Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Obiwanshinobi, Jan 30, 2011.
Did Superman make a three point landing in Superman Returns? I can't remember.
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.
Agreed. I freakin love Reeve's graceful takeoffs and landings, and there were a bunch of great ones in SIII (flying across the street to the car, taking off from road next to Lana, taking off from next to the fireman...)
People can joke all they want, but those "outdated" flying effects still look more real and believable to me than anything I've seen since.
Superman Returns bested the flying effects in the Reeve movies at every turn. Didn't make it a better movie - just vastly superior effects.
There's just one shot of Cavill flying in space in the current MOS trailer and it's already got the previous movies beat hands down. That's not joking.
No, but he did make that dramatic hard landing on New Krypton.
Ugh. I'm a big fan of SR... but that cartoony CG Superman still makes me cringe every time I see it. And it only looks more outdated with every passing year.
Not half so much as the clumsy wire and blue screen work of the Reeve movies.
I disagree. I thought the flying sequences, particularly in the shuttle/jet sequence, were great.
I'm pretty partial to Smallville's take on flying. The turbulence effect was just a really nice touch. Made it feel both fast and powerful somehow.
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!
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Yes, the bluescreen stuff dated terribly.
The wire work was simply magnificent.
At no time in SR did it look like a man was flying through the air.
Reeve WAS flying through the air.
I guess if Nolan were the director, he would have the actor fly through city streets on wires, because he prefers practical effects where possible.
They had RDJ flying with wires in Iron Man 1 during the test scenes in his laboratory as well.
Have to admit, for some good recent flying effects, I have to go with Chronicle. For the budget of that film those flight scenes were great!
Really? I cannot even tell it is CGI.
I agree the flying scenes lacked a certain "quality" to really sell it.
Say whaaa? People like Asimov were world-building in sci-fi epics like The Foundation years before Lucas.
I've always felt the opposite. Reeve was a mediocre Superman, but the definitive Clark Kent.
That's not what that means.
I prefer effects that look good and are persuasive over effects that don't look as good.
Radical notion, that.
Again, not impressing me; it doesn't make the bad Star Wars movies one bit better - or better movies as dull as the bad Star Wars flicks.
Separate names with a comma.