I still don't get it.

darkshadow0001 · November 16 2008, 05:00 PM

I actually watched some episodes of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and noticed the flying sequences even in this series surpassed that of Superman Returns. If Singer had a budget for a good Superman movie, then why did a lot of the flying sequences in the film just suck?

Brikar99 · November 16 2008, 05:20 PM

You.... You're kidding, right?

FalTorPan · November 16 2008, 05:20 PM

The flying sequences in Superman Returns were vastly superior to those in Lois and Clark. Superman was lit as if he were actually in the sky, rather than lit as if he were actually in a bluescreen stage.

DerbyDave · November 16 2008, 06:49 PM

If you really believe that, also keep in mind that the LOIS AND CLARK effects only had to stand up to scrutiny on the smaller TV screen, in the days before wide-screen TVs and HDTV, and the SUPERMAN RETURNS effects had to hold up on the motion picture screen.

Bit difference in the amount of detail, and therefore budget.

darkshadow0001 · November 16 2008, 07:26 PM

Brikar99 wrote:

You.... You're kidding, right?

I'm serious. When I went to see Superman Returns, I expected awesome flying sequences and such and all I got was a lot of CGI, and hardly any closeups.

I watched the pilot episode of Lois & Clark and the flying scenes were just... better...

theenglish · November 16 2008, 08:16 PM

I thought this was a flame post when I originally read it. This is like my father saying that the originally Buck Rogers effects were better than Farscapes because at least the ship's were made of real models.

Dream · November 16 2008, 08:54 PM

The flying effects in Superman Returns weren't that great. They should have shown Superman flying closer to the ground much more so we could get idea of how fast he was moving. Iron Man's flying effects were much better IMO.

SalvorHardin · November 16 2008, 11:53 PM

darkshadow0001 wrote:

I actually watched some episodes of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and noticed the flying sequences even in this series surpassed that of Superman Returns.

Just when you think you've heard it all...

RandyS · November 17 2008, 12:57 AM

darkshadow0001 wrote:

I watched the pilot episode of Lois & Clark and the flying scenes were just... better...

True. But it wasn't just the flying scenes. Everything about Lois & Clark was just.....better.

darkshadow0001 · November 17 2008, 01:29 AM

SalvorHardin wrote:

darkshadow0001 wrote:

I actually watched some episodes of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and noticed the flying sequences even in this series surpassed that of Superman Returns.

Just when you think you've heard it all...

I knocked this show too, but out of boredom I rented a copy of season one and found out it wasn't all that bad. Not as good as Smallville or the movies, but it was still entertaining.

What I meant about the flying was the show had more close-ups of Cain flying like the Christopher Reeve films. If that was possible to do in those days, why did the flying sequences in SR look cheesy?

Professor Zoom · November 17 2008, 02:17 AM

darkshadow0001 wrote:

I knocked this show too, but out of boredom I rented a copy of season one and found out it wasn't all that bad. Not as good as Smallville or the movies, but it was still entertaining.

I think I threw up a little. Smallville. Blech.

Brikar99 · November 17 2008, 06:08 AM

darkshadow0001 wrote:

Brikar99 wrote:

You.... You're kidding, right?

I'm serious. When I went to see Superman Returns, I expected awesome flying sequences and such and all I got was a lot of CGI, and hardly any closeups.

I watched the pilot episode of Lois & Clark and the flying scenes were just... better...

...wow... Better must mean something totally different than what I've thought it meant my entire life.

theenglish · November 17 2008, 05:10 PM

To be fair, Lois and Clark was a well done series for what it was. It was never ever meant to take itself seriously, and therefore should not be held up to the same standards as other shows. Smallville on the other hand simply takes itself too seriously and loses its charm because of that.

TheArsenal · November 17 2008, 10:52 PM

Say what you will about SR's flaws, if Superman: the Movie made me believe a man could fly, Returns made me believe a man could fly faster than a speeding bullet.

darkshadow0001 · November 18 2008, 03:24 AM

TheArsenal wrote:

Say what you will about SR's flaws, if Superman: the Movie made me believe a man could fly, Returns made me believe a man could fly faster than a speeding bullet.

I'm not saying Superman Returns was a bad movie. In fact, I saw it twice. I'm just saying I don't understand if our technology for effects is supposed to be better today then 10-20 years ago then how come the flying seems more "real" then the Chris Reeve films and Lois & Clark. That's really all I was disappointed with SR. I can still watch the Chris Reeve films and say "wow" to the flying, but with SR, it's just "meh".

November 16 2008, 05:00 PM	#1
darkshadow0001 Rear Admiral Location: Indiana	I still don't get it. I actually watched some episodes of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and noticed the flying sequences even in this series surpassed that of Superman Returns. If Singer had a budget for a good Superman movie, then why did a lot of the flying sequences in the film just suck?

November 16 2008, 05:20 PM	#2
Brikar99 Rear Admiral	Re: I still don't get it. You.... You're kidding, right? __________________ SNW 9: 'Mestral' - 'Ninja Werewolf Assassins!' - Movie/TV reviews: For Reelz

November 16 2008, 05:20 PM	#3
FalTorPan Vice Admiral Location: Out there... thataway.	Re: I still don't get it. The flying sequences in Superman Returns were vastly superior to those in Lois and Clark. Superman was lit as if he were actually in the sky, rather than lit as if he were actually in a bluescreen stage. __________________ Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!

November 16 2008, 06:49 PM	#4
DerbyDave Ensign	Re: I still don't get it. If you really believe that, also keep in mind that the LOIS AND CLARK effects only had to stand up to scrutiny on the smaller TV screen, in the days before wide-screen TVs and HDTV, and the SUPERMAN RETURNS effects had to hold up on the motion picture screen. Bit difference in the amount of detail, and therefore budget.

November 16 2008, 08:16 PM	#6
theenglish Rear Admiral Location: Central America	Re: I still don't get it. I thought this was a flame post when I originally read it. This is like my father saying that the originally Buck Rogers effects were better than Farscapes because at least the ship's were made of real models.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

November 16 2008, 08:54 PM	#7
Dream Admiral	Re: I still don't get it. The flying effects in Superman Returns weren't that great. They should have shown Superman flying closer to the ground much more so we could get idea of how fast he was moving. Iron Man's flying effects were much better IMO.

November 17 2008, 05:10 PM	#13
theenglish Rear Admiral Location: Central America	Re: I still don't get it. To be fair, Lois and Clark was a well done series for what it was. It was never ever meant to take itself seriously, and therefore should not be held up to the same standards as other shows. Smallville on the other hand simply takes itself too seriously and loses its charm because of that.

November 17 2008, 10:52 PM	#14
TheArsenal Rear Admiral Location: Sunny Southern California	Re: I still don't get it. Say what you will about SR's flaws, if Superman: the Movie made me believe a man could fly, Returns made me believe a man could fly faster than a speeding bullet. __________________ "What's your name?" "F* you! That's my name. You know why mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight. I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's** my name."