The Next Level For Superhero Films?

[shrunkenhead]

I don't want CG superheroes. I thought the Hulk was a wasted opportunity. You could have had a good actor really do some wonderful stuff in the Norton film. Instead, you've got this big, soulless video game character stomping around.

 

You could still use a live actor and make the Hulk appear huge via camera trickery (like the hobbits in LOTR).

 

But I'm happy to vote for no more Daily Planet Perry White Great Scott friggin' nonsense commited to celluloid. Ever.

[Davenport]

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.

I was thinking the same thing. Bruce Timm has definitely spoiled me.

 

But I also grew up on Ray Harryhausen, so seeing each new level of effects-technology is a thrill. Plus it just feels like it's time for film to "go for it" and do something grand, bold and mindblowing with comic book superheroes.

[Boboset]

I really don't like CG heavy movies at all, and a movie with a CG character almost guarantees I won't see it.

 

Man, you are going to hate it when they make Maus into a movie.

[dupont2005]

I really don't like CG heavy movies at all, and a movie with a CG character almost guarantees I won't see it.

 

Man, you are going to hate it when they make Maus into a movie.

 

or

 

[howardhallis]

The story, creative team, and actors still play a crucial role as to which superhero movies work and which don't, despite the effects.

 

Take my favorite character Dr. Strange as a theoretical example:

 

Sure, Marvel could cast some unknown actor to play Stephen Strange and throw in a bunch of psychedelic CGI to make the Dark Dimension look interesting, but it would still be a tough sell to get people to go to the movie theater for that one. The character is basically unknown outside of the world of comics, and probably doomed to get a low tier screenwriter and director, resulting in possible cult status in the Netflix bargain bin right next to other magical heroes of the screen. (Anyone remember Nic Cage in Disney's "Sorcerer's Apprentice"?)

 

But what if Daniel Day Lewis agreed to play the character? He's never done a superhero before. All of a sudden there's a level of gravitas to the project that would make people think "Hmmm.... I'd like to see what he does with that".

 

Now let's go further... What if Guillermo Del Toro decided to direct it? He's already proved himself in both the superhero and horror genres and has a genuine affection for the character. With Guillermo on board, heavyweight writers like Neil Gaiman might take an active interest in developing the screenplay. (Neil told me personally a few years back that he would write a Dr. Strange movie if Guillermo was on board, so it isn't that crazy a notion.)

 

All of a sudden the potential for a good movie is improved a thousandfold. With a good actor, director, and screenplay, even a project like this one could be a mega hit.

[Boboset]

Daniel Day Lewis would never ever play Dr. Strange (although it would be awesome). I'd love Adrien Brody as a realistic option.

[Boboset]

I really don't like CG heavy movies at all, and a movie with a CG character almost guarantees I won't see it.

 

Man, you are going to hate it when they make Maus into a movie.

 

or

 

[howardhallis]

Daniel Day Lewis would never ever play Dr. Strange (although it would be awesome). I'd love Adrien Brody as a realistic option.

 

Yeah, I agree. Daniel Day Lewis would never do it. This makes it obvious that certain actors still hold major weight in the age of CGI characters.

[dupont2005]

I really don't like CG heavy movies at all, and a movie with a CG character almost guarantees I won't see it.

 

Man, you are going to hate it when they make Maus into a movie.

 

or

 

[Davenport]

Some of the game trailers, if expanded to 2hrs, would work for me. With a tight story and voicework. Nothing wrong with the visuals...

 

[stroszek]

As was already mentioned above, aren't you just saying you want to see a cartoon rather than a live action movie? That's cool, but it's not exactly a new idea, and there are already plenty of choices out there if that's what you want.

 

I can't really think of a film that I've liked BECAUSE OF the CG effects - perhaps Lord of the Rings. A good superhero movie like The Avengers works because there's enough going on with the real people in it that you can overlook the garish CG stuff - it works DESPITE the CG.

 

If I'm going to go for animation, I'd rather have it be the great hand-drawn stuff rather than loaded with a bunch of sterile, creepy CG homunculi.

[Davenport]

As was already mentioned above, aren't you just saying you want to see a cartoon rather than a live action movie? That's cool, but it's not exactly a new idea, and there are already plenty of choices out there if that's what you want.

 

I can't really think of a film that I've liked BECAUSE OF the CG effects - perhaps Lord of the Rings. A good superhero movie like The Avengers works because there's enough going on with the real people in it that you can overlook the garish CG stuff - it works DESPITE the CG.

 

If I'm going to go for animation, I'd rather have it be the great hand-drawn stuff rather than loaded with a bunch of sterile, creepy CG homunculi.

No, I'm wishing for photorealistic comic book characters on film. The 'next level' up from the attempts so far. Emphasis on 'realistic'.

 

Like Avatar, they didn't paint Sam Worthington blue. His 8-foot avatar was cg, with his voice and facial expressions. So hire the best actor, put their name on the marquee, let them act. But adapt the actor to the character, not the other way around. If the character is a 6'4" imposing presence, then use CG to get there. Ditto for the costume.

 

Like Batman, putting a normal guy in a tricked-out wetsuit may work for the real world, but the superheroic stature of the character gets lost in translation. Batman's supposed to scare the poop out of everyone when he enters, a startling commanding presence with a fighter's physique. So get that on screen, whatever it takes.

 

I understand what everyone's saying. I guess it's a matter of "know it when I see it". They're getting soooo close these days. It'll happen.

[dupont2005]

Avatar looked like a terrible cartoon.

[Gatsby77]

Didn't we already have this with ~1/3 of the Green Lantern movie? (i.e., all the space-bound parts)? With the exception of his training sequence with Sinestro and Kiliwog, I thought it was .

[kdoginohio]

I'd love Adrien Brody as a realistic option.

As Ditko's version.

[Davenport]

Didn't we already have this with ~1/3 of the Green Lantern movie? (i.e., all the space-bound parts)? With the exception of his training sequence with Sinestro and Kiliwog, I thought it was .

CG won't save bad writing, all it can do is up the sense-of-wonder. Visually striking craap is still craap, comic or film.

 

Green Lantern was weak and frustrating. The movie to see was flashed at the very end when Sinestro put on the yellow power ring. Same with that Superman Returns movie. The five years he was offworld would've been the movie to see.

 

Anyway, spending two hours on Oa would've been better than watching Hal dickin' with Hot Wheels at a company party, fending off the Elephant Man's man-crush, and spanking an angry cloud.

 

[Aman619]

I have no trouble believing in the OPs point. As CG improves so as to be as al as real film, assuming the price is equal or lower than shooting actors on film, that's what we will get. Right now, the CG parts accomplish scenes film could never do. But live action scenes look fake when created in current CGI.

 

Isn't it obvious that the area for improvement is in in creating the filmed parts on the computer ? Because we are never going back the other way.

 

I always thought the Incredibles was one of the best superhero films to date. The freedom to create ALL of it on a computer made it so. .. Not being held back to where you can actually place a camera to view actual humans.

 

We'll get there. And maybe, with so many predicting the Demise of the current wave of superhero comic book films, the switch to all CGI will be seen as a way to save the genre by making them cheaper to produce and profitable even with smaller box office.

[rjrjr]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like it or not, an all CG movie will always be thought of by the general public as a "cartoon" because of this categories dominance by Pixar, Dream Works, and other animation studios. For the average movie goer, that puts the movie squarely in the "kid" category. I think a CG movie with modern superhero (i.e. adult) themes would not do well because of this stigma. Additionally, I can see a huge backlash from some groups in the US if a "kid" movie (CG movie that many will believe is a "cartoon") wasn't target at a kid audience.

 

With that said, I definitely think there is room for lighter, CG superhero movies similar to the Incredibles. DC and Marvel have many undiscovered characters in their stables that would fit into this category and do well with kids. I don't believe it would be possible for DC or Marvel to release CG movies of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc. and expect them to do well at the movies however. Especially since these characters are already been mined and used on TV in CG material aimed at kids.

 

[MagnusX]

 

[font:Book Antiqua]Ubisoft did a great example of CG and live actors,

with the series Assasin Cread Lineages and the cinematics for their games.

 

They are a company with focus in games,

just think what big companies with big budgets could achieve.

 

This is a sample:[/font]

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

 

[Davenport]

just think what big companies with big budgets could achieve.

Wow, the production values are very high, especially for a promo movie. (thumbs u

 

When I think it through, saying "all CG" is a wish for that combination of "seamless" and staying true to the source material. The movie "300" was extremely stylized and translated Miller's tale almost panel for panel. It remained true, and it did good box office, as an example.

 

So maybe it starts with vision. The goal of getting a comic book on film, not just adapting comic book characters to the real world. And maybe the young comic fan/future filmmakers of today will push the envelope when their turn comes.