Superman Returns CG Superman Ragdoll?

[buggs0268]

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.

That is no indication that they used a real Routh, or stuntman, for that shot. If it is CGI, then they would have put the seams into the CGI double to match the real suit. If it was not there, people would know something is wrong. And even if there is shots of them shooting it with Routh greenscreen, the footage could have been deemed not usuable for the shot and a CGI double used. This happens in many efx films now a days. They will shoot something live, look at the footage, realize it looks fake, or doesn't work, and use the CGI double instead.

And that shot looks very CGI to me. Taken into acount the interaction with the CGI wing, I would assume it is CGI as it is easier to have CGI thinkgs interacting with CGI things and taking full use of physics simulation programs than it is to have a real live Routh and then tailor the CGI wing to his moves, which may violate physics and give the shot away.

 

[buggs0268]

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.

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.

The Matrix trilogy had some really bad CGI flying. Especially in reloaded when he does that turn in mid air before going to the Oracles house at the begining of the film. You could just see the cgi skin. That was really bad. When I heard OCS lost the job for Returns, I did the happy dance. The flying in that movie sucked. Even the green screen flying was bad.

 

[Comicfan]

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.

Pointing out the "Bad CGI" in SR and that Superman looks like a ragdoll, is like pointing out the bad FX in STM (you know there are some that where bad), and claiming that CR superman was a cardboard cut out

 

[buggs0268]

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.

Yeah the thing with STM's background plates that they used for the soptic process was that they shot it in 35 mill, which is what they were shooting Reeve in as well. In process photography, as well as photochemical bluescreen, you want to shoot the background plates on a larger format then you are shooting the forground images on the Front screen stage. The reason is that the grain structre is 1:1 now, and is therefore visible in the projected image. Also, because it was 1:1, you had a fuzzier image. You want to shoot the background image when using Front Screen in either Vistavision or 65 mill, which is at least three times bigger than the 35 mill area, and therefore the grain is not noticable when projected shooting with 35 mill. Think of making a xerox of an image at the same size. The Xerox is a little bit fuzzier. But if you make a Xerox, but shrink down the images when making the copy, it is now as sharp as the original is. What happend was, in those days, the studios had gotten rid of their 65 mill equipment, or parted out their cameras 10 to 15 years before for 2 reasons:

1. They got rid of their internal camera departments, and where renting through vendors like Panavision and Otton Nemenz, etc.

2. No one was shooting in 65 anymore due to cost.

Disney, which came up with the Vista Vision format (35 mill camera with mag turned on its side to double the up and down area, and double the side to side area, giving a area 4 times the size of 4 perf 35 mill) had dismantled their camera departments as well, and also gotten rid of a lot of their cameras. Most of them where in pieces in junk piles in camera shops around Hollywood. When ILM was setting up in the old Van Nys warehouse for the first Star Wars, they bought most of the old Vistavision cameras in parts from those shops and put them togethere themselves. Then, when Star Wars became a hit, and SPFX film were being green lighted, and EFX guys from Star Wars were putting togethter their own EFX houses, they snapped up what was left. Any other Vista Vision cameras that you could find, even in pieces, were now a fortune.

When Superman was shooting, they were in the middle of this, and when they started shooting, or even planning the Zoptic efx aproach, especially since they where shooting in England, and the Wescam system they were shooting the background plates where only set up to house panavision 35 and Arri 35 mill cameras, nothing was set up for Vista Vision at that time. They started shooting EFX stuff right when all this came out and they now realized that the system they were using was not the right thing, but they could not have known at the time. So they were stuck shooting the backgroudn plates with the same 35 mill stock and cameras that they were shooting the process work with, and the grain showed up. By the time 2 started reshooting, there were companies making vistavision cameras, and you could rent them as well, so they now had them available. Wescam had also modified their mounts to accept both vistavision and 65 mill cameras.

So that is the story with the grain in STM.

They also didn't do a good job of color correcting some of the background plates in STM too. The screen used in the Front projection and Zoptic process is made of thousands of tiny glass beads. You know the road sighns where the letters light up from your head lights at night. That lettering is the same material. Those glas beads reflect back the images greener than the original projected images is. What you had to do was time the image with more pink that would counteract that, and when projected back to the camera from the screen, be color timed correctly in the shooting camera to the original color the plate was supposed to look. There are a bunch of plates where they mis color timed the plates, or the timing was off enough to notice. Again, the labs where ready for this problem and those things were fixed when 2 Was being shot.

 

[dark_b]

bugs : how did they do color correction back in the 70's?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Yeah the thing with STM's background plates that they used for the soptic process was that they shot it in 35 mill, which is what they were shooting Reeve in as well. In process photography, as well as photochemical bluescreen, you want to shoot the background plates on a larger format then you are shooting the forground images on the Front screen stage. The reason is that the grain structre is 1:1 now, and is therefore visible in the projected image. Also, because it was 1:1, you had a fuzzier image. You want to shoot the background image when using Front Screen in either Vistavision or 65 mill, which is at least three times bigger than the 35 mill area, and therefore the grain is not noticable when projected shooting with 35 mill. Think of making a xerox of an image at the same size. The Xerox is a little bit fuzzier. But if you make a Xerox, but shrink down the images when making the copy, it is now as sharp as the original is. What happend was, in those days, the studios had gotten rid of their 65 mill equipment, or parted out their cameras 10 to 15 years before for 2 reasons:

1. They got rid of their internal camera departments, and where renting through vendors like Panavision and Otton Nemenz, etc.

2. No one was shooting in 65 anymore due to cost.

Disney, which came up with the Vista Vision format (35 mill camera with mag turned on its side to double the up and down area, and double the side to side area, giving a area 4 times the size of 4 perf 35 mill) had dismantled their camera departments as well, and also gotten rid of a lot of their cameras. Most of them where in pieces in junk piles in camera shops around Hollywood. When ILM was setting up in the old Van Nys warehouse for the first Star Wars, they bought most of the old Vistavision cameras in parts from those shops and put them togethere themselves. Then, when Star Wars became a hit, and SPFX film were being green lighted, and EFX guys from Star Wars were putting togethter their own EFX houses, they snapped up what was left. Any other Vista Vision cameras that you could find, even in pieces, were now a fortune.

When Superman was shooting, they were in the middle of this, and when they started shooting, or even planning the Zoptic efx aproach, especially since they where shooting in England, and the Wescam system they were shooting the background plates where only set up to house panavision 35 and Arri 35 mill cameras, nothing was set up for Vista Vision at that time. They started shooting EFX stuff right when all this came out and they now realized that the system they were using was not the right thing, but they could not have known at the time. So they were stuck shooting the backgroudn plates with the same 35 mill stock and cameras that they were shooting the process work with, and the grain showed up. By the time 2 started reshooting, there were companies making vistavision cameras, and you could rent them as well, so they now had them available. Wescam had also modified their mounts to accept both vistavision and 65 mill cameras.

So that is the story with the grain in STM.

They also didn't do a good job of color correcting some of the background plates in STM too. The screen used in the Front projection and Zoptic process is made of thousands of tiny glass beads. You know the road sighns where the letters light up from your head lights at night. That lettering is the same material. Those glas beads reflect back the images greener than the original projected images is. What you had to do was time the image with more pink that would counteract that, and when projected back to the camera from the screen, be color timed correctly in the shooting camera to the original color the plate was supposed to look. There are a bunch of plates where they mis color timed the plates, or the timing was off enough to notice. Again, the labs where ready for this problem and those things were fixed when 2 Was being shot.

Ah, a fellow SFX enthusiast, but you know far more than I do! Thanks for the info! Yeah, the poor quality of the plate footage is what ruins a lot of SFX shots in STM for me. If that footage were better quality (and wasn't so unsteady at times), then with Reeve's acting, it'd be even better. But the bluescreen composite shots also look unbearably fake, unfortunately. Especially the composites of Reeve make him look like cardboard.

Oh well, at least the wirework in STM is still spectacular.

 

[buggs0268]

bugs : how did they do color correction back in the 70's?

All color is made up of some variation or Red-Green-Blue. In the optical printer at the lab, which was used to make the interpositives or internegative used to make the master which the final print was duplicated from, there are three lights. Red light. Green light. And Blue light. The scale of the lights went from 1-50. In the lab you had a guy called a color timer, or grader. Still do, but it was more important in those days. He would look at the footage, and then go over the dailys with the D of P on the phone, or in person, and they would determine what number between 1-50 for red, green and blue was the best. So when a Cine and a color timer wanted a timing of 30-35-32, that means that the optical printer lights were set to 30 red, 35 green, and 32 blue. They still do the same theory today. If you look at the King Kong blogs where they talk about color timing, and you see the Arri laser scanner scanning in the film, you see the film stops at each frame, and they scan it with a red light, then a green light, then a blue light. Since color correction is being done in the comptuer now, they will scan the film evenly for RGB so that they have the full range fo the film and do the color timing in computer.

Sometimes a higher set of timing lights gave you better blacks. Adam Greenburg printed in the range of 42-42-40 ( I believe that was it, have to check the AC on that) for Terminator 2 to get deep blacks. Mikael Solomon did something similar for The Abyss. Then Cameron made it standard for all the DP's he worked with on his films, and that is why he had sharp films, and also why his films won the Award every time. Some DP's will overexpose the film a quarter of a stop in the camera, and then print it minus a quarter of a stop to get teh blacks down without giong to such high printing lights and get such deep saturation with the higher printing lights. One of my friends shot stuff a few movies for the Disney Channel and he was told what printing lights and film stocks to use by Disney. That is why if you look at Disney's stuff, it is pretty saturated and sharp. That is what Disney wants their stuff to look like across tjhe board, and so they tell their D of P's this is what you will shoot at, this is what you will print at. He said he liked the look but he wished he could have given the films he shot for them a more edgier, not so sharop and pristine look that he contractually had to.

This is why in the old days, a DP worked with one timer and mostly one lab as they knew that that guy knew what they wanted with out them having to be there, which was most often the case, and the DP knew that he was going to get pretty much what he wanted. D of P's would hate it when their color timer woudl retire, or the production made a contract before they got hired with a lab they arent used to working with in the old days. Because they would be forced to working with a new guy that didn't have teh shorthand knowledge of what they wanted.

Hope this answeres your question.

 

[buggs0268]

Ah, a fellow SFX enthusiast, but you know far more than I do! Thanks for the info! Yeah, the poor quality of the plate footage is what ruins a lot of SFX shots in STM for me. If that footage were better quality (and wasn't so unsteady at times), then with Reeve's acting, it'd be even better. But the bluescreen composite shots also look unbearably fake, unfortunately. Especially the composites of Reeve make him look like cardboard.

Oh well, at least the wirework in STM is still spectacular.

Yeah, again, 35 mill plates composited with 35 mill plates. Even in blue screen in the photochemical days they had to shoot either Vista Vision or 65 mill as by the time the shot got through optical and into the release print, they may have gone throu 6 dupes (duplications or xerox's of xerox's) in the optical printer. And, since the Supes company didnt have access to either VistaVision or 65 mill cameras, you are seeing the grain structure. And again, that was fixed by the time Supes 2 came around.

Also, When Supes was made, it was shot on Kodak and kodak was only making one stock. There was no different stock for night, interior or day as there was in the 80's and 90's when you had an nighttime rated stock (usually 500 asa), and indoor day stock (usually 250 asa) and a ourtdoor day stock (usually 50 or 100 asa) of one film stock. If you want outside, you had to throw a Wratten filter on the lense and then adjust for the F-stop difference in teh camera. And if you shot at night, you had to use more light.

I also got to talk to Zoran Persic on the phone in the early 90's when I was working on a film and we were going to shoot stuff Fron Projection for it. I called him up and he was shooting EFX stuff on Stallone's Cliffhanger with the Zoptic system at the time. Right there you can see the difference in the advances of film stocks, color timing, lenses, etc betwen Superman and the 90's. Same zoptic system (with newere stepper motors, etc on the camera for the motion base). To give you a hint, Stallone is afraid of heights. A lot of his climbing stuff was shot with the same zoptic process as Superman was, amounst other shots in the film. He went over all the shots in Superman 1 that used Zoptic and told me the things that worked and didnt work for each shot, and about wishing they had the Vista Vision camera available during production of STM. Talked to him for an hour. he even had me pull out my tape and go to specific shots and tell me how they did it, and what the problems where in shooting that shot. We had also talked about some of the plates in some shots with bad timing for the process and he said they were rushed, or that was what they had to work with. Really nice guy.

Now you have different stocks for different things. If you are shooting on film, but know you are going to do your opticals in the computer, you had a seperate stock for that that came about in the 90's to take into account the full benefits of scanning the film and using the davince in the 90's. A good example of the difference is the Star Trek Series. Look at the first episodes of Next Generation. They did their post (color correcting, etc) in the digital world. The film stocks weren't set up for that per see, and look grainy. Then, at the start of Deep Space 9, and definately from the start of Voyager, Kodak came out with films stocks tailored to post done in computer. You can see the film is more vibrant, the image less grainy and muddy, and it starts looking like motion picture quality. Now a days there are a lot of stocks. There are even films stocks specifically for shooting blue screen and green screen. But back then, only one.

If you really understand what those guys had to deal with in those days, you would be amazed at what they got for a final product.

 

[Jakomus]

bugs : how did they do color correction back in the 70's?

They sent the frames to colour collection camp for the summr.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

If you really understand what those guys had to deal with in those days, you would be amazed at what they got for a final product.

Boy, I'll say! The Zoptic system is less known to me, but in general, I know that older effects were a pain to do. From a technical standpoint, the STM effects are still fantastic, I just wish that they'd used 64 mil stock instead of 35 mil.

 

[Admiral_N8]

As an artist with a good eye I think these CGI shots are awesome

 

[buggs0268]

Boy, I'll say! The Zoptic system is less known to me, but in general, I know that older effects were a pain to do. From a technical standpoint, the STM effects are still fantastic, I just wish that they'd used 64 mil stock instead of 35 mil.

Well it was trying to get the cameras back then. Most of them where demolished or in parts in various houses. The studios thought it was a dead format, and so did the camera rantal houses. Doug Trumbull had to make his to use on Close Encounters of the third kind. If you look at the exterior night time shots with UFOs, or just night sky shots (example the road where Roy almost runs over the kids and that family of hicks is waiting for the UFO's. That road was built in a stage and Trumbull projected the night sky with either 4X5 or 8X10 stills onto the front projections screen, which is basically what zoptic uses, but does it differently.

Zoptic is just front screen projection, but the projector and camera have zoom lenses on them, and are mounted on a motion base. What it does is, if they want Superman to fly from far away up to the camera, Reeve stayed in place mounted in front of the Front projection screen, and the camera would zoom in, while the projector would zoom out at the same time, in the same way. So the images on the screen gets bigger when not looking through the camera lense. What that did was when the camera zoomed in, Reeve became bigger in frame, but since the projector is zooming out, the projected image stayed the same size in the camera lense, and it looked like Reeve was flying from far off in the distance to up to the camera. And the camera/projector was mounted on a computerized motion base so that they could rotate and turn so that Reeve would look like he was banking and such. The shot or Reeve doing the loop de loop after taking off from the Roof of the daily planet. Reeve stayed stationary and the camera/projector did a revolution on its motion base axis. Reeve jsut timed his arm movements to the cameras rotation and "Walla", Superman does a loop de loop. When he entrs the fram from right in the shot, the camera was in front to the left of him on its motion base, and the camera just dollied right on it's motion base, and Reeve looks like he swoops in from the right of frame to the center.

take this shot

Reeve is on a motion arm that sticks out like a t from a hole in the screen behind him, and just moves from from a more laying flying position to a more standing position on the arm via a pivot joint. The camera zooms in while the projected images zooms out slightly while the motion base moves from a lower point than reeve is to the same height that Reeve is mounted on the pole, and rotates slightly on it's axis to cause taht camera tilt.

Behind Reeve, Reeve is standing or on a pole arm, stationary, and the camrea projector is just moving on its dolly tracks side to side to give it that look that Reeve is adjusting himself in the air to get in a direct path with the missle in front of him, and the projection screen is in front of him now. So he is looking at the screen and can faintly see the missle and the desert and sky plate in front of him to do his timing with his arms of reaching out to the missle.

shot behind rocket. The camera is zooming in from far away and the projector is zooming out so it looks like Reeve the missle is zooming up to Reeve. The rocket looks like it is composited in as smoke gives you hell when doing front projection as you are trying to get light to go through smoke so when it hits the screen, the image in that area is diffused as opposed to the area the projected image doesnt have to go throush smoke, which would be cleaner. Also, you will see artifacts around the smoke. They did two shots with smoke in the Supes and Lois flying over metropolis scene before they go into the clouds,and after they come out where you can see the artifact around the smoke in the frame.

last shot of him flying towards camera chasing it the same thing. As he flies off to the right of the frame, either the motion base goes past him, or he is pivoted on the arm he is laying on, more left, and the camera dollies left off of him on the screen in front of him perpendicular to the screen.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Zoptic is just front screen projection, but the projector and camera have zoom lenses on them, and are mounted on a motion base. What it does is, if they want Superman to fly from far away up to the camera, Reeve stayed in place mounted in front of the Front projection screen, and the camera would zoom in, while the projector would zoom out at the same time, in the same way. So the images on the screen gets bigger when not looking through the camera lense. What that did was when the camera zoomed in, Reeve became bigger in frame, but since the projector is zooming out, the projected image stayed the same size in the camera lense, and it looked like Reeve was flying from far off in the distance to up to the camera. And the camera/projector was mounted on a computerized motion base so that they could rotate and turn so that Reeve would look like he was banking and such. The shot or Reeve doing the loop de loop after taking off from the Roof of the daily planet. Reeve stayed stationary and the camera/projector did a revolution on its motion base axis. Reeve jsut timed his arm movements to the cameras rotation and "Walla", Superman does a loop de loop. When he entrs the fram from right in the shot, the camera was in front to the left of him on its motion base, and the camera just dollied right on it's motion base, and Reeve looks like he swoops in from the right of frame to the center.

take this shot

Reeve is on a motion arm and just moves from from flying to standing. The camera zooms in while the projected images zooms out slightly.

Behind Reeve, Reeve is standing or on a pole arm, stationary, and the camrea projector is just moving on its dolly tracks side to side to give it that look that Reeve is adjusting himself in the air.

shot behind rocket. The camera is zooming in from far away and the projector is zooming out so it looks like Reeve the missle is zooming up to Reeve.

last shot of him flying towards camera chasing it the same thing.

This part I'm familier with, computerized camera passes, I mean... Much like the multiple-pass system ILM invented for the Back to the Future sequels, computerized to make multiple passes so you could film different areas of the frame over again and belnd them seamlessly into one (Excpet Zoptic wasn't about combining multiple processes into one frame, that was for the optical printer). I believe that system was called... the vista glide? Yeah, that sounds right.

I'd always loved the fact that Reeve never moved an inch for the flight effects. And when you think about it, it makes sense for the camera to only move, that way, you don't have to worry about complicated rigging to move Reeve, and the camera can move as freely as it needs to. Like in the bluescreen shots, the bluescreen doesn't emcompass the entire area of what the camera is filming.... just blue around Reeve, and that box was enough area to matte him into the shot.

Vintage effects are a lot more interesting and engaging. Everything today is so easily done, there's no spectacle left. Bluescreening, front-screen projecting, rear-screen projecting, matte painting and compositing are such wonderfully odd things when you think about them, but when you see what they can do, you find them fascinating!

 

[ultimatefan]

You know what, I gone through A LOT of these CGI or no CGI arguments here and here´s the thing... we all knew Chewbacca was just a guy in a suit. We all knew the X-Wing was just a big toy. We all knew Christopher Reeve was hanging in wires... and you know what, young as we were, we were smart enough to NOT GIVE A ****!! We emmersed ourselves in the fantasy and enjoyed it, we didn´t watch frame-by-frame and then dissecated every last technical aspect of it... Which is not what it´s about. I don´t need it to be 100% perfectly photorealistic, it generates enough suspension of disbelief for me to lose myself and enjoy it, that´s as much as I bother arguing this.

 

[buggs0268]

This part I'm familier with, computerized camera passes, I mean... Much like the multiple-pass system ILM invented for the Back to the Future sequels, computerized to make multiple passes so you could film different areas of the frame over again and belnd them seamlessly into one (Excpet Zoptic wasn't about combining multiple processes into one frame, that was for the optical printer). I believe that system was called... the vista glide? Yeah, that sounds right.

I'd always loved the fact that Reeve never moved an inch for the flight effects. And when you think about it, it makes sense for the camera to only move, that way, you don't have to worry about complicated rigging to move Reeve, and the camera can move as freely as it needs to. Like in the bluescreen shots, the bluescreen doesn't emcompass the entire area of what the camera is filming.... just blue around Reeve, and that box was enough area to matte him into the shot.

Vintage effects are a lot more interesting and engaging. Everything today is so easily done, there's no spectacle left. Bluescreening, front-screen projecting, rear-screen projecting, matte painting and compositing are such wonderfully odd things when you think about them, but when you see what they can do, you find them fascinating!

Reeve had to stay stationary. The front screen process works by the projector and lense aligned at their nodal points, or the point where the light coming through the lense hits the film. also, the camera has to be exactly 90 degrees in front of the screen pointing at it, or you get a shaddowing effect on the screen either to the right or left, whichever side the camera is off. That is why Reeve was in one place relative to the screen, but the arm that he was on pivited him up or down, left or right. But the camera and projector had to remain exactly 90 degress in front of frame. So when it looks like he is banking, the camera doesn't pan and he styas straight. He is turned on his arm axis, and the camera stays 90 degrees in front of the screen, and the camera/projectors dollys sideways. It takes some finessing to get it for each shot, but the end result is Superman banking.

Yeah ever show ILM has to come up with at least one thing new. In back to the future 2, to get rid of the wires without digitallyh painting them out (still expensive to do in those days with the shots they had) they realized taht when you take a wire and tap it, while it is moving really fast back and forth, you eye may see it, but wire becomes invisible to the camera because of the frame rate the camera is running. so, Micheal J fox and all the actors chasing him on those hover boards where mounted on wires that had little arms taht taped the wires while shooting successively, and while the wires moved, they didnt show up in the camera. Since the actors where so heavy, they or their board didnt move. Just the wires that were suspending them did. And walla, instant in camera wire removal. If they had figured that out shooting Superman, they could have done more shots and not had to paint out the wires by hand in post later.

Yeah the vista glide was so that they could to dolly moves, etc, and have them repeatable, and have the same actor playing different characters in the frame. They had done it before that though on David Cronenbergs Dead Ringers where Jeremy Irons played twin brothers. but Ilm ran wild with it. Before those two shows, the camera had to stay locked off, or using a bodd double from behind while looking at the actor from behind the body doubles shoulder. See Superman 3 for that. There is a few shots in tehre where the camera is locked off, and Reeve is plaing both characters are used in stand ins, and then the action was rotoscoped with one Reeve behind him overlapping the other choking him.

They even used the same front screen process (bot not mounted on the motion base0 for bluescreens in the late 80's. Apogee invented a system tehy called the blue max. Instead of using a blue screen in front of actors or models, they used the front projection system and projected a blue frame timed with aproprate orange to offset teh screens green relflectance. This way they got a perfect bluescreen behind actors or models with no blue spill on the actor or mode as teh blue bouncing back on the model or actors body was so low, the camera didnt see it. And they got perfect mattes every time.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Superman the movie looks like a B-movie compared to this in relation to the effects. There is no comparision.

 

[buggs0268]

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.

I don't remember this scene, is that one of those deleted scenes?

I remember supes trying to catchup to the missile but I sure hell don't remember him trying to catch it.

Yeah. But it showed up in the ABC 2 nighter premiere in 1980 as the Salkinds deal with ABC was that ABC had to pay for every minute of running time to show the film. So the Salkind's, being the sneaky devils they are, took every damn scene shot that had been edited out and put it back into the film. That is why you saw the farmers end of draught scene when Superman made the rock damn and the water got diverted to an area that had a drought. They stufk everything back in to make it a 2 night 4 hour movie from it's 2 and a half hour theatrical running time. But it was cool as we got to see all the scenes Donner took out.

 

[Marvin]

2MB VIDEO ATTACHED (might have to wait for it to load):

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.

I gotta say, I respect ya fliar, you see bullsh1t and you're calling it...

skimming though this and ur other various posts one would think ur on the verge of sprouting warts and becoming a troll, but the reality is you're one of the true fans in that you want the best for this movie
and aren't willing to be ignorant to the flaws that are o so apparent
in some attempt of support...

reminds me of all the fools that enjoy and defend the third Blade installment...you know who u are..shame on you

he's right it looks fake and not only that, but singer seems to have gone the "easier" more expensive route and used a cgi stunt men in places where it would have been difficult but do-able to use real stunt work

X-men is a rush(hour) job with a nigh competent director and the cgi look wonderful

....

That being said

Relax, the movies not done yet...
when it comes out, judge that!

 

[buggs0268]

I gotta say, I respect ya fliar, you see bullsh1t and you're calling it...

skimming though this and ur other various posts one would think ur on the verge of sprouting warts and becoming a troll, but the reality is you're one of the true fans in that you want the best for this movie
and aren't willing to be ignorant to the flaws that are o so apparent
in some attempt of support...

reminds me of all the fools that enjoy and defend the third Blade installment...you know who u are..shame on you

he's right it looks fake and not only that, but singer seems to have gone the "easier" more expensive route and used a cgi stunt men in places where it would have been difficult but do-able to use real stunt work

X-men is a rush(hour) job with a nigh competent director and the cgi look wonderful

....

That being said

Relax, the movies not done yet...
when it comes out, judge that!

You know, a lot of the problems could be from the compression of amking the quick time clips. i remember when I saw the CGI in the king Kong trailer, I thought the cgi dinosaurs were bad. In the theater and on DVD they look awesome, but in the quicktime trailer, because it is comrpessed so small, it looks bad. That could be what we are looking at.

 

[BrollySupersj]

.....I think the CGI looks pretty good in the 2nd trailer......

 

[sithgoblin]

You know, a lot of the problems could be from the compression of amking the quick time clips. i remember when I saw the CGI in the king Kong trailer, I thought the cgi dinosaurs were bad. In the theater and on DVD they look awesome, but in the quicktime trailer, because it is comrpessed so small, it looks bad. That could be what we are looking at.

With that landing shot, it's not anything to do with compression, or modelling, or texturing or rendering. It's the animation that needs work. The animation.

 

[davejames]

Um, how is he supposed to flail around while falling when he's UNCONSCIOUS?!?

 

[Metropolis_Man]

.....I think the CGI looks pretty good in the 2nd trailer......

I thought so as well. I love the scenes of him falling.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, the CGI looks top notch...the best money can buy.

As for THE MATRIX.....I got the impression that the flying looked like that on purpose, cause Neo was bending reality and stuff.....or something. I mean, I remember the clouds bending at some points with his liftoff and movements. More cartoony than realistic, and I always figured it had been on purpose.

 

[Michael Corleone]

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).

I know this really doesnt need to be responded to now but it sorta bugs me. There are some problems with your physics here. Bullets DONT spark. Even when hitting metal. They do not create a spark. Thats a hollywood created effect. The gatling gun had color to it because those are tracer bullets. In a gatling gun they often are every 5th round or so. This allows for easier targeting without a site. The caliber has nothing to do with a bullet sparking. The bullets ricochet most likely because they are moving at a higher velocity. A round from one of those guns does not travel at the same rate as a .45 ACP which is what he fired from the pistol. A .45 ACP usually has a muzzel velocity of about 850 feet per second. The muzzel velocity of a projectile from one of those vulcan guns( I'm guessing thats the type its supposed to be) is about 3,380 feet per second. The shape of the round also comes into play. Anyhow there is more but Im simply not going to go into it. Learn your physics before you criticize someone elses.