harness and filmed from above flailing as if he were falling? Or Routh jumping off a platform onto a greenscreen mat or something? Nolan was emphatic about filming everything with a real actor as much as were humanly possible in Batman Begins, to the point where Batman gliding...is a real actor gliding. Batman hanging by a rope to the monorail in most scenes, is a real stunt actor hooked up to a hydraulic ram being swung down a track at 50mph in the city-size set they built inside giant hangers.

SR, seems to have gone the cheap route by using CG on every shot that doesn't show a facial closeup and it's very frustrating to watch how unnatural, robotic, and just unanimated the CG Superman appears.

Even the "eye-shot" is unconvincing as the shooter appears to have the same reaction and perception speed as Superman and unflinchingly follows the bullet from Superman's eye to the ground which is ridiculous. Any normal human would have just been blinded by the flash of gunpowder and the exposive force of the bullet compacting to just openly stare without even blinking and track a slow-motion bullet (which in real time takes place in a nano-second) slowly fall to the ground! If that were me, I'd also be covering my face in sheer reaction in case of ricochet after seeing all those bullets from the gattling gun bounce off Superman.
 
please dont say to me that the one with the plane wing looks to CGI to you?
 
The shot of Routh spinning away from the wing is real. There's footage of that same shot being done on the harness against greenscreen. Besides, if you watch it frame by frame, you can see the seams in the costume on his back.
 
Its really hard to take this serious but I'll do my best. I just cant agree with you on this. I want to play whatever whatever games you play to make those scenes look cheap. After however many years of stopmotion animation in movies, I dont see how people can complain about "bad" CG. I cant think of one single movie where the CGI looked absolutely flawless in every single scene. Especially before the movie has completed postproduction. Its like people think they deserve an "I Can Point Out CG" award. Good for you. Name one action spectacle movie where you can say every single bit looked real and I'll buy you a double whopper combo. Forget this CG crap, lets go back to claymation.
 
iLLy_DNA said:
Its really hard to take this serious but I'll do my best. I just cant agree with you on this. I want to play whatever whatever games you play to make those scenes look cheap. After however many years of stopmotion animation in movies, I dont see how people can complain about "bad" CG. I cant think of one single movie where the CGI looked absolutely flawless in every single scene. Especially before the movie has completed postproduction. Its like people think they deserve an "I Can Point Out CG" award. Good for you. Name one action spectacle movie where you can say every single bit looked real and I'll buy you a double whopper combo. Forget this CG crap, lets go back to claymation.

Indeed, you are right, there are no spectacle movies with impeccable CG. The Matrix trilogy are often cited as a paragon to "flying" scenes but it was also pretty fake looking.

My point is that these scenes could have easily have been done with Routh actually being filmed with a live actor as they are almost completely static shots with only Superman in the frame. They did everything they could to wring out every possible shot they could have done with stunt actors and live action while filming Batman. I think it's the least they could have done in the same situation here with Routh falling and landing.

bb.gif


I've been reading the Superman Returns pictures thread and never saw those pics you're talking about with him being knocked back from the wing against a greenscreen. I've seen the ones with him in the harness but not actually flipping around in it. Could you point them out? The shots I've seen show him in a flying pose and definetely those shots of him flying with his fists out are real and the closeups of his face are taken from those shots. But as for the actual Superman after hitting the wing and flipping around from the back, I'm pretty sure that is a CG model with at the most his face mapped onto the texture.
 
how do you know how will the scene look in the movie? you just got 3 seconds of a clip. maybe in the movie the camera will follow superman and maybe there will be zooming.

you just dont know how will this all look in the final movie. you are talking about teh scenes that you saw in the trailer. why dont you just wait until you see the movie. not to judge the effects but to see if there was really no other way to film this.
 
as regards to superman landing IMO when you see that scene on a very large screen and not on a pc it does look very cool I cant comment on the others but I have alot of faith in this film and I think it will turn out fine.
 
dark_b said:
how do you know how will the scene look in the movie? you just got 3 seconds of a clip. maybe in the movie the camera will follow superman and maybe there will be zooming.

you just dont know how will this all look in the final movie. you are talking about teh scenes that you saw in the trailer. why dont you just wait until you see the movie. not to judge the effects but to see if there was really no other way to film this.

I've heard this plenty of times, it's only pre-production, it's not the final CG shot, it's just temporary effects, wait until you see the final movie before talking about it etc. But then, what would be the point of this forum? Should we all just sit back and wait until the movie before talking about various things? Back in 1978, they had Margot Kidder filmed flailing through the air against a bluescreen. There's no way they couldn't had a real shot of Routh...especially when the next shot is the very powerful closeup of his face as he falls (my favorite shot that I've seen so far)...or a shot of him just jumping onto a mat for the landing.

For something like Spider-Man, you need a CG model to pull of those kinds of acrobatics, but Superman's movements are much simpler. I personally think the plane shot looks very real and fluid. That part of the clip shouldn't be in the there but my program frame-skipped.
 
I'm also a big fan of practical stunts and have a lot of respect for Batman Begins in that area BUT even in BB there's at least 2 shots I can point out where Batman is CG and they're about as long as any of those 3 shots of superman. I dont know what the official running time of Returns is so I'll underestimate at an hour and 30 minutes. An hour and 30 minutes with so far 6 seconds of obvious CG. and the only shot I can really defend you on is that landing scene, the other two I think look pretty good. But I'll give you the whole 6 seconds in a movie thats over an hour and 30 minutes...with as many flying shots that we've seen that ARE really Routhe. C'mon man, lets give credit where credit is due.
 
I'll take blatant CGI over blatant wire work any day of the week.
 
Junfan said:
I'll take blatant CGI over blatant wire work any day of the week.

I'm of the completely opposite opinion. CG should be kept to a minimum and only for impossible sequences. I'd rather see real actors working hard in their roles. Reeve made wirework amazing...incorporating grace and flow from his experience as a glider pilot...the problem for him was the 1970s grainy film backgrounds on his flying.

CW-STM-rocketcatch.gif


CW-STM-cityarrival.gif
 
nice GIF's. you do know that SR will have everything 100 times better?
 
dark_b said:
nice GIF's. you do know that SR will have everything 100 times better?

My personal opinion is that SR would have to struggle to keep on par if not worse. It will definetely have more epic special effects but some jarring aspects of the CG will leave it cold and sterile. But I have a natural aversion to overuse of CG while I have a deep respect for traditional methods and I like how directors like Nolan think. He went out of his way to find old film to film Batman Begins with and a traditional firm to chemically develop the film versus many modern movies that are shot digitally, directly to hard drive.

Nothing against CG, I work in graphic design and my cousin is a CG modeler...but that just makes it easier for me to spot bad CG which I simply can't help but notice sticking out of a scene if it is poorly integrated. I just think that it shows in the level of work when the production goes out of its way to incorporate realistic looking stunt work and miniatures. I had the same problem with CG use on Singer's work in X-Men. The CG Statue of Liberty at the end stuck out like a sore thumb. Singer is an awesome director in his human driven films, but I don't think he's good at mastering science fiction and comic book effects and choreography even though he's quite a nerd himself :)
 
I wouldnt bother trying dark_b. You cant just please everyone & there will be whiners no matter what & the fact that he is comparing this stuff to Reeve & more then 20 Year Old Special Effects should say something. Some People just like to whine & complain about things. He reminds me of another user that did this type of stuff
 
Spare-Flair said:
Even the "eye-shot" is unconvincing as the shooter appears to have the same reaction and perception speed as Superman and unflinchingly follows the bullet from Superman's eye to the ground which is ridiculous. Any normal human would have just been blinded by the flash of gunpowder and the exposive force of the bullet compacting to just openly stare without even blinking and track a slow-motion bullet (which in real time takes place in a nano-second) slowly fall to the ground! If that were me, I'd also be covering my face in sheer reaction in case of ricochet after seeing all those bullets from the gattling gun bounce off Superman.

I can partly agree, but having the shooter looking down at the bullet has better effect on the screen rather then him just acting like a "normal" person would do.
 
so you still think that they should used wirework for the wing scene?
vlcsnap-107866.jpg


this is 1 or 2 seconds earlier when he is holding the wing.
normal_vlcsnap-108890.jpg

normal_vlcsnap-108970.jpg



now please explain to me how would you do it so that he first holds the wing,than brakes teh wing and then we see him coming at us.

how woud you do this scene with wirework. would oyu use a real plane wing?
 
GothicPowerMix1 said:
I wouldnt bother trying dark_b. You cant just please everyone & there will be whiners no matter what & the fact that he is comparing this stuff to Reeve & more then 20 Year Old Special Effects should say something. Some People just like to whine & complain about things. He reminds me of another user that did this type of stuff

And there will always be people who deflect criticism by labeling the detractors as whiners. I've also a film student and this is average par for discussing and comparing technical merits.

What's my goal? I find myself simultaneously excited by several things in the film, but also let down in several areas. It's frustrating and I want it to stop. I like Singer, he's a great director for the human element in films. I just don't like him directing science fiction films because he overuses CG. I know my opinion isn't worth more than anyone else's on this board, everybody has a right to their opinion and whether to like or dislike this film.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I find your concerns to be completely ******ed.

You site a couple of split second shots from SR like you know what the CG in the movie is going to look like. I've got a couple of suggetions that maybe you should consider:

1. Do you need a shot like in SIII where the MX (or whatever thay damn missile was called) makes Supes do some sh**ty backflips?

2. The scene in BB that you reference is a a shot of a human hanging from an actual moving object as it moves down a city street. In no way should this be compared to a shot of someone trying to save a plane.

3. We all saw shots of Batman hanging from something while moving (the helicopter in Batman Forever) and the only shots that looked sh**ty were the live action shots.

I think those teeney little snippets looked fine, and I'm not even a fan of GCI
 
djprince said:
I can partly agree, but having the shooter looking down at the bullet has better effect on the screen rather then him just acting like a "normal" person would do.

Wouldn't you think it'd be cool if he was recoiling from the flash? Or if the bullet hitting Superman's eye created a spark? The other bullets at Superman (obviously higher calibur, but still) ricocheted off of Superman. What if the 9mm bullet the guy fires ricochets off and just grazes the side of his head?

Or just simply, have the guy looking around wondering what happened to the bullet since it all happens in the blink of an eye. (this really belongs in the other thread, I apologize for bringing it here).
 
Spare-Flair said:
And there will always be people who deflect criticism by labeling the detractors as whiners. I've also a film student and this is average par for discussing and comparing technical merits.

What's my goal? I find myself simultaneously excited by several things in the film, but also let down in several areas. It's frustrating and I want it to stop. I like Singer, he's a great director for the human element in films. I just don't like him directing science fiction films because he overuses CG. I know my opinion isn't worth more than anyone else's on this board, everybody has a right to their opinion and whether to like or dislike this film.
Here's the problem though:

You absolutely have not seen the movie.

You can not judge BS's use of CG even remotley in this film.

And, for the record, X-men used a damn decent amount of wirework and the crappiest CG was Toad...which was about a combined 7 seconds of footage or so...
 
Spare-Flair said:
Wouldn't you think it'd be cool if he was recoiling from the flash? Or if the bullet hitting Superman's eye created a spark? The other bullets at Superman (obviously higher calibur, but still) ricocheted off of Superman. What if the 9mm bullet the guy fires ricochets off and just grazes the side of his head?

Or just simply, have the guy looking around wondering what happened to the bullet since it all happens in the blink of an eye. (this really belongs in the other thread, I apologize for bringing it here).
Seriously dude, you ARE just nitpicking.

I will guarantee that even discerning eyes will not pick up on the shooter's eye following the bullet down.

You've just had the oppourtunity to analyze the trailer...
 
Steelsheen said:
man, this part is always so amazing to watch. it looks so damn real! :D :up:
Yeah, well, it is...


Sorry if it was sarcasm and I didn't pick up on it :up::O
 
Steelsheen said:
man, this part is always so amazing to watch. it looks so damn real! :D :up:

To bad it suffers the 80s Look. They need to get the LFL Guys that cleaned up the Original Star Wars Trilogy for the first DVD Release. They did an amazing job fixing up the Video
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"