Ben Affleck Is Batman for Man of Steel Sequel (dir. Zack Snyder)

[MisterCreosote]

I know. That was just my smart-ass way of saying that special effects using models are nowhere near as realistic as CGI, and they're not even "close enough" to justify the cost savings, IMO.

 

[bigpern23]

And I should note, I'm not advocating for all models all the time. I've said it before on this site, I think whenever possible, filmmakers should use practical means to film a scene and, if necessary, support it with CGI. A great example is "Prometheus." There were heavy doses of CGI, to be sure, but that movie had more practically-filmed shots than most sci-fi movies made today, and the results were tangible.

 

[bigpern23]

I know. That was just my smart-ass way of saying that special effects using models are nowhere near as realistic as CGI, and they're not even "close enough" to justify the cost savings, IMO.

I think the big advantage of CGI over models is that you're not limited by the physics of actually having to pull off - and record - certain stunts. However, when you rely completely on CGI, it usually doesn't look very real. Look at the final jump in Gone in 60 Seconds. Had that shot been done practically, it would have been great. Instead, they used CGI to pull off the impossible jump and it looked like crap. Compare that to Speed, in which they actually jumped a bus 50 feet and then digitally removed a portion of the highway, and the look was incredibly believable.

If filmmakers used CGI to complement practical cinematography whenever possible, instead of relying solely on CGI, they would both save money and create better-looking films.

I think where you really see the over-reliance of CGI lately is in the environment shots. Lucas, for instance, said he wanted to progress CGI to the point where actors would never have step foot off a soundstage and, unfortunately, the technology isn't close.

Again, look at the worlds created in Episodes I-III and compare them to the original trilogy, which was shot mostly on location and on practically-built sets. It's not close which ones look better. And by later enhancing those practically-shot scenes with some CGI (the scenes shot inside Cloud City, for example), Lucas achieved a much more realistic and engaging visual than he did with full-CGI worlds.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Fair enough. CGI for CGI's sake is pretty annoying. See Peter Jackson's King Kong.

 

[Buck]

Until the superhero trend fizzles, might as well cash in.

They're pretty much the only sure thing in Hollywood these days. After Lone Ranger, Oblivion and After Earth bombed, I doubt Hollywood is going to want to invest $200 million in a movie unless it has a recognizable superhero in the title.

Granted, all three of those movies did a lot better overseas than they did here, but The Avengers made $1.5 billion worldwide. Iron Man 3 made $1.2 billion. The Dark Knight Rises made over $1 billion. The latest Spider-Man made over $750 million and Man of Steel got near $650 million.

They'll fizzle eventually. These things come and go.

And they're not really sure things. In the past 10 years we've had unsuccessful endeavors with:
Daredevil
Elektra
Hulk, twice
Catwoman
Superman
Fantastic Four twice
Wolverine
Green Lantern

The ROI isn't as gaudy as it looks on some of the ones that didn't bomb. The most recent Superman might have done $640 million, but that doesn't look as good when you consider the ROI.
And when you look at it from a risk-reward perspective, spending $200-plus million on a movie is a terrible decision.

I'm not anti- comicbook or anti-superhero. I just think when we're making movies over in less than a decade, it's a little ridiculous.

 

[bigpern23]

Fair enough. CGI for CGI's sake is pretty annoying. See Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Oy. Agreed.

 

[heyabbott]

James Spader is Ultron in Avengers 2

 

[outofplace]

Until the superhero trend fizzles, might as well cash in.

They're pretty much the only sure thing in Hollywood these days. After Lone Ranger, Oblivion and After Earth bombed, I doubt Hollywood is going to want to invest $200 million in a movie unless it has a recognizable superhero in the title.

Granted, all three of those movies did a lot better overseas than they did here, but The Avengers made $1.5 billion worldwide. Iron Man 3 made $1.2 billion. The Dark Knight Rises made over $1 billion. The latest Spider-Man made over $750 million and Man of Steel got near $650 million.

They'll fizzle eventually. These things come and go.

And they're not really sure things. In the past 10 years we've had unsuccessful endeavors with:
Daredevil
Elektra
Hulk, twice
Catwoman
Superman
Fantastic Four twice
Wolverine
Green Lantern

The ROI isn't as gaudy as it looks on some of the ones that didn't bomb. The most recent Superman might have done $640 million, but that doesn't look as good when you consider the ROI.
And when you look at it from a risk-reward perspective, spending $200-plus million on a movie is a terrible decision.

I'm not anti- comicbook or anti-superhero. I just think when we're making movies over in less than a decade, it's a little ridiculous.

I'm not sure if they will fizzle. I think it will have ups and downs, but it was always ripe territory for stories. It just took a long time to be able to make these types of stories look decent in live action.

You are absolutely right about the remakes. Though I enjoyed it, I didn't think Spider-Man had to go back to do another origin story. I guess part of why they did it was they didn't want to just continue where Spider-Man 3 left off because it was so bad and because the cast did not want to return. That, and I think the idea is that the Tobey Maguire movies are based on the traditional Spider-Man comics while Amazing was pulled from the Ultimate line, which was also a big influence on Avengers.

 

[Starman]

Some interesting choices here:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/08/justice-league-tk/68833/

Charlize Theron as Wonder Woman, I think, could really work.

She would be passable -- at 5-10, she could be built up on elevator boots.

I did see this passage:

No one knows for sure yet. But the Justice League roster is deep, so deep, full of characters both well-known and obscure, with a variety of personalities and powers, that they all need love and attention.

Actually, no ... nobody really gives a damn about any of these guys except Batman and Superman. Except for the Big Two, they're all 'obscure.'

 

[Bradley Guire]

Funny thing is that in the 90s, before the really big superhero craze, some of this summer's bombs might have been hits. If movies like "Independence Day" came out this summer, they might not be the financial hits they are. "Con Air" and "Face/Off" would likely be direct-to-video non-franchise action vehicles for some washed-up wrestler like Stone Cold, not an in-his-prime Nic Cage.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Until the superhero trend fizzles, might as well cash in.

They're pretty much the only sure thing in Hollywood these days. After Lone Ranger, Oblivion and After Earth bombed, I doubt Hollywood is going to want to invest $200 million in a movie unless it has a recognizable superhero in the title.

Granted, all three of those movies did a lot better overseas than they did here, but The Avengers made $1.5 billion worldwide. Iron Man 3 made $1.2 billion. The Dark Knight Rises made over $1 billion. The latest Spider-Man made over $750 million and Man of Steel got near $650 million.

They'll fizzle eventually. These things come and go.

And they're not really sure things. In the past 10 years we've had unsuccessful endeavors with:
Daredevil
Elektra
Hulk, twice
Catwoman
Superman
Fantastic Four twice
Wolverine
Green Lantern

The ROI isn't as gaudy as it looks on some of the ones that didn't bomb. The most recent Superman might have done $640 million, but that doesn't look as good when you consider the ROI.
And when you look at it from a risk-reward perspective, spending $200-plus million on a movie is a terrible decision.

I'm not anti- comicbook or anti-superhero. I just think when we're making movies over in less than a decade, it's a little ridiculous.

Both Wolverine movies and Superman Returns were "disappointments" that made between $350-$400 million worldwide. The other ones you listed, with the possible exception of Green Lantern aren't as well known or are seen as spinoff movies.

I think it's safe to say anything with Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Iron Man is a pretty safe bet.

 

[Starman]

The problem DC will always have in getting a Justice League franchise off the ground is that in any such movie, every single second some clown like Green Arrow or Hawkman is on screen is like watching Udonis Haslem take jump shots while LeBron James is drinking Gatorade on the bench.

People don't pay money to watch the JV game.