Do you prefer "live-action" or would you like CGI?

[Rock Sexton]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this. Sometimes I can't help but wonder how these movies would turn out all CGI .... could you imagine if Thor was done that way? Oh my.

 

[MadVillainy]

Live action

 

[Eddie Dean]

A Pixar Fantastic Four film done in Kirby style would be amazing.

 

[C. Lee]

I prefer to see live action as the primary way of showcasing my heroes...but I wouldn't mind seeing some well done CGI movies as well.

 

[El Payaso]

Live action.

 

[Silvermoth]

Live action done well. I wouldn't be against seeing a CGI superhero film but only as a rare treat rather than the norm.

 

[SuperFerret]

CGI, live action, traditional animation, as long as it's good.

 

[Ultra Lantern]

Live Action

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

For now, with current technology, I prefer live action, but I was VERY impressed with the quality of the graphics in "Rango":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHm5-av1Uks


I would be interested in seeing something with graphics like that . . . but I think we still need to make some technological leaps before the appearance of CGI humans will look right. Something like the incredibles is too "cartoony" for a serious feature.

 

[BigThor]

Live Action with CGI only being used where it's needed like "powers", "characters like Hulk", and "over the top destruction".

 

[SuperFerret]

Something like the incredibles is too "cartoony" for a serious feature.

Comic. Book. Super. Heroes.

 

[bubbadoom]

While I do prefer live action, projects like THE ETERNALS might work better in CGI, just because the scope could be opened up enough to do the book justice - and of course they should make the design 100% Kirby!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Comic. Book. Super. Heroes.

You'll notice that there's a difference in style between Marvel comics and Disney comics (or films). Marvel comics have always shown fantastic environments and characters as realistically as possible. They don't have the kind of cartoonishly exaggerated expressions and body shapes of works designed to be more humorous.

There is a difference between cartoons and (Marvel) comic books.

 

[Timstuff]

Some franchises, like The Fantastic 4 are difficult to bring to live action while downplaying the silliness of seeing a character like Ben Grimm interact with normal people. Serious characters usually work a lot better in live action, but in the case of The Fantastic 4, I think they'd be better suited to a stylized animated film. Not quite like The Incredibles (since let's face it, we wouldn't want the two franchises stepping on each others' toes), but still somewhere in that neighborhood.

What I don't want to see is "realistic" CG films based on superheroes. If you're going to use CG to try and make Superheroes look "real" you may as well just shoot in live action. CG animated films are a lot more enjoyable when they're stylized, and the box office data shows strong evidence that the general public agrees. If you're going to use CG, it should be because you intend to play up the more humorous and "too crazy for real life" nature of a particular character, and whether not such a character is too "out there" for live action is something that must be decided with discretion.

For example-- Plastic Man would just plain be a stupid character to do in live action. As a CG cartoon though, he could actually be quite entertaining!

 

[3 Dev Adam]

When I saw the making of Iron Man 2, I didn't even KNEW that a lot of scenes I thought were live action were CGI. So, as long as I can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter.

 

[SuperFerret]

You'll notice that there's a difference in style between Marvel comics and Disney comics (or films). Marvel comics have always shown fantastic environments and characters as realistically as possible. They don't have the kind of cartoonishly exaggerated expressions and body shapes of works designed to be more humorous.

There is a difference between cartoons and (Marvel) comic books.

You'll notice that there's a difference between animation in general and Disney.

Don't take this stuff too seriously. They're still basically cartoon characters.

 

[Mysterioman]

A Deadpool or Spider-Man animated movie by the same people who did Hulk V.S. would be awesome. It could even be a heavy PG-13 or R. Since it could be a direct to DVD, they wouldn't have to force the rating down to fit a "targeted audience" necessarily.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Have anyone watched this trailer for the Thor video game? I still can't help but wonder just how epic a full on CGI treatment would be for some of these characters ... or even the Avengers ....

[YT]rXwKuRoOkEg [/YT]

 

[GhostPoet]

for Marvel, live action.

but for DC, I feel they translate better into CGI.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It depends on the content.

 

[Grayson]

CGI, but that's because I just generally prefer animation over live-action.

 

[UnkillableMick]

With the amazing job Marvel Studios has been doing with its live action movies so far, I'd definitely prefer them to keep doing the same.

In fact, I was a bit horrified at those rumours of an animated Doctor Stange movie last year.

Keep it all live action, and in the same universe.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Can't we just have it all?

 

[SPIDERFIST]

Can't we just have it all?

Eeeeeeexactly!!!

I think the story and motif (live action/animation/CGI) need to coincide with one another.

I love "live action" superhero films, always will. But I think the characters typically work best in animation. It's like the comic pages are coming to life. The feats of the characters and the environments get a truer depiction. But that's me.

CGI sort of levels the playing field for"live action" in that regard. "Live action" superhero films seem to be feast or famine, too. (With the exception of this year. They're gonna start rolling out, like, every 2 wks. over the summer now. t It takes so long to make 'em.

I know, I know.....the same can be said for animation films, too. DC was busting 'em out there for a while. Marvel picked up, too, but now it all seems to have ground to halt almost.

I guess I come down on the side of animation. But I would love to see an entirely CGI DC or Marvel property. And it's nowhere near as expensive as it used to be to do. The TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES movie was done for like $30M and made its bank back opening weekend of its release. It was completely CGI and looked sweet. It can be done!

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Live Action. When it comes to superhero movies, live action is needed for me. For some reason, CGI never has an epic effect on me, for example, The Incredibles- great movie, great action, great superhero family movie, but for me, even the most action packed scenes weren't epic, and that's because when I see a fully cartoon, it takes away from the "real" world, and isn't believable. However, when CGI is added with practical effects in live action I'm fine with that.