|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Superman Returns
|
Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.
Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 07-04-2006 04:45 PM
CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 9
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
RATING: Three and one half stars (out of four)
WARNING: Goodnight, Spoilers
"Superman Returns" gets five screens, but not the big ones. Auditoriums 10 and 11 are devoted to "The Devil Wears Prada". Bummer.
THE PLOT: A being from another planet returns to Earth after discovering there's no place like your adopted home when the home you were born in was trashed by some wacky bastards. I'm originally from Portland, so I can relate.
Anyway, he's back for truth, justice, and an American love triangle. But his archrival broke into his Fortress of Solitude and stole some stuff, so he needs to take care of that too.
I would have changed exactly one thing...I would have put Lex and Kitty's last scene after the credits. Short of that, it was exactly what it should have been. GREAT movie.
Wife #1 caught the "Gotham" thing.
SWEET train set.
[ 07-04-2006, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Sam Graham ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester
Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 07-04-2006 05:02 PM
Ha ha, we had Superman in ALL our big auditoriums, but we had to swap Prada into one of them after that first night. Besides, our IMAX Superman is far surpassing our four 35mm prints.
I, too, think the final Lex/Kitty bit would have worked after the credits. But its placement breaks up the long, boring hospital stuff, which would have been way too tedious without the comic relief. It's the ONLY thing between Lois & Jason's visit, and Nurse-Discovering-Empty-Bed, two scenes that would have been difficult to put back to back.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-05-2006 01:05 PM
Finally got a chance to see this yesterday.
I liked it a lot. I guess I'm the only one here who wasn't bothered by the opening credits. I liked the background shots during the credits as well.
Story - pretty good, I like it when a movie doesn't telegraph the entire ending before it happens. I knew he'd do something about the "new continent" but didn't know what. And I like the way things are left pretty ambigious about Lois & Clark -- Supe does say "Goodbye, Lois" but still...
Questions I had: Why didn't the kid open the door when Lois asked him to? Why didn't Lex's kryptonite cylinder bother the kid? And, is Richard going to be back in the next sequel or did he drop Lois and the kid off for good?
I guess the main part I didn't like was Superman being "critical" in a hospital. He's Superman, forcripesake, he's not supposed to need medical care. But I liked that he disappeared from the hospital....would have been better if there'd been a huge hole in the ceiling.
I think the whole "truth, justice and all that stuff" brouhaha is tremendously overblown. Even my mother-in-law, who's not even a Supe fan, said she heard the movie was "anti-American." The screenwriters should have known that line would cause trouble.
I agree with previous comments about the colors. Superman's costume seems dull in a lot of shots, especially the cape. But there are some scenes of cityscapes that are great. And I agree the SFX were awesome. I thought Lois should have at least had a broken arm from being tossed around in the plane though.
Overall, 3.5 out of 5 stars for me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-12-2006 12:36 AM
Ok, my take on this show. After finally watching it.
Pretty good movie. No comparison to the 1978 movie which can now rightly be called a classic action flick. This one is decent. But it is also more than a tad bit derivative. All throughout this movie I had little pangs of "been there, seen that" popping up all over the place. Might be nice for 1 or 2 viewings, but not good for the long haul.
The videography looked okay. It didn't really have an obvious video look -seemed to have a pretty good imitation of the film look. But the image quality still looked soft. The show would have looked a lot sharper had it been photographed in anamorphic 35mm. Naturally it would have been fantastic looking if the trouble had been taken to lens it in 65mm.
But let's get to my real criticism: The Opening Titles. Suckage. And that's the opinion of a qualified, professional, college educated computer graphic artist.
What the hell were these guys thinking? Huh?
The pixellation and aliasing is as bad as anything I've seen shown in a movie theater. Very embarassing.
Shit, this is basic stuff. Even for 480i television! If you're going to do something really detailed you gotta originate it in a much higher standard or you have to add the appropriate amount of blur to keep the flicker and aliasing from happening.
The original movie and its "analog" originated glassy titles looked a hell of a lot better. And there was no pixellated shimmering and aliasing on those things. Digital is NOT always perfect.
With the goal of being a real sequel to the 1978 version, they didn't get the font right on the opening titles.
I'm not really sure what font was used in the 1978 film's opening titles. It seems like a cross of Gill Sans Bold and Frutiger. The new movie uses a font called Gotham. That's a very popular typeface these days. But Batman lived in Gotham City. Superman lived in Metropolis. So even there they kind of missed the mark, even by following comic book terminology.
The thing which drove me up the wall the worst about those opening titles was the frantic, meth-addict-laden fast-foward speed of all the shit flying past way the hell too fast. Usually you want to pass by a huge sized object, such as a planet, fairly slowly to impart the sense of scale. With the speed these titles fly by, the planet of Saturn is the mere size of a fucking soccer ball! Yaarrgh! Suckage! Really, what the fuck!?
The opening title sequence in the 1978 film had nowhere near the level of computer technology and other tools available today. Still, those titles have a superior asthetic appeal to them as compared to the new Superman movie.
Basically a lot of these computer tools of today has allowed a lot of people to get ridiculously lazy and not do their damned jobs correctly!
Oh, and before anyone tries to retort and say I'm wrong on this -just go back and look at the NOT matching at all perspective. Ack! I might as well be on 'ludes watching those titles. Maybe they might make sense then.
Overall, my criticism serves those guys right for trying to outdo something that was already well done. They should have taken a different path with this movie's opening titles. Here's a hint: the character is called "the man of steel." Hmm. Chrome titles? Perhaps something in diamondplate -like the new "S" logo? Hello? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
quote: Ian Price
In defense of Robert Rodriguez "filming" in HD, he does it so he can stick it to the studios and make movies in his garage in Austin TX.
Yet the video cameras he is using are still made by Panavision. Also, let it be known you don't have to be in Los Angeles or New York to rent a Panavision film camera. Panavision has offices in Texas. Robert Rodriquez just needs to drive a little ways up I-35 to Dallas and get a film camera. Dammit!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-12-2006 12:41 AM
Screening: 6:45pm on July 11, 2006.
Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons. Sandy, Utah.
IMAX Presentation.
Most annoying thing: The picture was "jittering" horizontally throughout the film. I don't know much about IMAX projectors but this one seems to need a tune up (after less than a year).
Second most annoying thing: The way they adapted John Williams' music. I mean, you anticipate certain melodies to be a certain way because you've heard them that way a million times since 1978... and then some knucklehead messes it up, repeats things in the wrong order, whatever. Who's bold enough to say they can write John Williams' music better than John Williams? The credits were surprisingly short, followed by additional IMAX-only credits. Since I haven't seen the non-IMAX version, I'm wondering if there are more credits (which would give the credits the same running time) or if the music in the 35mm/DLP version lacks the annoying repetition.
Other than that, you folks have covered this movie pretty well. Not a great movie but not as horrible as I expected either. And the 3-D was a less-than-satisfying novelty. They needed more 3-D material or just forget about doing it at all. Of course, I was curious enough to spend more money than I would on a 2-D presentation, so their trick worked!
When I left the theatre I couldn't help noticing the neon "P" was out on the sign above the entrance. I went back and asked someone at the box office if they did it on purpose just to be cute. I mean, I just watched Superman Returns at the "Mega Lex" theatre!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-15-2006 10:30 PM
If Ebert and Roeper called the cinematography beautiful, I have doubts they saw it in IMAX or even a 35mm film-based auditorium.
I checked out the 3:00pm show of Superman Returns today at the Cinemark IMAX theater in Colorado Springs. I'm up in Colorado because my Grandmother had a scary medical episode. A couple other relatives and I rushed up here Thursday. Thankfully it wasn't a stroke, just something minor. Anyway, I figured I'd check out that version of the show while here.
Again, the dramatic content of the movie itself is pretty decent. It rates three stars out of four, but you have some "been there, done that" feelings popping up.
I watched this version to check out how well this artificial 3D technique done entirely in post production looks. Well, it isn't as bad as I thought it could have been. The concern was that the 3D stuff would look like separate layers of really flat looking objects. The technicians obviously did quite a bit more work to get a more gradual quality to the depth. Still, the depth effect wasn't nearly as clear as it should have been to be fully convincing. The edges of some foreground objects were blurry. And that problem worked to increase the blurry effect of an already noticeably blurry movie when viewers weren't signaled to put on their glasses.
By comparison, the IMAX 3D trailer of Happy Feet on the front of the show looked more natural. I suspect that movie was made with 3D specifically in mind.
Given that Star Wars was shot on 35mm film in 'scope, and had its original visual effects shot in VistaVision, I'm hoping George Lucas is working with at least a 4K level scan on his effort to make a 3D version of Star Wars for its 30th anniversary. If he does that, the results may look quite a bit better than the 3D I saw with Superman Returns.
Viewing this show in IMAX also bolstered my opinion about the limits of shooting major feature projects on video. I didn't see pixels the size of floor tiles in this. However, the pixel grid did make itself noticeably visible in a few areas, such as the rendering of those lighted control panel crystals in the Fortress of Solitude growing up at Lex Luthor. Of course, the pixellation in the opening titles was even more noticeable. And the way too fast nature of planets flipping by like some sort of acid trip did not work well on this big a screen. A lot of that stuff would just whip by like a fast blur or something.
Overall, the softness I noticed in 35mm was even more exaggerated in IMAX. And the imagery was very wanting in terms of detail.
When you're used to watching movies natively photographed in IMAX, you can concentrate on certain areas of the huge screen and see lots of details well in focus. There were lots of things in this show that seemed way out of focus.
For instance, when Lex Luthor is telling Kitty about how selfish Gods are aboard that ship, there's lots of objects on the set you should be able to fully "read". The numbers on the pool table balls are blurred out, even though they're big enough on screen for the numbers to be legible. In another scene Lex opens a newspaper whose front page covers much of the frame. All the type on it is blurred. If that shot had been done on film and scanned at 4K I'll bet that type would have been sharper and far more legible.
I think the shots that looked best on this IMAX version where low depth of field scenes between actors. But even on lots of low depth of field shots the areas within the focal plane were just not as sharp as they should be. Hairs, skin pores and other stuff you would normally see really sharp even on normal 35mm 'scope movies just seemed not well defined here.
This movie probably looks really good on a small to medium sized screen equipped for digital cinema. Maybe in that kind of venue one may not see all the pixellation on the opening titles and other limitations of HD videography calling attention to itself.
With all the drive for people to convert all parts of movie making to digital form, I'm hoping other areas in computer parts manufacturing can push improvements that will translate over to these new kinds of cameras Panavision and Arri are making. Their video cameras need a lot more native pixels to capture the level of detail I'm used to seeing in feature films.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 07-22-2006 02:45 AM
If Lois Lane took Superman to Superman Returns at an IMAX theater in 3D, would she at least realize he is Clark Kent when he puts the 3D glasses on?
Also, I agree with those who despised the logic in the rotating the earth backwards scene in Superman. I was less than 10 when I saw it and even back then, I was disgusted by the stupidity of that scene. Just had to get that off my chest. At least in BAck to the Future, you can suspend reality because the time travel Delorean is like a black box while rotating the earth is a known reality where anyone above 5 knows rotating the earth has nothign to do with time.
Saw it at a Regal IMAX Mall of Georgia in Atlanta.
With the letterboxing, the size can't be more than your biggest regular multiplex screen. I knw Michael Mann loves HD for the night scenes, but for me , I actually find HD work horrible in night scenes in motion pictures. It has a very videoish feel. But the HD work overall did not bother me. Do you think studios will get a clue that big and good presentation does matter? Superman is kicking some major ass in the IMAX revenues compared to its 35MM revenues. Imagine if they gave 70MM a good buzzword marketing term.
Brandon Routh was a better Superman than I expected. I liked SInger's direction even if some scenes at the end dragged on. But I despised how Singer decided to add more illogical concepts. Superman, as it is, makes you summon all the childhood devotion one has to the SUperman character to suspend a lot of disbelief (the glasses on glasses off stupidity; the unlimited superpowers that the guys actually had to come up with kryptonite or Superman would become a really boring character to follow). But does Singer have to include scenes where some of that lack of logic stands out even more? Wouldnt Jimmy Olsen who worships Superman and is Kent's buddy notice that the two were not only missing for 5 years, but when Superman is sick, Kent goes missing again? And even if you think, OK the thought never occurred to him, surely he would consider it when Lane's boyfriend broaches the possiblity and then they both just laugh it off? And what to make of Lane making her boyfriend believe he was the father unless we are expected to think Lane fucked him right after she lost her memory in Superman 2? I never cared too much about a Superman -Lane romance in such a serious way to be able to get into the whole pathos by Superman. I get the loney man vibe that makes him sad, but the pining only for Lane thing as his one great love doesnt interest me.
Another thing that I dont care for is the crystals. I found the crystal concept a good tool to use some 70s art deco props in the first two superman movies. But it was never that important for me to see an entire plot be based upon.
ANyway, despite all that, I still liked the movie. For me, Routh was every bit as good as Christopher Reeve in the role. I thought Reeve may have had more presence in some scenes, but Routh didn't look as stiff as Reeve in others.
The 3D stuff was pretty good except for when SUperman is running throught the fields and the visuals looked like a big jumble to me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic