MARVEL (3) vs DC (0)....!?

[Amazing_Bag_man]

The X-Men 2 movie has been out for a few days and has accumulate nearly 100 million+ dollar, which the rest of the world viewing the X-Machine will add to that total. I guarantee it will reach over 200 million not include the rest of the world receipts. The other succesful franchise are Spider-man,Daredevil,Hulk and now possible Fantastic Four...etc,etc.

 

Where is D.C. and Warnar Bros. ,what's happening to the Batman and Superman franchises. they are losing out the wave that Marvel is having and may not last forever...

 

[Illiterati-migration]

The X-Men 2 movie has been out for a few days and has accumulate nearly 100 million+ dollar, which the rest of the world viewing the X-Machine will add to that total. I guarantee it will reach over 200 million not include the rest of the world receipts. The other succesful franchise are Spider-man,Daredevil,Hulk and now possible Fantastic Four...etc,etc.

 

Where is D.C. and Warnar Bros. ,what's happening to the Batman and Superman franchises. they are losing out the wave that Marvel is having and may not last forever...

 

 

So was Marvel losing out back in the 70s and 80s when Superman and Batman movies were rockin' the box office?

[blowout]

Yo, check THIS thread.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=comicgen&Number=163970&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1

 

[12c_Comic]

Hey if DC was to do a movie in the new millennium, how would SuperMan look like ...maybe no red and blue with cape but all in leather with killer boots.....nah singer already screwed the X-men.

[OldGuy]

So was Marvel losing out back in the 70s and 80s when Superman and Batman movies were rockin' the box office?

 

Um......yea.

[Illiterati-migration]

So was Marvel losing out back in the 70s and 80s when Superman and Batman movies were rockin' the box office?

 

Um......yea.

 

Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

[fantastic_four]

So was Marvel losing out back in the 70s and 80s when Superman and Batman movies were rockin' the box office?

They were, but it was a quality call on Marvel's part probably coupled with a lack of cash and/or connections to get the movies made. Stan said in that interview with Kevin Smith that they wanted to make films around the same time Batman came out--and that he personally had been wanting to bring his characters to film ever since 1970 or so--but they decided that there wasn't a great way to depict superpowers on the big screen at that time. However, ever since Jurassic Park impressed upon Hollywood that fantasy can be brought to life with computer graphics, bringing superheroes to film in ALL their glory has been percolating...an idea waiting to happen...so they eventually tested the waters with Blade and dived right in with X-Men and now all the rest. DC's characters could also benefit greatly from being brought to the big screen in the post-CGI Hollywood.

 

Of course we're all still debating about the quality of CGI to depict superpowers. Some people thought Spidey's web-swinging wasn't realistic enough, or that the Hulk looks too fake. I agree that the web-swinging lacked full realism and that it doesn't take long to see how fake the Hulk looks, but are they TOO fake? Hmmm...I don't think so.

 

Consider this--what looks more realistic, the movie Hulk or an artistically rendered Hulk on the pages of a comic book? The movie Hulk looks more realistic! What looks better--Spidey being shown swinging on a single panel in a comic, or a CGI Spidey swinging within real footage of New York? The movie Spidey looks more realistic; the one on the page doesn't move at all! So here's my question to the CGI superhero critics--why do we cut comic book artists slack, but some of us rip on computer graphics artists unmercilessly? Why say "the hulk looks stupid" when you see Ang Lee's version yet still say "he looks great!" when you see Mike Deodato's drawing of him? They both look "unrealistic" from a literal point of view, but the one in the movie MOVES and looks MORE realistic!

 

I know some of you guys will bring up the point that comic books leave more to the imagination than films do, which inspires more creative thought...I disagree with that idea. I've been thinking about literature vs. film for over a decade, and I'd love to debate that topic in another thread if anyone feels like it. It'd take a few screenfulls too many in this thread.

[joe_collector]

They were, but it was a quality call on Marvel's part probably coupled with a lack of cash and/or connections to get the movies made. Stan said in that interview with Kevin Smith that they wanted to make films around the same time Batman came out--and that he personally had been wanting to bring his characters to film ever since 1970 or so--but they decided that there wasn't a great way to depict superpowers on the big screen at that time.

 

But you forget that Marvel did have superhero movies at the same time, like Captain America and Fantastic Four, they just sucked.

[Ares]

Hey if DC was to do a movie in the new millennium, how would SuperMan look like ...maybe no red and blue with cape but all in leather with killer boots.....nah singer already screwed the X-men.

 

say he would have the Red and Black Logo on him

[blowout]

Consider this--what looks more realistic, the movie Hulk or an artistically rendered Hulk on the pages of a comic book? The movie Hulk looks more realistic! What looks better--Spidey being shown swinging on a single panel in a comic, or a CGI Spidey swinging within real footage of New York? The movie Spidey looks more realistic; the one on the page doesn't move at all! So here's my question to the CGI superhero critics--why do we cut comic book artists slack, but some of us rip on computer graphics artists unmercilessly?

 

The answer to this question is simple. The CGI superhero's are placed in a context that contains REAL people and scenarios, therefore if they don't look 100% REAL they do not 'fit' in that context.

It has nothing to do with how real a CGI hero looks compared to a comic book rendering, it is all about the CONTEXT they are placed in.

[Lofwyr]

I have to agree..the spidey on the big screen swinging on CGI webbing looks hokey. At least it looked WAY too CGI especially when I saw it on my widescreen 16x9 progressive scan ultra fine bigscreen TV .

 

Suspension of disbelief is easier when it's on paper or in a book. It's harder when that sliver of reality is placed right in front of you. When it's three dimensional and portrayed as a living/breathing person it's harder not to scrutinize it.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

So what do you think of the job done in the current crop of superhero films?

 

The deceiving part of the real world context is that the superheroes have unreal powers and/or appearances. What would Spider-Man really move like? What would the Hulk really look like? None of us really know...if you realize that, it shouldn't be too difficult to suspend your disbelief for the CGI rendering.

 

Won't really know until I see more of it, but my current take on the Hulk is that his movement and animation may end up being the most realistic human-like movements we've seen on film to date. Doing real humans is probably a few years, if not decades, off, but since nobody exactly knows how the Hulk should look or move in a real-world context, they've got more latitude than normal human animators would. The Final Fantasy characters were too stiff, the Scorpion King looked too fake...Colossus would be almost as big a challenge as the Hulk is.

 

I have to admit that when I first heard they were doing a CGI Hulk last year, I thought it was a bit ambitious...we're probably another 5 to 10 years away from realistic CGI human movement. But the clips so far have exceeded my expectations, although I'm sure in 20 years they'll look primitive compared to the refinement the art will have achieved by then.

[fantastic_four]

I have to agree..the spidey on the big screen swinging on CGI webbing looks hokey. At least it looked WAY too CGI especially when I saw it on my widescreen 16x9 progressive scan ultra fine bigscreen TV .

 

Suspension of disbelief is easier when it's on paper or in a book. It's harder when that sliver of reality is placed right in front of you. When it's three dimensional and portrayed as a living/breathing person it's harder not to scrutinize it.

 

I agree that he looked too "light" and probably moved too fast, but there was an aesthetic appeal to the motion as well. And we really don't know what a person with the strength he's supposed to have would really move like, which means that our perceptions could be off, so I could be wrong when I say he looks too "light" and moved too fast. It'd take an imaginative biomechanical engineering or sports physician point of view to get an educated estimate of what the movement of a superhuman would be like.

[Lofwyr]

Don't get me wrong, I like the current renditions of our favorite superheroes. I just think they are still awkward at times and will look very dated down the road. I've seen similar CGI renderings in video/computer games that were in the Spiderman movie. Maybe i'm jaded because of it but it looked incredibly fake to me. CGI is like airbrushing it needs to be applied intelligently and sparsely for maximum effect. Since comic movies by their very nature will contain loads of "SFX" I can understand the need to increase the CGI but when entire characters are CGI rendered then the "Jar Jar binks" effect comes into play. At times the differences of the human and CGI version of spidey became a little too obvious and distracting.

 

I guess it's more obvious with the "special effects" kids who grew up watching movies comprised entirely of computer graphics. We notice these particular flaws more easily.. just like puppeteers will always notice the strings.

 

 

 

[blowout]

What would Spider-Man really move like? What would the Hulk really look like? None of us really know...if you realize that, it shouldn't be too difficult to suspend your disbelief for the CGI rendering.

 

The things that still don't look quite right in CGI yet are lighting, skin tone and other organic qualities that we would expect these characters to display in the real world. Powers or not, they are still subject to natures laws and the computer environment hasn't effectively replicated all of them yet.

[joe_collector]

These are some of the most bizarre comments I've ever read. When Pete is climbing the wall for the first time and leaping from rooftop to rooftop, it looked super-fake, mostly because it did not look remotely human.

 

This is the standard argument used with Toy Story, and for that it works (no one does know what a Toy looks like in movement) but Peter Parket is human, and paranormal or not, the hitches, glitches and bad lighting on the CGI creature made it really stand out.

 

Like it or not, bidepal CGI humans or humaniods are going to be judged by how we see it in realtion to everyday movement. Herky jerky movement and off-lighting can't be blown away due to paranormal abilities.

[fantastic_four]

The things that still don't look quite right in CGI yet are lighting, skin tone and other organic qualities that we would expect these characters to display in the real world. Powers or not, they are still subject to natures laws and the computer environment hasn't effectively replicated all of them yet.

 

Let's take the Hulk movie as an example since from what I've seen, Ang Lee has pushed the animators farther in these exact areas you're pointing out more than for any other humanoid I've seen on screen yet. I captured the clearest images I could find from the latest Hulk trailer; which of the following images have reality flaws?

 

[blowout]

I have to admit that I have not seen all these images before and the top two actually are about the best I have seen.

Other than these two though, the lighting is the worst fault in the others and display the biggest problem CGI currently has, in that it cannot properly replicate ambient light (that is light reflected and refracted from one object onto another). The Hulk still looks too much like an object lit in a studio.

As far as organic flaws go, the hair looks too static (as CGI hair tends to) and the Hulks facial expressions still look slightly unreal.

I will suspend any further analysis until I have seen the film. I must say though that the first two shots have filled me with more optimism regarding the Hulks CGI credibility.

[fantastic_four]

The first two images are the easiest to examine since they're lit with sunlight, which we're all used to. And that's definitely what's most impressive about them; Hulk looks great under normal light. Images 3 through 6 need caution in judging them; very infrequently do any of us see lighting like this so it's tougher to judge it. The third image looks the most like CGI to me; sweat-soaked skin does have a sheen which glows in moonlight, though, so I'm not sure how far off it is. I think I'll go jog a mile after this post and check myself out under the street lights for comparison. I'm having trouble criticizing the fourth and fifth images because of the unnatural lighting from that thing the Hulk jumped out of, as well as the nonstandard lighting of that laboratory. Not sure what's wrong with the sixth image.

 

What's wrong with the hair? They kinda had it easy with Hulk hair; it's typically short in the comic and short hair doesn't move much. His hair in these images looks about like mine when I wake up the next morning after a haircut. The facial expressions I feel we've got to suspend our disbelief on because of the nature of the Hulk's power. The first time I saw someone with Downe's syndrome, they looked "unreal" to me. The first time I saw Gheorge Muresan--or anyone else with gigantism like Manute Bol--they looked unreal. The Hulk has blown up in size just a liiiiiitle bit, so he's going to look unreal. He's out of proportion, by definition.

 

The biggest problem I had with the new trailer was how fast Hulk was running from the helicopters in the valley scene...looks like he's running in excess of 100mph, perhaps even in excess of 200mph. Of course that, like the extreme speed of Spidey in the film, are something the animators would be consciously aware of and quite possibly directed to do; did Hulk have speed like this in the comic?

[fantastic_four]

I managed to capture a few more semi-clear images from the new trailer. You can really see the HUGE scale they rendered him at in the third image; that soldier laying on the ground looks 1/3 his height and 1/6 his size.