• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Next Level For Superhero Films?

Started by Davenport,

41 posts in this topic

Davenport

Davenport

Posted
Posted

Does anyone else think Superhero films won't reach their pinnacle until they do all CG? Is that the next level?

 

Many of the elements of superheroic fantasy just fall flat with live actors, mainly the physicality and costumes. Or, to say it in reverse, films where the superhero is all CG (Iron Man suited up, Hulk in Avengers, Spider-man) are much more satisfying than live-actor portrayals (Fantastic Four, Green Lantern, Batman, Captain America, etc).

 

Here's a short "History of Photorealistic Characters in Film" documentary that's HD (watch full screen). The technology is constantly improving. The potential for some truly epic superhero fare is huge.

 

 

For me the first thing that suffers with live-actors is character design. Character design is the soul of comic books, the fantasy starts there, with story being the heart. CG could retain those elements and unleash imagination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted

Couldn't disagree more. Unnecessarily replacing live actors with CG models is a bad idea. For characters like the Hulk and Iron Man, it's obviously a different story. Live actors bring a multitude of different strengths to their roles that the CG counterpart doesn't even begin to touch upon.

 

I don't know what the "next level" is, but I'm sure it has more to do with quality directors and screenwriters.

 

Very cool video link btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted

The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

 

Marvel showed that you don't need the big names to anchor successful Hollywood action movies. Who cared about Robert Downey Jr when Iron Man was released? Jeff Bridges is nice, but that's not anchoring a mega blockbuster. The same can be said of Captain America and Thor.

 

It's all about the marketing effort, regardless of what actors you have or don't have IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

I agree, and why we end up with a six-foot Wolverine or a slim, stiff, over-armored Batman.

 

One movie that pulled it off is "Hellboy", but the body-appliances helped make the actor both "huge" and "heroic". An exception, rather than the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

Posted
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

I agree, and why we end up with a six-foot Wolverine or a slim, stiff, over-armored Batman.

 

One movie that pulled it off is "Hellboy", but the body-appliances helped make the actor both "huge" and "heroic". An exception, rather than the rule.

 

Youre quite right about Hellboy but i would also add that Guillermo was also wise to have Mike Mignola right there by his side.

 

Im tempted to say that its all become a paint-by-numbers game now.

 

Sure you'll get the grass green and the sky blue but only become the book says number 5 equals blue.

 

But the movie part is almost always gone from the movie business nowadays.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Maybe it boils down to what movie-goers want. And maybe I'm in the minority. But when I go to a superhero movie (or read a comic) I don't want them coming to my world. I want to spend time in their universe.

 

I'm just tired of Superman hanging around the Daily Planet. I want to go see the Justice League take on hordes of parademons or Superman on Warworld smacking around Mongul. Something epic.

 

Just take Avatar and change all those blue people to Thanagarians, make the invading army Darkseid's, and unleash the frikin' Justice League. I'd buy bigger popcorn. It can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
Couldn't disagree more. Unnecessarily replacing live actors with CG models is a bad idea. For characters like the Hulk and Iron Man, it's obviously a different story. Live actors bring a multitude of different strengths to their roles that the CG counterpart doesn't even begin to touch upon.

 

I don't know what the "next level" is, but I'm sure it has more to do with quality directors and screenwriters.

 

Very cool video link btw.

 

this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzetta

Buzzetta

Posted
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

I agree, and why we end up with a six-foot Wolverine or a slim, stiff, over-armored Batman.

 

One movie that pulled it off is "Hellboy", but the body-appliances helped make the actor both "huge" and "heroic". An exception, rather than the rule.

 

I think that is exactly what the point was though in Nolan's efforts to 'ground' Batman and that is why it worked so well. As was said in DKR, "Anyone can be Batman."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

I agree, and why we end up with a six-foot Wolverine or a slim, stiff, over-armored Batman.

 

One movie that pulled it off is "Hellboy", but the body-appliances helped make the actor both "huge" and "heroic". An exception, rather than the rule.

 

I think that is exactly what the point was though in Nolan's efforts to 'ground' Batman and that is why it worked so well. As was said in DKR, "Anyone can be Batman."

 

Right. And why I think of Nolan's DK trilogy as a very good 'elseworlds' tale, one specifically for film.

 

By "next level" I mean getting closer and closer to putting comic book superheroics on film. Dragging them into the real world is a different discussion, a different goal.

 

Consider The Avengers for a moment. Excellent translation to the big screen, but they really pushed the envelope with rotor-battleships and invisibility cloaks. Push our world much further an you'll have audiences rolling their eyes, unable to suspend disbelief.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzetta

Buzzetta

Posted
Posted

I don't know though -

 

I understand the role of movies as escapism and I liked the Avengers but for my personal tastes in film I do not want to go too far in that world. I loved the Avengers. I thought the Batman movies were even better though. To me superhero movies become believable and allow me to enjoy this escapism aspect we speak of only if I feel that the characters can exist in our world.

 

Now that is the standard I hold superhero movies to. What you speak of where I become enveloped into the characters world is what I look for in a sci fi movie / fantasy movie like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

 

The 'fun' factor of Spiderman is that I want to look up at the sky on my way to work and picture Spider-man swinging above me through lower Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

I agree, and why we end up with a six-foot Wolverine or a slim, stiff, over-armored Batman.

 

One movie that pulled it off is "Hellboy", but the body-appliances helped make the actor both "huge" and "heroic". An exception, rather than the rule.

 

I think that is exactly what the point was though in Nolan's efforts to 'ground' Batman and that is why it worked so well. As was said in DKR, "Anyone can be Batman."

 

Right. And why I think of Nolan's DK trilogy as a very good 'elseworlds' tale, one specifically for film.

 

By "next level" I mean getting closer and closer to putting comic book superheroics on film. Dragging them into the real world is a different discussion, a different goal.

 

Consider The Avengers for a moment. Excellent translation to the big screen, but they really pushed the envelope with rotor-battleships and invisibility cloaks. Push our world much further an you'll have audiences rolling their eyes, unable to suspend disbelief.

 

The closest thing you'll get to this scenario is a fan-made film. The only hope of it becoming mainstream and hitting the big screen is if the video goes viral and the creator gets handed a Hollywood movie contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heronext

Heronext

Posted
Posted

Interesting topic. I don't get your criticism of human actor superheroes, I think they work just fine. Great CG is also a thrill though.

 

As for CG replacing human actors, there is an interesting theory called Uncanny valley which says the more a robot or animation looks realistic, the more we are repulsed by it. In other words, we think cartoons are adorable but can instinctively tell the realistic fakes and we don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I don't know though -

 

I understand the role of movies as escapism and I liked the Avengers but for my personal tastes in film I do not want to go too far in that world. I loved the Avengers. I thought the Batman movies were even better though. To me superhero movies become believable and allow me to enjoy this escapism aspect we speak of only if I feel that the characters can exist in our world.

 

Now that is the standard I hold superhero movies to. What you speak of where I become enveloped into the characters world is what I look for in a sci fi movie / fantasy movie like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

 

The 'fun' factor of Spiderman is that I want to look up at the sky on my way to work and picture Spider-man swinging above me through lower Manhattan.

Yeah, it may be because I'm a DC fan. And (for me) the only way to translate DC's superheroes to our real world is to diminish them.

 

Superman needs the DCU to play in, an epic place of fellow heroes, gods, alien worlds, magic and monstrosities. Otherwise he's left b'slapping bald realtors around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boboset

Boboset

Posted
Posted

It honestly sounds like you're looking for something that already exists: DC/Marvel animated movies. There are no limits there, and it's probably the truest representation of comics in motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
The Hollywood formula is too heavily weighted on live action. Banking on an at least one or two big name lead actors is a model that can never be "successfully" replaced no matter how advanced and amazing the CG.

I agree, and why we end up with a six-foot Wolverine or a slim, stiff, over-armored Batman.

 

One movie that pulled it off is "Hellboy", but the body-appliances helped make the actor both "huge" and "heroic". An exception, rather than the rule.

 

I think that is exactly what the point was though in Nolan's efforts to 'ground' Batman and that is why it worked so well. As was said in DKR, "Anyone can be Batman."

 

 

Anyone can be a Playboy Millionaire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

Eventually we won't be able to tell the difference.

And then it'll just be a matter of if they make a good movie and tell a good story.

In one form or another it's been done for years to a degree. Actors weren't really jumping through windows and driving cars at 150 mph, it was stunt men made to look like the actors. But we went with it and it was accepted.

This is no different.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing