We Need Some Movie News

webhead2006 wrote: As for hair thing I said it before I don't mind lois being a red head as long as amy plays the role to justice.

I for one hope Lois isn't a red head in this one and what we see in the set photos was just a guise she sports on just for the purpose of getting a story. Personally I perfer if she were more brunette haired like Erica Durance was in "Smallville". The last thing Snyder want to do is confuse the viewers/masses that Amy Adams is playing Lana Lang and not Lois Lane.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:I for one hope Lois isn't a red head in this one and what we see in the set photos was just a guise she sports on just for the purpose of getting a story. Personally I perfer if she were more brunette haired like Erica Durance was in "Smallville". The last thing Snyder want to do is confuse the viewers/masses that Amy Adams is playing Lana Lang and not Lois Lane.

Now.......

I guess it doesn't help that Erica Durance started out as a halfass blonde in SV.

Complaining about Lois' hair color seems pointless. As said earlier, her hair color has been changing for 70 years so it's not like traditions are being broken. Heck, Margot Kidder had black hair in the first two films and went brunette in the latter two. For MOS she's a redhead, deal with it or go home.

There are better discussions, like: What is this film gonna be like? Is it gonna be TDK levels of dark or are the reports of having a THOR feel actually true? I'd like to have an idea. What is Amy Adams' take on Lois? How will Cavil balance between the Clark Kent and Superman personas? Will Zod's portrayal be based on Terrence Stamp's iconic performance or have they used source material? What can we expect? How will Snyder try to make his Superman appeal to more audiences than SR attempted? What are the differences?

The production of SKYFALL has been pretty secretive, a lot more than any Bond film has ever been. However, they're still releasing video journals concerning character portrayals, costumes, set designs. The plot hasn't been elaborated too much but at least you're getting an idea of what kind of film to expect. There's an air of mystery to it but there's enough stuff being thrown out there for people to get interested in.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Superman wrote:I just know the SR apologists will be butthurt if MOS takes home a lot of dough. I already noticed some optimists dreaming of Routh being cast in the JLA movie and even reading bullshit about the supposed muscle suit again, with today's pictures. I mean, how stupid can these people get???

If you post at any other forums, and you see that bullshit being spewed forth, link them to this post of mine that DESTROYS their claims of "padding":

https://supermanfilmwatchdog.forumcanadien.org/t168p270-henry-cavill-cast-as-superman#8524

The proof is there, in full color no less!

Oh, and add this one too:

https://supermanfilmwatchdog.forumcanadien.org/t168p255-henry-cavill-cast-as-superman#8511

Ok, I did it. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=61538#comments here, on page 4. I almost didn't. I don't want to waste energy with blind haters. But what the hell. There are also some idiots on some forum...I keep forgetting it's name, eyesswkard something, that cry muscle suit. BJ fanboys. But I don't post there. Or anywhere really, too busy at the moment, but it sure is fun to read all the silly ideas Singerman apologists have, lol! Im just glad I found this forum here (found it one day when googling ´´man of steel`` and checking out entries from the last 24 hours``) where sanity still prevails.

Superman wrote:Ok, I did it. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=61538#comments here, on page 4. I almost didn't. I don't want to waste energy with blind haters. But what the hell. There are also some idiots on some forum...I keep forgetting it's name, eyesswkard something, that cry muscle suit. BJ fanboys. But I don't post there. Or anywhere really, too busy at the moment, but it sure is fun to read all the silly ideas Singerman apologists have, lol! Im just glad I found this forum here (found it one day when googling ´´man of steel`` and checking out entries from the last 24 hours``) where sanity still prevails.

I noticed he didn't reply. Interesting, isn't it......?

Oh, and "EyesCrotchWard" is the old BlueNuts website. You know, the one that sucked Singers inept dick for his "video journals" and shit? So they are one of the last remaining caves for Apologist trolls to hide out in.

A couple more someone uploaded:

Apologist Puncher wrote:Oh, and "EyesCrotchWard" is the old BlueNuts website. You know, the one that sucked Singers inept dick for his "video journals" and shit? So they are one of the last remaining caves for Apologist trolls to hide out in.

Speaking of which... How exactly does Bluetights.net get shutdown anyway? For that matter... Whatever happen to the members there?

Apologist Puncher wrote:A couple more someone uploaded:

What's up with the black version of the MOS suit?! This ain't a 'Death of Superman' story so what's going on?!

non_amos wrote:What's up with the black version of the MOS suit?! This ain't a 'Death of Superman' story so what's going on?!

Lighting, my good man. Lighting.

It's the same suit.

Stockslivevan wrote:"HEY, LOOK! SUPERMAN IS DRUNK!"

And he looks so.....fake?!?!?



You know, I have never seen this CGI abomination up-close before. Isn't it kind of funny that they made BJ's neck even THINNER than it already was?? Oh, and his nose BIGGER.

Top-notch production to be sure....

It's interesting to me that someone took the time to make color corrections to that shot. As I recall, the original version looked about as shitty as anything else in the movie. Unless the CG animators think Blandon has a perpetual case of pink eye and a slightly purple'ish body suit, I'd say it looks like someone beefed up the color saturation.

So if you think that version looks shitty, it's only because you may not remember how awful the original version looked (not that I'm criticizing you; don't we all wish we could block out memories of Singerman?).

thecolorsblend wrote:It's interesting to me that someone took the time to make color corrections to that shot. As I recall, the original version looked about as shitty as anything else in the movie. Unless the CG animators think Blandon has a perpetual case of pink eye and a slightly purple'ish body suit, I'd say it looks like someone beefed up the color saturation.

So if you think that version looks shitty, it's only because you may not remember how awful the original version looked (not that I'm criticizing you; don't we all wish we could block out memories of Singerman?).

Wow, look at THIS too!



And listen to this bit of bullshit from the website:

http://gl.ict.usc.edu/LightStages/#

Continuing at Sony Imageworks, John Monos led an effort which used Light Stage 2 scans of actor Brandon Routh to create a digital Superman character for the 2006 movie Superman Returns. The film achieved a new high water mark in the realism of virtual actors, with the digital Superman being successfully employed in both action sequences and extended closeup shots. The seamless digital character work helped earn Superman Returns an Academy Award® nomination for Best Visual Effects.

Wooooooooow................

I really hated those CGI close ups. The worst bit was that shot of him holding up the plane by the nose in the baseball field, the worst part being that only a few seconds ago there was a real shot of Routh holding the nose, so why did they bother making a CGI shot if they had one that was real?

It still gets me that they used CGI shots of BJ the Bartender in scenes where CGI was absolutely unnecessary. Wouldn't the traditional 'wire-work' have been the way to go here? Some things may need to be CGI but a close-up shot of him doing essentially.....nothing?! Brilliant film-making there Singer!

non_amos wrote:It still gets me that they used CGI shots of BJ the Bartender in scenes where CGI was absolutely unnecessary. Wouldn't the traditional 'wire-work' have been the way to go here? Some things may need to be CGI but a close-up shot of him doing essentially.....nothing?! Brilliant film-making there Singer!

Well, I need to parse my argument carefully here. Effects like these tend to be done on a basis of whatever costs the least but still gives the director something close to what he pictures.

A good example is the bit Puncher posted. Singerman had to swoop in from far away from the camera, grin like a creepy dipshit for a few seconds, then swoop away into some kind of sustained shot that went on for quite a while.

Now, the natural temptation is to think that you could accomplish that at least somewhat with practical photography. And apparently Singer even tried jillions of takes... none of which could be used by the effects house to plug in CG bookends for because there was just no way to get the tracking and digital camera movements right to match up with the live action photography. For whatever reason. So the gossip is that those live action shots just got scrapped entirely and the effects house was commissioned to do the whole sunuvabitch as a CG shot.

And here's the thing. IT COULD HAVE WORKED. People can say whatever the fuck they want about how fake CGI looks to them but what they're talking about is either (A) shit CGI or (B) intentionally stylized CGI. The stuff that blends in perfectly and realistically to a scene tends not to get noticed because it blends perfectly into the scene. The masses have zero ability to discern shitty or stylized CGI from CGI in general. Exhibit A? The Star Wars prequels. Love 'em or hate 'em, those films had some really amazing effects shots in them. Some things that people thought were "real" turned out to be CGI and some things that people thought were CGI turned out to be real. It really does put the lie in some ways to that whole "I can ALWAYS tell a CGI shot when I see one" thing.

There were also intentionally stylized effects in there that people identified as "bad". Well, no. It's a stylistic choice. The technical aspects of it are pitch perfect. Your eye recognizes the stylization and instantly rejects it as "real" but that doesn't automatically equate to "bad".

But I digress.

So if the fully CG Singerman shot could have worked... why didn't it? Once again, blame Singer. It's well established that Singer partied it up when he was shooting Singerman. Its out there and the rumors are too numerous for me to dismiss. There's at least a germ of truth behind it.

We also know that the production was halted at one point. This never made sense to me until the late Barry Freiman eventually reported that it was halted so that Singer could quietly go into rehab. He apparently got clean enough to finish the movie but between his incessant partying and subsequent rehab, the effects houses had essentially no time left to complete shots.

There's a sequence where Singerman flies over Metropolis to go spy on Lois. I don't care what anybody says, that shit is straight up PS2 grade "effects". Totally bushleague work even by 2006 standards. Well, um, there's a reason for that. The effects technicians were basically stuck in a holding pattern on that and many other shots while Singer was off doing whatever he was doing. By the time he could offer meaningful direction (to the extent he ever offered such a thing), it was too late in the ballgame to make very many improvements.

There's something to that too. If you go back and check out those sequences, certain things are actually done quite well. Lighting, for example. Well, that's logical. You don't need the director (necessarily) to give you notes about the lighting. As he goes through his twelve steps, you can improve the lighting in the shots and at least get something accomplished. Stuff like character expressions and other things that are more the director's turf are uniformly sucky suckitude suckness.

Either way though, the end result is a lot of shit CG shots that any nitwit would look at and recognize as the works in progress sequences they always were. In the hands of a competent director, they would have been made to work.

The effects houses who worked on Singerman generally do good work. The other movies I know about those effects houses handling generally had good, really good or (occasionally) great effects shots. But somehow they ALL dropped the nachos ONLY for Singerman? Does ANYBODY believe that???

After Freiman broke that "Singer went into rehab" war story down, for the first time it made sense why Singerman got nominated for an effects Academy Award. It's got shit to do with the actual quality of the work (I mean, say whatever you want about My Super Ex-Girlfriend, even that movie had largely better effects than Singerman) and everything to do with The Powers That Be letting the effects companies know that they understand; nobody holds Singerman against them. They'll continue getting work in the future. It was a show of solidarity, nothing more.

Sorry to blather on so much but the last thing I want anybody to do is walk away with a negative impression of the effects companies who worked on Singerman. They did the best they could with the money and (precious little) time they had at their disposal. Frankly, the fact that the shots aren't even worse speaks to their abilities.

As ever, blame Bryan Singer.

I had no idea that Barry Freiman had died! I assume it was AIDS? Anyway, that's the first I've heard of it so I did a quick Wikipedia but didn't read all of it yet. You'd think we'd have seen a blurb or something at SHH or somewhere?

non_amos wrote:I had no idea that Barry Freiman had died! I assume it was AIDS? Anyway, that's the first I've heard of it so I did a quick Wikipedia but didn't read all of it yet. You'd think we'd have seen a blurb or something at SHH or somewhere?

There was an announcement over on the Eunuch page about it. Whatever falling out he and Freiman had, at least the guy had the decency to pay his respects.

As to cause of death, nobody's said... which makes me think, yeah, it was likely HIV/AIDS or related complications.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Superman wrote:Ok, I did it. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=61538#comments here, on page 4. I almost didn't. I don't want to waste energy with blind haters. But what the hell. There are also some idiots on some forum...I keep forgetting it's name, eyesswkard something, that cry muscle suit. BJ fanboys. But I don't post there. Or anywhere really, too busy at the moment, but it sure is fun to read all the silly ideas Singerman apologists have, lol! Im just glad I found this forum here (found it one day when googling ´´man of steel`` and checking out entries from the last 24 hours``) where sanity still prevails.

I noticed he didn't reply. Interesting, isn't it......?

Oh, and "EyesCrotchWard" is the old BlueNuts website. You know, the one that sucked Singers inept dick for his "video journals" and shit? So they are one of the last remaining caves for Apologist trolls to hide out in.

Interesting, I didn't know that place spawned from a Singerman worshipers site. I kind of wish I was following things around the time SR came out. It would save me the shock when I got home from field work (had little internet and no time to follow production of SR) and went straight into theater to watch a new Superman film.

I will never forget how shocked I was at the scene near the beginning I think, with Clark and his Mom in the room watching TV or something. The ´´acting`` from Routh was so bad I couldn't believe it. Worse than a crappy soap opera actor. I was also shocked that this skinny, teenage looking kid with brown hair was supposedly Superman. Or the opening scene with Spacey. For a moment I thought Burton made the movie (on drugs). Creepy and disgusting. And then another kiddo showed up, the giant forehead Bosworth who was supposedly a Pulitzer winning journalist with a 5 year old boy. Huh? And then, that kid in that horrible costume. Those piss poor VFX. Frank Langela playing an old CEO playing Perry White. The kid. Ugh. The list goes on and on.

Sorry to speak of Singerman guys I just kind of drifted on the memory lane for a moment here. But I know I would have avoided the shock had I followed that movie as closely as I am Man of Steel. MOS can still disappoint in a lot of ways, but it's already leaps and bounds better than that disaster Singer came up with.

And now, some 6 years later, I still see fans of that disaster. And they are annoying. Putting down aspects of MOS as if they are worse than in SR, making fun of Snyder and secretly hopping MOS fails. These people must really hate the REAL Superman if they like Singerman so much. Sigh....

http://www.therpf.com/gallery/g880-man-of-steel.html

You can find a lot of high resolution photos of the 3 costumes in the upper link. 58 photos of the Superman costume. The photos were taken with an iPad...

Superman wrote:

I will never forget how shocked I was at the scene near the beginning I think, with Clark and his Mom in the room watching TV or something. The ´´acting`` from Routh was so bad I couldn't believe it. Worse than a crappy soap opera actor. I was also shocked that this skinny, teenage looking kid with brown hair was supposedly Superman.

You'd think that 'TPTB' at duh brothers Warner would've seen this coming before they spent 200+ million on this debacle. Asleep at the wheel or what?!

And:

Or the opening scene with Spacey. For a moment I thought Burton made the movie (on drugs). Creepy and disgusting.

Yeah, great point here. It looks like it starts off like a BATMAN film & not one by duh Nolan either but rather by Burton. I believe even film critics noticed this back then. But I imagine Singer was the one on the drugs. Duh WB should've caught this also. No way to open a SUPERMAN film, that's for certain!

Superman you probably would have loved the singer sucks blog that was out way back when sr came out. And I so agree man the cgi was so terrible in sr. Compared to other films out at the time. Its still shocking how much money singer wasted on cgi/filming and wb did nothing to stop it. Hell look at lone ranger production issues and that studio trying to fix its production costs issues. Where the hell was wb execs at then. Where they to wasted from partying with singer to care?

Personally I like pratical shots if it works for what the scene needs and the vision director wants. And then using cg to enhance things to look better or to create stuff they wouldn't be fesiable to do pratical/economical. I hate when cg is wasted on things that didn't need to be cg in the first place. Take for example green lantern film. There was no real good reason why the suit had to be a total cg creation or same for certain lanterns like kilowog and some of the other humanoid lanterns.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Speaking of which... How exactly does Bluetights.net get shutdown anyway? For that matter... Whatever happen to the members there?

It didn't get closed down per se. The site owner, King Apologist "Justin" gave up on the site once a sequel was shown to have ZERO chance of happening. So he handed it over to his fat, pathetic cohort, Queen Apologist Whatsherface. As far as I know, all the members moved over there.

thecolorsblend would know more about it than I would, though.

webhead2006 wrote:Take for example green lantern film. There was no real good reason why the suit had to be a total cg creation or same for certain lanterns like kilowog and some of the other humanoid lanterns.

Didn't Green Lantern have the same vfx house working on it as SR (sony imageworks I think) ? Regardless, I'd really like to know just how Singer managed to blew a 200.000+ million budget and with nothing to show for it. Is growing corn really that expensive?