Superman Returns Have your thoughts about the suit changed?

[Morgoth]

I was in my Comic shop yesterday and this guy was in there at the counter and he started going off about the suit.

He said:"For one it shouldn't be a turtle neck, with a half sized , and what's with all the little S's all over it?!, And that shower curtain on his back! And Routh and Kate don't look like Clark and Lois. They're too young and that forehead is a fivehead on Bosworth!"

It's true, fans know their stuff, and not all of them will just back down, bend over and take the crap they're given out of desperation for a movie with their favorite Superhero.

If this movie turns out to suck, I can always just watch the cartoons for real Superman stories. That wasn't the first fan and non comic book reader to say all that.

 

[skruloos]

I was in my Comic shop yesterday and this guy was in there at the counter and he started going off about the suit.

He said:"For one it shouldn't be a turtle neck, with a half sized , and what's with all the little S's all over it?!, And that shower curtain on his back! And Routh and Kate don't look like Clark and Lois. They're too young and that forehead is a fivehead on Bosworth!"

So you frequent the same comic books store as Buggs. Way to go.

It's true, fans know their stuff, and not all of them will just back down, bend over and take the crap they're given out of desperation for a movie with their favorite Superhero.

Could be. Or it could also be that some are hoping for crap like Collora's oeuvre of fanfilms because they're "true to the comics".

If this movie turns out to suck, I can always just watch the cartoons for real Superman stories. That wasn't the first fan and non comic book reader to say all that.

That's true for any movie though. If any movie sucks, people will not see it. But that's the thing about coming up with these pre-judgments about the movie or parts of it before it comes out. The same type of people did the same thing during Batman Begins, Spider-man and X-Men as well as other poorer superhero films. There were arguments about costumes and changing certain characteristics of different characters. But those ultimately didn't matter if the story was engrossing and entertaining.

Sure, there will always be people who are nitpicky about certain things. They will let things like a rubber costume, a racial change for the character, or a character that isn't the correct height, ruin a movie for them. My advice to those people? Stick to the comics. The movies don't have to follow your strict guidelines that you want them to because you're such a "fan". Leave the movies for those who can appreciate them. The "fans" know the comics. Good for them. These films aren't the comics.

 

[Milkman95]

^Amen.........

 

[musclesforsupes]

If for some reason this movie does go the way of say King Kong, then I think the Superman movies will be done till the rights get given to another studio, then by then it will probably have a restart.

 

[afan]

Sure, there will always be people who are nitpicky about certain things. They will let things like a rubber costume, a racial change for the character, or a character that isn't the correct height, ruin a movie for them. My advice to those people? Stick to the comics. The movies don't have to follow your strict guidelines that you want them to because you're such a "fan". Leave the movies for those who can appreciate them. The "fans" know the comics. Good for them. These films aren't the comics.

Would you accept these changes in the Superman film?

 

[ToddIsDead]

The rights won't be given to another studio. WB has owned DC for God knows how long. They're not going to be selling their most important character.

 

[Mr. Thing]

Would you accept these changes in the Superman film?

I wouldn't initially, but I wouldn't really let it destroy my enjoyment of the film, cos at the end of the day seeing the film is for one thing, my enjoyment.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Could be. Or it could also be that some are hoping for crap like Collora's oeuvre of fanfilms because they're "true to the comics".

Exactly, Collora's "films" are proof that accuracy does not necessarily = quality. Film and comics are obviously very different mediums/medias and one does not easily translate to the other. Something will be lost and other things will need to be compensated to make up for it.

 

[Showtime]

That's true for any movie though. If any movie sucks, people will not see it. But that's the thing about coming up with these pre-judgments about the movie or parts of it before it comes out. The same type of people did the same thing during Batman Begins, Spider-man and X-Men as well as other poorer superhero films. There were arguments about costumes and changing certain characteristics of different characters. But those ultimately didn't matter if the story was engrossing and entertaining.

People have short memories.

 

[afan]

Exactly, Collora's "films" are proof that accuracy does not necessarily = quality. Film and comics are obviously very different mediums/medias and one does not easily translate to the other. Something will be lost and other things will need to be compensated to make up for it.

Re. Collora's shorts and the accuracy = quality, point; how so?

Interesting to me that one of the first visual stages and crucial building blocks for the development of a feature film involves the creation of a story board, which is a graphically rendered panel layout, basically a comic book if you will. So that being understood where exactly does this giant gap between the media exist?

 

[skruloos]

Would you accept these changes in the Superman film?

It depends on the final product, doesn't it? Just as it did with the other films I mentioned.

 

[skruloos]

Re. Collora's shorts and the accuracy = quality, point; how so?

Interesting to me that one of the first visual stages and crucial building blocks for the development of a feature film involves the creation of a story board, which is a graphically rendered panel layout, basically a comic book if you will. So that being understood where exactly does this giant gap between the media exist?

Uh...possibly in everything after storyboarding. It is in the cinematography, the editing, the sound effects, the score, the costuming, the performances, etc. Look at the drastic differences there are between storyboards and a finished live action film. Would you look at a set of storyboards and think, "That's great. I don't need to see the movie now,"? No. Storyboards are merely a foundation. There is a world of difference between what appears in the storyboard in 2D form and what appears as 3D live action that takes place in real time.

 

[afan]

It depends on the final product, doesn't it? Just as it did with the other films I mentioned.

Of course it does; you state the obvious, and you cleverly avoided answering my question.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Re. Collora's film and the accuracy = quality, point; how so?

I'm not sure what you mean with that sentence. If you're saying that Collora's films are quality, I'm disagreeing with you. They're poorly acted, amateurishly shot, badly written shorts, and I see them as nothing more than decent fanfilms (because I'm grading on a curve).

Interesting to me that one of the first visual stages and crucial building blocks for the development of a feature film involves the creation of a story board, which is a graphically rendered panel layout, basically a comic book if you will. So that being understood where exactly does this giant gap between the media exist?

It's pretty obvious where the gap is. First, comic books have an enormous amount of time to build characters, establish stories, introduce conflict, etc. Movies on the other hand obviously do not. One movie has to accomplish what many, many comic books can do in a much more leisurely pace.

The film, in doing so, has to cut out the fat, compress certain aspects, and/or totally omit certain bits.

Secondly, it's the visual aspect. Guys with huge muscles, Greek god-like appearances, and tight spandex outfits do not translate to our world very well in some cases, and sometimes certain liberties have to be taken to give the costumes 'tangibility' or real world believability.

Case in point is the Clark Betram who plays Batman in Collora's Dead End. He's closer to how Batman is portrayed in comics often, as a muscle-ripped, huge hulking fellow. Unfortunately, in this film, his huge size makes him come off as slow and clumsy, and not at all stealthy as Batman should be.

And his costume is pretty faithful as well, but it comes off as looking cheap in the real world since it lacks layers, textures, and other things to give it a durable feel.

 

[afan]

Uh...possibly in everything after storyboarding. It is in the cinematography, the editing, the sound effects, the score, the costuming, the performances, etc. Look at the drastic differences there are between storyboards and a finished live action film. Would you look at a set of storyboards and think, "That's great. I don't need to see the movie now,"? No. Storyboards are merely a foundation. There is a world of difference between what appears in the storyboard in 2D form and what appears as 3D live action that takes place in real time.

A film is just as 2D as a printed page.
Everything you've detailed save the score is in a comic, just delivered via a different methodology. The cinematography, costuming and performances are all the result of the talent of the illustrator and writer, the editing is the flow between the panels, the sound effects are of course printed words.
Now can a film deliver a richer visual and auditory experience; of course the answer is yes, but are they wildly different media, the answer for me is no.

 

[skruloos]

Of course it does; you state the obvious, and you cleverly avoided answering my question.

Well, I can't say because it entirely depends on the final product. So I can't answer your question honestly, now can I?

 

[afan]

Well, I can't say because it entirely depends on the final product. So I can't answer your question honestly, now can I?

Okay.

 

[afan]

I'm not sure what you mean with that sentence. If you're saying that Collora's films are quality, I'm disagreeing with you. They're poorly acted, amateurishly shot, badly written shorts, and I see them as nothing more than decent fanfilms (because I'm grading on a curve).

You pointed to Collora's shorts to illustrate your point re. accuracy not necessarily equaling quality, and I wondered exactly how accuracy impacted the Collora efforts.

 

[skruloos]

A film is just as 2D as a printed page.
Everything you've detailed save the score is in a comic, just delivered via a different methodology. The cinematography, costuming and performances are all the result of the talent of the illustrator and writer, the editing is the flow between the panels, the sound effects are of course printed words.
Now can a film deliver a richer visual and auditory experience; of course the answer is yes, but are they wildly different media, the answer for me is no.

I'm sorry but I disagree. Just as there are differences between hand drawn animation and 3D CGI, there are differences between film and 2D printed pages. And while illustrators are masters at pacing and angles, it is quite difference from cinematography. No matter how good an illustrator it, comics do not convey a full sense of 3D movement in real time that camera moves, push ins, and tracking shots will in a film. And reading sound effects is quite different from aural sound design. The fact that films deliver a richer visual and auditory experience is part of the reason why they are completely different media.

Let's take a look at something like costuming and how different it is between media. Different fabrics have different values on camera. Some will reflect light differently, some will absorb light differently. Textures will change how one color will look like. In the case of superhero outfits, different stretch fabrics will behave differently. They will bunch up. They will wrinkle. They hide muscle definition. They sometimes restrict movement. How do you handle this? These are things that are not covered in the storyboards. A comic artist does not have to worry about these things because they have complete control over everything they do. They don't necessarily worry about materials and interaction with light on a moving subject because they can help dictate what colors appear where in any given frame. They don't have to worry about muscle definition or wrinkles, or restricting movement because comic art is not bound by real world physics.

Great cinematography, performances, and sound design will actually make a person feel as if they are within the action in the film. It is a completely visceral experience at that point. A comic book, however, because it is the victim of time gaps between panels and the lack of physical movement in real time relies much more on imagination to fill in the blanks of action. As a form of literature, it is more cerebral in nature. The reading experience is NOT the same as the watching/listening experience.

This is not a knock on comics at all. This, instead, works in their favor. Because comics, and to a lesser extent cartoons, do not depict real life actors in photoreal situations, the audience is more forgiving in their suspension of disbelief. Animated films can get away with unrealistic motions and actions. Comics can get away with heightened action. Most films, because they reproduce real physics and people interacting in the real world, are not as forgiving. People have higher expectations for realism as deviations would actually pull them away from the narrative. In order for a movie to introduce anything fantastical, it must be done in such a stylistic manner that your suspension of disbelief is already set high. Otherwise, different actions will stand out. Why do you think so many people complain about CGI? Comics don't have that problem. They're already stylized.

 

[skruloos]

You pointed to Collora's shorts to illustrate your point re. accuracy not necessarily equaling quality, and I wondered exactly how accuracy impacted the Collora efforts.

Let's see. He was more consumed with getting muscle bound people who looked physically like their characters over someone who could actually act. I'd say that impacts it quite a bit. He used spandex costumes that looked "just like the comics" but was more like a bunch of grown men in Halloween costumes. Batman, even though he looked like the comics in still frames, looked completely ridiculous in a light fabric cape and a spandex body suit. It was even worse when he appeared in broad daylight in the World's Finest trailer.

Was he limited by his budget? Sure. But crap was still crap and all the accuracy in the world wasn't going to save his little fan shorts.

 

[JamalYIgle]

A film is just as 2D as a printed page.
Everything you've detailed save the score is in a comic, just delivered via a different methodology. The cinematography, costuming and performances are all the result of the talent of the illustrator and writer, the editing is the flow between the panels, the sound effects are of course printed words.
Now can a film deliver a richer visual and auditory experience; of course the answer is yes, but are they wildly different media, the answer for me is no.

Actually I have to take you to task on this one. What appears on the printed page is great and it waht we strive to bring about but by virtue of the medium what works in comics doesn't always translate to real life, or film. there is a cerain amount of suspension of belief in Comics , that a 6'3 inch bodybuilder can go around unnoticed as a high profile newspaper reporter and operate, unmasked mind you, as a Superpowered being in skin tight spandex and a cape.

 

[StarvingArtist]

A film can have all of the elements of the source material and still be amazing.

 

[Showtime]

Yes Collara, the mediocrity continues.

 

[Morgoth]

So you frequent the same comic books store as Buggs. Way to go.



Sure, there will always be people who are nitpicky about certain things. They will let things like a rubber costume, a racial change for the character, or a character that isn't the correct height, ruin a movie for them. My advice to those people? Stick to the comics. The movies don't have to follow your strict guidelines that you want them to because you're such a "fan". Leave the movies for those who can appreciate them. The "fans" know the comics. Good for them. These films aren't the comics.

No but they are based on them, you have to respect where they came from, and that suit does look gay. It sucks. Superman hasn't had one good movie. Good actors but no good movies.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Actually I have to take you to task on this one. What appears on the printed page is great and it waht we strive to bring about but by virtue of the medium what works in comics doesn't always translate to real life, or film. there is a cerain amount of suspension of belief in Comics , that a 6'3 inch bodybuilder can go around unnoticed as a high profile newspaper reporter and operate, unmasked mind you, as a Superpowered being in skin tight spandex and a cape.

The problem is what version of the character the film is adapting. An adaption of say, Fliescher's Superman or perhaps even Swan's would be considerably more conducive for film as opposed to a rendition featuring Bogdanov's crazy muscle supes. But then you begin to get into people's personal preferences in versions of the character. A film that sticks close to the source material of one version cannot be held accountable for the harsh reactions and claims of source material violation from people who prefer a different version of the character.