Superman Returns This cool shot almost didn't make the film!

[Nightwing1977]

In the sequel we'll see Supes take a nutshot, just to settle THAT age-old question.

He he!! Balls of steel, man. It like kicking someone who is wearing a metal jockstrap.

And I'm glad that "bullet to the eye" is still in the movie. It one of the best money maker scene I ever seen in a Superman movie.

 

[NotFadeAway]

2.3 MILLION!!! Holy Heyzeus, thats exactly 2.3 million dollars that could helped bring in Metallo or possibly helped pay for a corporate tower and dress it be Lexcorp

Right, back to exile...........

EDIT: Screw that, Im coming back!! Im done with SHH on Friday anyway, just long enough to see my possible ownage thread!!!

 

[Spare-Flair]

What a bloody waste of money for a poorly choreographed and poorly thought out scene. How does it cost that much money to take a still shot of a REAL person from the side and then animated a CG cylinder (which doesn't even need any real reflection mapping since it's at night in the dark) that goes toward the eye with some commonly used "distorted air" shaders behind it and then crumples and falls to the ground?

This is ridiculous. And then the stupid henchman and Superman both have the same reaction time to watch the bullet fall to the ground. Like I've said before, I'd flinch if I shot somebody in the face point blank and I heard it bounce off.

You try shooting a gun into a steel wall at point blank range and see if you have the perceptive speed to track it as the remains fall to the ground. It's not a cool shot, it's another worthless Singer shot, money that could have been spent on other areas.

 

[Gogo Bananas]

It does work better in the context of the entire scene, and the civilians at my showing really liked it.

 

[DorkyFresh]

What a bloody waste of money for a poorly choreographed and poorly thought out scene. blah blah blah

cry me a river. where's your milk bottle?

 

[Spare-Flair]

cry me a river. where's your milk bottle?

Fascinating how it's always the same response. Somebody whips out the baby joke or the whaaambulance picture instead of actually making an argument.

Calling somebody a "whiner" is the cheap way out. You tell me how the behavior and abilities of the bank robber is plausible? It's lazy directing for what could have been a great scene with the shooter in slow motion simultaneously flinching back with gunsmoke caught in frozen air as the bullet slowly drifts through it to the ground as Superman moving faster than the shooter who is recoiling back in slow motion. Superman calmly watches the bullet slowly drift down while smiling like an intrigued child. You get both dramatic action, a fantastic spectacle, and a light hearted audience tease within the same sequence.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i don't need to argue with you...i can tell by your post that you don't know how movies work.

 

[Spare-Flair]

i don't need to argue with you...i can tell by your post that you don't know how movies work.

Please explain then why I don't know how movies work? That'd help.

 

[DorkyFresh]

why you don't know how movies work? i dunno...i don't know your life story so i couldn't tell ya why you don't know how movies work.

 

[Spare-Flair]

why you don't know how movies work? i dunno...i don't know your life story so i couldn't tell ya why you don't know how movies work.

haha. Look, I'm just trying to discuss what I see a lazy scene that doesn't pay attention to the details when the devil in in the details and he sure should be when it costs 2.3 million for a few seconds of footage.

The way the shooter watches the bullet drop the ground in slow motion has always irked me as ridiculous.

 

[DorkyFresh]

so since you want actions as realistic as a robber flinching instead of watching the bullet fall to the ground, i guess you'd want Superman to kick off his shoes and take his pants off everytime he changes from Clark to Supes right? i mean...that's a big level of detail that they clearly miss in most recent depictions of Superman...

 

[Spare-Flair]

so since you want actions as realistic as a robber flinching instead of watching the bullet fall to the ground, i guess you'd want Superman to kick off his shoes and take his pants off everytime he changes from Clark to Supes right? i mean...that's a big level of detail that they clearly miss in most recent depictions of Superman...

The bullet scene is shown in slow motion. Whenever Superman changes, the world is in real time while he is changing at accelerated speed. It's assumed to be too fast for the eye to see and the camera to ever capture. They would never show Superman in slow motion or a mechanical interruption of time unless it was intentionally part of comedy (like when he opens his shirt to find no suit underneath).

 

[Aren]

I really really really can't understand why did they spend 2.3 millions for that shot...

 

[DorkyFresh]

we see Superman rip his shirt open and take his jacket off while flying up an elevator in real time without any kind of blur, why wouldn't we be able to see him take his pants and shoes off too? you said you want attention to detail...well, that's a detail. why would he bother to take his shirt and jacket off at human speed and use superspeed to take his pants and shoes off?

 

[moop501]

Jeez,it's not like it ruined the movie...get over it.

It's done,and it was something extra that Singer(and lots of others) thought was a nice touch.

 

[Spare-Flair]

we see Superman rip his shirt open and take his jacket off while flying up an elevator in real time without any kind of blur, why wouldn't we be able to see him take his pants and shoes off too? you said you want attention to detail...well, that's a detail. why would he bother to take his shirt and jacket off at human speed and use superspeed to take his pants and shoes off?

Because he's superman, he can do whatever he wants and it's a real-time action sequence in which unseen actions are the status quo. But mechanical slowing of time in films is used to accentuate and reveal every hidden action. The slow motion sequence forces the audience to focus on the characters in the scene.

Personally, I think what resulted was sort of like the old film faux-pas of never filming an actor from too close or they will appear to overact. The slow motion provides the same focus.

 

[DorkyFresh]

But mechanical slowing of time in films is used to accentuate and reveal every hidden action.

and that's why Singer wanted this shot in the movie. it's a simple way (instead of using a nuke) to show just how indestructable he is and what kind of impact he has on something us humans consider so deadly...

The slow motion sequence forces the audience to focus on the characters in the scene.

first off, speak for yourself....not the audience. you don't know what the audience focused on...i seriously doubt you went around asking moviegoers what they focused on when they saw the scene...

...that being said, i focused more on the bullet and the eye than i did the actors themselves.

 

[Ender Durden]

why the **** DID that cost 2.3?

its seems like all they couldve done was just film brandons head and make a slow pan around him and add the cg bullet and fire and just animate it bouncing off his damned eyeball, which i doubt wouldve cost 2 MILLION DOLLARS.

instead they probably used the cg model of brandon, which pumped up cost just for ONE SIMPLE TURN AROUND HIS FACE. this entire shot is probably cg, which seems pretty unnecessary. thats the only reason i can think of for it to cost that much.


but then again i dont know crap about filmmaking so whatever

 

[Naite22]

well then if it's so easy...i'd love to see you (or ANYONE else) duplicate it with the same attention to detail that they put into it. if you can do that effect and make it look as good then i'll totally agree, but until you know all that it takes to make that shot look as good as it does then you can't say it's an 'easy task'. if it's such an easy task then back your talk up with actions...

...talkers don't do and doers don't talk.

It's NO EASY TASK! I aint saying that I can do it, ovbviously, but for the worlds greatest CGI makers, a bullet hitting an eye and falling down is not a tough job, comparred to all the other **** they pull off in this film.. is that so hard to comprehend!???

 

[moop501]

The film makers aren't idiots,you know.They know how to do this stuff and they most likely tried to find the cheapest,most efficient ways to do this.

On the other hand,most of us don't know how it all works,how much every little thing cost,etc....

 

[Sevb30]

That's why it's harder to please audiences these days, they are so spoiled by visual effects often, pretty much nothing amazes peoples anymore, especially like it would have 25+ years ago.

 

[Sandman138]

I really really really can't understand why did they spend 2.3 millions for that shot...

They didn't, they spent 2.3 million for the bank robbery sequence in its entirety.

 

[Phildizzle]

I wish they hadnt had this shot in the trailers or tv spots. It would have been nice to actually see this for the first time on the big screen with the packed theater. It had no pop at all because most probably had seen it already it the spots. I thought it was cool and was glad they have it in there. Some people havent seen the old movies so they to show just how indestructible he is even down to the smallest detail.