Superman Returns CG Superman Ragdoll?

[scifiwolf]

"The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the the vitality of society as a whole"
-C.J. Reinquivst, Supreme Court

Then society has the duty to protect itself from stupidity by telling those who would make petty arguments to ****. Given the general reactions on this thread, I think society is telling you something, Spare-Flair...

 

[explode7]

What does **** mean?

 

[DocLathropBrown]

What does **** mean?

Somebody school this kid, please!

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

What does **** mean?

Wow you would think everyone that visits Internet Movie Message Boards daily would know what **** means

 

[M.O.Steel]

i think the CG looks awesome...not flawless, but clearly unfinished, as in, it will probably look different in the final movie itself. Even if it didn't, sometimes while i wish for realism, to show the full potential of superman, you can't really limit him to realism. He doesn't quite follow the same kinetics as average humans, just like spiderman (although spiderman is on the very extreme side of the spectrum).

 

[BrollySupersj]

What does **** mean?

I can't cry for this guy anymore, somebody pay me and I will

 

[Metropolis_Man]

i think the CG looks awesome...not flawless, but clearly unfinished, as in, it will probably look different in the final movie itself. Even if it didn't, sometimes while i wish for realism, to show the full potential of superman, you can't really limit him to realism. He doesn't quite follow the same kinetics as average humans, just like spiderman (although spiderman is on the very extreme side of the spectrum).

I think the finished product will definately have even more improved graphics as well. Maybe watching the whole movie together will make it flow better.

 

[not_a_victim]

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.

Exactly how real is a man crashing through an airplane wing and coming out intact supposed to look?
How real is a man landing on his feet at about one hundred miles an hour supposed to look?
The simple fact is Supes is surviving things that no human could survive, and I think your problem in understanding stems from the fact that we dont know how these things are supposed to look, since NO HUMAN COULD EVER DO THEM.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah.....honestly, some people want too much cake......tsk tsk.

It looks as real as it needs to for me....and really, they're going into kinda uncharted territories. Don't think anyone's ever had to use CGI to have a man do these things before.

 

[Tony Stark]

man, this part is always so amazing to watch. it looks so damn real!

I love when Donner talks about this scene on the DVD. The part where he banks to the audience's right, was totally accidental, and when they watched the playback everyone was stunned at how awesome it looked.

 

[dark_b]

i think we need to stop using the word real right?

we can not use ''real''. we can not say that the flying looks real as possible since we will never see a real man flying like that.

its only about imagination imo. i can still enjoy old movies that are using more fake CGI than today. why? i dont let tha tthe fakness ruins the movie for me.
lets talk about hulk. he was always CGI. he didnt look real. but: the hair looked,skin,clothes looked real. and this made it easier. but in no way was hulk real. i think the expressions were enough good.
i also thikn that when he was in an environment with a human it was good enough. it will always be hard to have a CGI character with a human together. look at ann and king kong. when you see king kong touching ann he looks more fake than when he is alone in the jungle. why? well i think because our branins notice everything.

ultimate fan made also a good poitn about the suit and the looks of brandon. the suit is so designed that it has a comic feel. IMO also the body looks like from the comics. not the size but the body type. and i think that when you see him in hte movie you will think that it is CGI even if it is not. plus the genesis camera can also confuse us.

 

[Tony Stark]

To me it's not a matter of looking real, I just don't like the animators concepts that they came up with.

As I've mentioned several times, there's a scene of Superman flying through the streets of Metropolis that looks like the Death Star trench run.

To me Superman appears to rigid, and that may be why people say it doesn't look "real".

 

[buggs0268]

i think we need to stop using the word real right?

we can not use ''real''. we can not say that the flying looks real as possible since we will never see a real man flying like that.

its only about imagination imo. i can still enjoy old movies that are using more fake CGI than today. why? i dont let tha tthe fakness ruins the movie for me.
lets talk about hulk. he was always CGI. he didnt look real. but: the hair looked,skin,clothes looked real. and this made it easier. but in no way was hulk real. i think the expressions were enough good.
i also thikn that when he was in an environment with a human it was good enough. it will always be hard to have a CGI character with a human together. look at ann and king kong. when you see king kong touching ann he looks more fake than when he is alone in the jungle. why? well i think because our branins notice everything.

ultimate fan made also a good poitn about the suit and the looks of brandon. the suit is so designed that it has a comic feel. IMO also the body looks like from the comics. not the size but the body type. and i think that when you see him in hte movie you will think that it is CGI even if it is not. plus the genesis camera can also confuse us.

Well one of the later episodes of THE GREATEST AMERICAN HERO tooka skydiver and put him in the suit (wasn't william katt, and the parashute was in a pouch near the guys leg, which you could see clearly0 but the guy diid fly downward and do banks and a bunch of things and I guess that is as close as we are ever going to see to a real man doing it. I can tall you the cap just blew all over and got in his face alot. but he streaked down at one point and turned and it was cool.

 

[ervann]

Guys, the CGI flying here is amazing! Look!

 

[Peace Maker]

Exactly how real is a man crashing through an airplane wing and coming out intact supposed to look?
How real is a man landing on his feet at about one hundred miles an hour supposed to look?
The simple fact is Supes is surviving things that no human could survive, and I think your problem in understanding stems from the fact that we dont know how these things are supposed to look, since NO HUMAN COULD EVER DO THEM.

I couldn't have said it better myself

 

[bosef982]

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.

Can I kiss you in the Godfather sort of way?

 

[bosef982]

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!

Oh please, don't judge anyone else but yourself.

We're defending inadequacies. How about we're realistic? We're not going to sit around and stroke our egos by criticizing a film that is essentially using some of the best CGI out there.

The fundamental flaw with all this *****ing and whining is that niether Spare-Flair nor anyone else can point to a movie that has BETTER CGI than what we've seen in Superman Returns. No one. What you people essentially want is someone who can really fly doing these things.

Singer's being lazy? Yeah. That shot of Routh being digitally grafted into the scene of him latching onto the wing is so lazy. Someone like Raimi or Jackson would've ahd Routh be CGI in that clip. In this case, not.

He wants what's best for this film? Well, if what's best for this film is a bunch of technology that doesn't exist yet, he's just setting himself up for failure. I'm fairly decent at judging CGI and at knowing what's out there and what's not. This film is using some of the most advanced crap I've seen -- I haven't seen CGI like this in a while, this good I mean. You guys are *****ing and whining that what's best for this film is a REAL FLYING MAN.

I mean, look at Spare-Flairs ramblings about the bullet, which Micheal Corleone just debunked. PErhaps you and Spare-Flair, isntead of trying to decipher what's best for this movie, decipher what's best for yourselves.

To people who don't feel the need to pander to themselves, the CGI in this film will be stunning. Also, the new Genesis camera will have an amazing FX on what is and what is not CGI in this film. If Lucas got away with some of the crap he threw around in Star Wars ROTS, and Jackson got away with some of the shoddy, overrated CGI in Kong, I see no reason why people are stepping up to this plate and knocking SR around.

Oh yeah, it's because this film has a long history of whiny fanboys *****ing their way into their own egos and shamefully lauding their own "visions" in an attempt to seem better, sound better, and perhaps...have better talent.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread.

 

[bosef982]

What does **** mean?

S = Shut
T = The
F = Fornification Under the Consent of the King
U = Up

 

[bosef982]

To me it's not a matter of looking real, I just don't like the animators concepts that they came up with.

As I've mentioned several times, there's a scene of Superman flying through the streets of Metropolis that looks like the Death Star trench run.

To me Superman appears to rigid, and that may be why people say it doesn't look "real".

But that comes from the phsyics involved. Reeve's Superman flew very very fast, but did so looking kind of wobbly. Always threw me off.

In this one, while yse it is rigid, it makes sense. If Superman is flying that fast that far, he'd have to be rigid. Does a Glider go as fast as at Mach Jet. No, part of its the aerodynamics nad structural integrity. If Superman was to look loose while moving so fast...it'd just look off and funny. Making himself rigid and missile-like makes perfect sense, and Superman would know this to a degree b/c in many ways he still has to funciton within the realm of physics. The slightest superflous movement as he's flying so fast could send him off course or what not.

And about him flying so close to the street, I think that's just the scene where he's saving everything. And God, does that look awesome.

Also, look at some of the more graceful shots of him flying.

 

[Hunter Rider]

This isn't about the Plasticine thunderbirds style landing shot so i fail to see the point,all the other effects look stellar to me

 

[bosef982]

This isn't about the Plasticine thunderbirds style landing shot so i fail to see the point,all the other effects look stellar to me

It's about him falling shot, where you can barely see Superman in the first place. It's also about the "bulletshot" which apparently according to some defies their knowledge in 9th grade physics.

Oh well..

 

[skruloos]

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).

Frankly? No. The way it is shown in the trailer creates dramatic tension. The focus of the moment is not on the shooter but rather the bullet as it hits Superman's eye. That's the whole point to the scene. Shooting it another way would detract from that.

Now maybe in your movie, that's how you would shoot it and it might look great. As it is, it serves its purpose in Singer's trailer quite well.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

For me, it's a matter of LOOKING real enough that it won't take me out of the moment.

No, it doesn't have to look exactly real....down to every detail....but as long as it doesn't look like some cartoon in place where I'd feel "That looks like crap." So, for me....that's the point of CGI looking good.

The CGI looks great btw, and the flying looks pretty damn realistic to me. In terms of physics, and stuff like that.

 

[Cinemaman]

I think CGI effects looks awesome, but not so real. Anyway, they are better than Matrix effects.

 

[SuperWig]

Spiderman used a lot of CGI for the effects...did it ruin the movie? Is anyone saying "Spiderman sucked cause of all the CGI." Please!!!