David Goyer hired to write Man of Steel

[FilmNerdJamie]

The movie was crap. Surely no one would be stupid enough to reply with a "Well it made a lot of money! So there!" excuse. Plenty of crap movies make a fortune. I'll save you the time and say "Get a real argument"

Case in point.

If it passes Titanic and breaks the 1 billion mark, i say it is good. Most of the world agrees with me.

I guess that makes the Transformers movies, Spider-Man 3, the Pirates sequels, etc. good movies. Your "argument" = Fail. Thanks for playing.

 

[batman44]

I must be the only person who hasn't seen Avatar yet.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I for one would love to see Superman flying though the clouds in IMAX 3D, wooshing sound in surround sound

The tagline?

"You`ll believe you can fly"

Got me sold on it. I'm ready to hand over my $12

 

[redfirebird2008]

I enjoyed Avatar. I am looking forward to buying it on Blu-ray so I can finally see it in 2D with a nice crisp image, NO GLASSES REQUIRED!

 

[bunk]

Comparing 3D to CGI is ridiculous.

I'm not sure how describing CGI and 3D technologies as tools for film makers is ridiculous. Keep in mind, your feelings on either is irrelevant to what they are.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Comparing 3D to CGI is ridiculous.

Agreed. 3D is a gimmick that is being pushed upon the viewing audience because its a new way to get butts in the seats. Is it going away? That's a difficult question especially if the technology gets better and glasses are no longer needed, but that will require a radical change in screen technology and can not be accomplished using a projector. It certainly won't see mainstream use for every film release. No one wants to see The Reader or Up in the Air in 3D. I would argue that it has a more likely home in Television than it does in theaters which seeing the reasoning for its implementation is a bit ironic.

CGI on the other hand is an ever growing tool that will continue to improve not just big budget action films, but smaller ones as it can be used for aspects such as background replacement. It's cheaper and going to get even cheaper to put your actors in a virtual location rather than flying an entire production to the actual place. There are plenty of features and television shows currently that I would bet money on no one being able to tell the difference.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'm not sure how describing CGI and 3D technologies as tools for film makers is ridiculous. Keep in mind, your feelings on either is irrelevant to what they are.

All 3D is something coming out of the screen. That's it.

CGI has made people believe dinosaurs, the Na'vi, Gollum, etc. are real. That Benjamin Button is really aging backwards. Countless examples.

I will give Cameron this. At least he actually filmed it (i.e. framed his shots working with the director of photography and effects team) in 3D instead of doing it in post. He didn't resort to throwing **** outta the screen (like the Alice in Wonderland trailer in front of Avatar) did. The 3D work was subtle and carefully crafted. It looked amazing, but it's just something popping out at you at the end of the day. There's nothing more one can do with that technology than that.

The fact that Marc Webb has taken meetings with Cameron and filming the Spider-Man reboot is encouraging imo.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Whaterver, Jamie. The whole world disagree with you. I THOUGHT IT WAS ****ING AWESOME!!! Too bad you can`t enjoy it.

 

[Michael Corleone]

I'm not sure how describing CGI and 3D technologies as tools for film makers is ridiculous. Keep in mind, your feelings on either is irrelevant to what they are.

CGI is a tool, 3D is a gimmick. There is no comparison.

 

[Octoberist]

Avatar was good but not "OMG" great. I wish he could polish up the dialog or at least had more solid character development.

 

[topdog1]

I must be the only person who hasn't seen Avatar yet.

You're really not missing much. I saw Avatar in 2D and was severely underwhelmed.

Back to Supes, why are any fans complaining? To be honest, three of the five Superman films have been awful. That's a terrible track record. Using John Byrne's take on the character is exactly what they need. Hell, Byrne saved the character back in the day by "Marvelizing" it. If Goyer can do the same now, more power to him.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

CGI more often than not is used to serve the story. 3D up until more recently has certainly been less about serving the story. However a film like Superman could utilize the medium and make it more story than gimmick for sure.

 

[SuperDaniel]

It`s not a gimmick. It`s a start on the technollogy that it is going to put you inside the movies.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Whaterver, Jamie. The whole world disagree with you. I THOUGHT IT WAS ****ING AWESOME!!! Too bad you can`t enjoy it.

Not the whole world. Let's not let this thread get off topic but seriously, Avatar was the best laced kool aid in the world and people drank it.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Avatar was good but not "OMG" great. I wish he could polish up the dialog or at least had more solid character development.

This requires humility. James Cameron has none, just like his buddy George Lucas (don't you just love the prequel trilogy dialogue?!!!).

 

[bunk]

All 3D is something coming out of the screen. That's it.

Sure, it typically is. Sometimes it's more about going into the screen, but that's neither here, nor there.

CGI has made people believe dinosaurs, the Na'vi, Gollum, etc. are real. That Benjamin Button is really aging backwards. Countless examples.

Right. I'm pretty sure I never indicated 3D technology was as important—as practical—as efficient—as useful—or as revolutionary as CGI. Only that the both fall into the same category of "tools" for the film maker to use as they see fit.

 

[Michael Corleone]

It`s not a gimmick. It`s a start on the technollogy that it is going to put you inside the movies.

It's a gimmick. Don't buy what the studio is feeding you. It's a well marketed and interesting gimmick. But years from now, it's still going to be 3D and 3D alone. There is no advancement other than the way it will be projected or captured. It's not going to "put you inside the movie". It's essentially the same technology that it was back in the 50s only the specifics have changed.

 

[bunk]

CGI is a tool, 3D is a gimmick. There is no comparison.

I'm not comparing them; I'm grouping them. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Whaterver, Jamie. The whole world disagree with you. I THOUGHT IT WAS ****ING AWESOME!!! Too bad you can`t enjoy it.

Please refrain from sitting at the adult's table until you can come up with an actual argument and/or rebuttal. Since you can't (nor do you ever), good-bye.

 

[Crook]

CGI is a tool, 3D is a gimmick. There is no comparison.

Gimmicks are tools. Whether you consider 3D to be a fad is irrelevant to it's function.

This is the equivalent of "Vegetables are food. Potato Chips aren't"

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

**** 3D. Nothing but a gimmick to jack up ticket prices. This fad will pass.

Did you ever know that you're my Hero?

 

[Michael Corleone]

Sure, it typically is. Sometimes it's more about going into the screen, but that's neither here, nor there.



Right. I'm pretty sure I never indicated 3D technology was as important—as practical—as efficient—as useful—or as revolutionary as CGI. Only that the both fall into the same category of "tools" for the film maker to use as they see fit.

Just make sure you don't go around ILM or Zoic studios saying that. You might get jumped. It's certainly not viewed as a "tool" in professional circles.

 

[Octoberist]

i really don't see how 3D is as important as the CGI movement of the 90s. That's just insane talk right there.

 

[Octoberist]

3D is meant to complement CGI and the images; that's it.

 

[rocco2216]

This requires humility. James Cameron has none, just like his buddy George Lucas (don't you just love the prequel trilogy dialogue?!!!).

Oh the dialogue in Avatar was ten times better than the dialogue in the prequels lol.