Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
My Name Is Legion wrote:
The flying in Superman came across as shaky at best in 1978 - a few good shots, a lot of compromises and a few stinkers; no, I did not "believe a man could fly." I believed Christopher Reeve was Superman, though - Clark Kent, not so much.
As for three pages back...I'd sit through Serenity again before I'd tolerate four of the six Star Wars movies, and I do know a few things about film.
I prefer ingenuity, even if it is "shakey" by today's standards, over the so-called panacea of CGI laziness. The scene where Superman first takes off after Lois dangling from a helicopter is amazing,a ndf there's a quick edit in there to perhaps cover the limit of the effects at the time but actually adds to the energy of the shot. I really think that filmmakers have forgotten that art can thrive more on limitations... because with CGI wou can do anything, but you become less creative.
as for your second point, har har har. Without Star wars there would be no stupid browncoat crap, or any blockbusters in the traditional sense, or the idea of science fiction world building. har har har to you!
While I agree that the CG in Superman Returns is a bit dated now, its no more dated then the wire and bluescreen (hell it might have been rear projection, but I would have to look that up) work from the Reeve films. However, can we get over this concept, and it's not just you, it seems to be an internet thing, that somehow practical effects and optical work is ingenuity at its finest, yet anything CG is just being lazy. Yes, to do fast, low grade, shoddy CG can be quick and dirty. However to do blockbuster feature quality work, which SR was AT THE TIME, takes just as much effort, and just as much creativity from artists as the guy doing the optical comps for an older film.
Im sure the filmmakers or the Reeves films would have LOVED to have the technology we have, available to them at the time.