If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   That time Christopher Reeve was subtly CGI'd into Man of Steel   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 69
    More: Spiffy, Christopher Reeves, Henry Cavill, Man of Steel, Brandon Routh, CGI'd, Jor-El, horse riding, Krypton  
•       •       •

12901 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jun 2013 at 11:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-01 08:58:38 AM

Vaneshi: It's good that the film at least threw that in, sure Reeve was by some accounts a bit of a dick before his accident but as far as portraying the duality of the character... yeah he pretty much hit the nail on the head.   You couldn't tell from his performance that Clark was anything other than a fairly nice guy from the American mid-west.


Now I've not seen Man of Steel yet but hopefully the new actor can pull off both parts of the role just as well.


The movie is about him becoming superman, so he hasn't separated out the two personas yet. If you want to see if he can play "Clark Kent" as Reeves played him, you'll have to wait for the next film.

I have a feeling it won't be quite as distinct as Reeves played it, but I think he's very believable so far.
 
2013-07-01 10:43:59 AM

QT_3.14159: Vaneshi: It's good that the film at least threw that in, sure Reeve was by some accounts a bit of a dick before his accident but as far as portraying the duality of the character... yeah he pretty much hit the nail on the head.   You couldn't tell from his performance that Clark was anything other than a fairly nice guy from the American mid-west.


Now I've not seen Man of Steel yet but hopefully the new actor can pull off both parts of the role just as well.

The movie is about him becoming superman, so he hasn't separated out the two personas yet. If you want to see if he can play "Clark Kent" as Reeves played him, you'll have to wait for the next film.

I have a feeling it won't be quite as distinct as Reeves played it, but I think he's very believable so far.


The scene in the original Superman, where C. Reeves is in Lois Lane's flat and goes from meek Clark Kent to Superman, and then back to Kent, is one of the most underrated piece of acting, and shows how Reeves was the absolute best choice at the time to play the role.
 
2013-07-01 11:00:08 AM

BHShaman: Got to love those old school uni's

[latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 500x324]

[www.polyvore.com image 300x300]


seconded.

static.comicvine.com

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-01 11:09:20 AM

Sgt Otter: NewportBarGuy: Meanwhile it has been reported that Mark Strong is reportedly being considered to play Lex Luthor in Man of Steel 2.

The Kick-Ass actor is said to be director Zack Snyder's favourite choice for the iconic role of Superman's arch nemesis in a follow-up to the comic book movie, according to CosmicBookNews.com.


I really hope that is true. He'd be perfect.

Well, if Chris Evans can be Captain American and The Human Torch...

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x361]


I had no idea John Waters was in Green Lantern.
 
2013-07-01 11:18:32 AM

exparrot: While I think he is a great performer, and for some reason reminds me of Andy Garcia, it seems unlikely a studio head would have enough nuance to allow him to be cast.


He can nail it, see his performance in Sherlock Holmes
 
2013-07-01 12:00:50 PM

NewportBarGuy: Meanwhile it has been reported that Mark Strong is reportedly being considered to play Lex Luthor in Man of Steel 2.

The Kick-Ass actor is said to be director Zack Snyder's favourite choice for the iconic role of Superman's arch nemesis in a follow-up to the comic book movie, according to CosmicBookNews.com.


I really hope that is true. He'd be perfect.


Jesus Christ on toast. The entire time from when I watched Kick-ass (and loved it) until just now, I thought that guy was Stanley Tucci.

Wow.
 
2013-07-01 12:22:30 PM
From the headline, I was expecting some reference to the Nuveen commercial.
 
2013-07-01 12:23:18 PM

NewportBarGuy: Meanwhile it has been reported that Mark Strong is reportedly being considered to play Lex Luthor in Man of Steel 2.

The Kick-Ass actor is said to be director Zack Snyder's favourite choice for the iconic role of Superman's arch nemesis in a follow-up to the comic book movie, according to CosmicBookNews.com.


I really hope that is true. He'd be perfect.


Man, talk about burying the lead.  He was great in Sherlock Holmes, I'm sure he'd be a great Lex Luthor.  The role needs someone menacing.  Gene Hackman came off as too much of a used-car salesman, and Kevin Spacey was just... goofy.

In fact, all of Superman Returns just felt weird and out-of-place, with Routh playing Reeve playing Kent, and the original John Williams music.  I ended up spending to whole movie being bummed out about Reeve.
 
2013-07-01 12:56:13 PM

Jim_Callahan: Cambrian: I can't stand all this CGI bullcrap.

Your alternate proposal for making an on-budget movie about a dude whose only two personality traits are the ability to fly and the ability to punch a truck and get a reaction would be....

sirbissel: Not the costume department's fault the comics changed.

If anyone's curious, the aesthetic change was motivated by a shift in what is considered the pinnacle of athletic performance by the general public and especially children.  In the 1930s it would have been carnival acrobats and strong-men, who wore tight outfits designed to show off muscles and make their limbs distinct from their torso during tricks (thus the briefs).

Not a lot of carnival attendees among the younger comics fans nowadays, but everyone's played video games with spec ops soldiers, so the current metaphor for absurd athleticism is light body armor.  Thus, everything has panels, sometimes scaled or plated, and you see a lot more in the way of sleeves and long pants that don't necessarily conform to the body beneath.

You have to use iconography that actually means something to connect with your audience, you can only coast on "well, people will know it from the other stuff" for so long, it's amazing even Superman got away with it as long as it did.



The original was both a ridiculous and iconic costume. Can we just give one more round of credit to Christopher Reeves for making it work? The 70s decade probably contributed to the acceptance, as well as the fact that we hadn't scene the costume in full color on film since the television series, unless 'It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman' was on film at some point. But Those old pics still don't look as dumb as they probably should.
 
2013-07-01 01:31:10 PM

Jim_Callahan: Cambrian: I can't stand all this CGI bullcrap.

Your alternate proposal for making an on-budget movie about a dude whose only two personality traits are the ability to fly and the ability to punch a truck and get a reaction would be....

sirbissel: Not the costume department's fault the comics changed.

If anyone's curious, the aesthetic change was motivated by a shift in what is considered the pinnacle of athletic performance by the general public and especially children.  In the 1930s it would have been carnival acrobats and strong-men, who wore tight outfits designed to show off muscles and make their limbs distinct from their torso during tricks (thus the briefs).

Not a lot of carnival attendees among the younger comics fans nowadays, but everyone's played video games with spec ops soldiers, so the current metaphor for absurd athleticism is light body armor.  Thus, everything has panels, sometimes scaled or plated, and you see a lot more in the way of sleeves and long pants that don't necessarily conform to the body beneath.

You have to use iconography that actually means something to connect with your audience, you can only coast on "well, people will know it from the other stuff" for so long, it's amazing even Superman got away with it as long as it did.


Although the REAL reason was that the Siegel estate kept suing WB for money from Superman (long after S&S sold their rights to the character, but that's another argument), and in order to distance the character from the original design for Superman, DC has taken the New52 and Man of Steel opportunities to redesign the costume so it is all theirs, and none of it can be credited to Siegel or Shuster. The S-shield that we know today was designed after S&S designed the character, and it actually belongs in whole to DC/WB. The items on the costume that were able to be attributed to S&S's design were the red briefs (now gone), the shade of blue they used (darkened now), the shade of red they used (darkened now) and the design looking like tights (changed completely now). The only thing that remains of their design is the cape, and even that is different (and also common enough not to be actionable).

This redesign takes the wind out of the sails of the Siegel estate. They can't claim much about the character was Jerry's creation now. DC has so significantly changed Superman over the years that they've excised most of the legally-recognizable remnants of the original Superman from the current look and feel of the character.

This is what S&S made:
dialbforblog.com

DC tweaked a lot over the years. The S-shield is the biggest change, and that happened gradually, with the biggest change being in the Fleischer cartoons, when it was first shown as a diamond shape rather than an inverted triangle.

comicrelated.com

So already, DC was stepping away from Siegel and Shuster's design. They darkened the costume a bit (the red and blue we're most familiar with when we think of Superman, as opposed to the lighter blue used by S&S) and refined the look.

The shield was changed more, to the one we know today, not long after this.

And then he remained very much the same throughout the following decades. The blue darkened and lightened for various mediums (Christopher Reeve wore light blue like the original, for example), but for the most part he remained the same as 1950s Superman.

Then, after repeated lawsuits from the Siegel estate, DC found it would be in their best interest to totally redesign the character. Some of the in-comics attempts were temporary, but when New 52 happened, the took the opportunity to change everything that the Siegel lawyers claimed was indicative of Jerry and Joe's design.

insidepulse.com
rlv.zcache.com

They had themselves covered in the comics. Jerry Siegel's daughter could no longer claim this character's design was based on her father's. Everything "iconic" about the character that we recognize today-- the shield shape, the colors, etc-- was added after the character was entirely owned by DC, and they managed to keep most of those elements with minor tweaks. The shield is bigger and three-dimensional. The colors are a similar shade but slightly darker. The "panels" make it look like he isn't wearing tights. The boots were altered slightly (and still based on the 50s version, not the 30s version). A collar was added, which deviates from the original design completely.

This ain't the guy Siegel and Shuster created. The only thing that remains the same are some names and places.

And then when they made the movie they went a step further.

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

This is a melding of the 70's/80s Superman with the New 52 Superman. `Enough iconic elements to be recognizable, but a completely different color scheme and material. No collar, but no briefs. Longer cape. No spit-curl.

There's nothing here for the Siegel estate to claim. Nothing at all. Not a single design element remains intact from the original Superman.

So while you can say it has to do with modern aesthetic values, symbols of strength, etc., what it really comes down to is getting as far away from S&S's design as possible without losing what is "Superman" to the public. This is how he's going to look for a while, even if they kill off New 52, because the briefs and other design elements maintained a tie to S&S, and the lawsuits have been frequent enough to make WB and DC feel the need to distance themselves from S&S's work.
 
2013-07-01 01:39:55 PM

Jim_Callahan: You have to use iconography that actually means something to connect with your audience, you can only coast on "well, people will know it from the other stuff" for so long, it's amazing even Superman got away with it as long as it did.


A good analysis IMO, but how much of the iconography is the shift by other superhero movies? It looks an awful lot like some of the Spiderman costumes.

I also heard, but [citation needed] that the textured look has to do with CGI being unable to realistically render a smooth costume.
 
2013-07-01 03:32:39 PM

Gig103: Jim_Callahan: You have to use iconography that actually means something to connect with your audience, you can only coast on "well, people will know it from the other stuff" for so long, it's amazing even Superman got away with it as long as it did.

A good analysis IMO, but how much of the iconography is the shift by other superhero movies? It looks an awful lot like some of the Spiderman costumes.

I also heard, but [citation needed] that the textured look has to do with CGI being unable to realistically render a smooth costume.


Yes, and no. To CGI spandex, you would need to find a suitable texture, reflectivity and depth map, then find a way to link it to a skeleton in a realistic manner so it doesn't look like a 2004 era video game or like he has a liquid shifting skin. Depending on the time, it probably would make a render farm cry, as you try and re-tweak it the 50 or so times to make it look real. Cost/time is more relevant to CGI than set design.
 
2013-07-01 05:00:13 PM
If this is true, it would be the  only thing subtly CGI'd into MoS.
 
2013-07-01 05:05:15 PM

padraig: INeedAName: While I agree with the premise, I would say his current outfit is much more spandex tracksuit/gymnastics onesie than anything military-related. But your point stands.

In the movie, it showed that those costumes are basically underwears your wear under the armor. So, in truth, Superman is walking around in the kryptonian equivalent of this :

[i.istockimg.com image 380x252]


Actually, no.

As you saw, the heavier armor bolts directly on over what Kal, Jor, Zod, et al wore.

According to the movie's creators, what it really is is:

s.ecrater.com
 
2013-07-01 05:54:23 PM

Mentat: If only there were some kind of large, prominent symbol on the costume that would indicate who the character is supposed to be...


Maybe if he washed it there would be more contrast between red "S", the yellow background, and the blue suit.
 
2013-07-01 05:56:35 PM

Flappyhead: Yeah, we desperately need more slow, awkward wire sequences.


Reeve made it look smooth and natural.
 
2013-07-01 07:45:21 PM

flondrix: Mentat: If only there were some kind of large, prominent symbol on the costume that would indicate who the character is supposed to be...

Maybe if he washed it there would be more contrast between red "S", the yellow background, and the blue suit.


You might want to have your doctor check you for color blindness.
 
2013-07-02 01:52:28 AM

Mentat: You might want to have your doctor check you for color blindness.


Maybe you should take another look:
i.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uk
The guy on the left is wearing a bright red "S" on a bright yellow background, on top of a bright blue suit.  The guy on the right is wearing a dark, muddy red "S" on a dirty yellow background, on top of a dark, muddy blue suit.  If these are supposed to be the same guy...he needs to wash his suit more often.
 
2013-07-02 10:09:56 AM
If I didn't know that the guy on the right was supposed to be Superman, I wouldn't have guessed. Just..... terrible costume....


---

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report