It's A Bird... It's A Plane... It's David Goyer! - Page 2

Cool news for the most part. They could do a lot worse than choosing the Byrne era as a jumping off point. A lot of Superman The Animated Series was inspired by or derived from that era and that's so far the best screen depiction of the character.

I don't know...the CGI facial stuff in Avatar was jaw dropping in realism, I don't see this as being some radical futuristic idea, it's already happening.

Realism for a blue feline face is one thing, realism for a human face is something else entirely. The Uncanny Valley has not yet been bridged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5aQYbX3bU

If the punchline was meant to be a bait and switch - it wasn't.

I'm happy to admit thats pretty impressive compared to something like Beowulf, but my mind still knew exactly what was happening and that it was essentially NQR.

Well we were already discussing CGI faces. Your average Joe would think it was real in a KFC commercial...and that's a 2 year old video by the way. My point is, this stuff is right around the corner.

I still don't understand the CG Superman idea. So he won't look like Clark? Or he'll look a little like Clark? Or is it just that he'll be based off the Clark actor and the guy playing Clark won't have to hit the gym? I'm confused and afraid.

I heard you can order that Emily O'Brien chick with all different kinds of vaginas.

I think it would the other way around, the Clark character would look a little bit like the Superman model.

CGI Supes sounds like ass.

It is a bit of a bad deal for Routh since he was maybe the best thing about SR, aside from screaming like a girl when he got beat up by Luthor's thugs. But he's seemingly already moved on so no loss there.

Yeah... CGI Superman is a very bad idea. Just cast an actor. What's the big deal? You won't go farther than 3 movies before wanting to reboot the whole fucking thing anyway.

Oh come on... Since when has it ever been about what we need?

And it was about as note-perfect as you could get it.

Thing is, Superman is such a popular character that the origin is really irrelevant at this point. And the only reason they did it in '78 was because they intended to make a movie that was epic in scope. It was the first time a comic book was being taken seriously as cinema. So they wanted to go all out.

They didn't do the same with Batman 10 years later.

You could argue they should have. But it really didn't hurt Burton's film that it wasn't an origin story. No one really cared.

But the origin was folded in, and it was still very much set in a world where the characters were seeing Batman for the first time. Even the near-instant reboots of late feel the need to give the origins a little real estate in the film. Just go Incredible Hulk/Spider-Man 2/ Superman II and make a cool-ass title sequence with an origin.

Yeah this is fine.

I'm just saying there's no need to spend actual screen time of the film recounting his origin.

Wanna do something really nifty? Have a live action version of this be the opening of the film.

And then, just cut to Superman kicking ass. Because that's what we want to see in this day and age where special effects technology has made such things easier to conceive.

God help them if they give me another 3 hour movie about Superman flying around listening to Sunny Day Real Estate and going back to the fortress of solitude with his hat in his hands.

That updated with a bit more mystery and drama to the opening as the trailer for the film. tickets sold. In fact, just stick to the whole vibe of those cartoons with a bit of the bruce tim charecterisation thrown in and you could walk away with a fantastic superman film.

Actually, the easiest way to do the origin would be to pull out from the DC Comics logo to the cover of Action Comics #1 and then zoom in through it and do a really brief overview of Superman's origin with moving comic images and little narration. 30 seconds of that tops, and then smash cut to an opening action sequence featuring Superman taking out a minor thread (minor for superman, not minor for the police obviously) and you're gold.

If they go CG they should go all the way and do a Pixar style movie a la The Incredibles.

They can re-cap Supe's origin in the title sequence (the only part of Superman Returns I like is the opening credits!).

I really think people (in the Studios at least) keep dancing around the fact that Iconic character or not, you still need a compelling story to make Superman work.


Also, Phil is a CG character and no one on CHUD has ever noticed.

I'm with Phil. I don't get it. And I don't want to, really. All this future of cinema talk is making my head spin, and it's just distracting us from talking about the real story- how are they going to yet again fuck up a Superman movie?

Me want Bizarro Superman to make an appearance. I have this vision of Superman and Bizzaro fighting and ending up on the moon, where Superman pounds Bizarro into the surface of the moon. No, it's not groundbreaking idea, just something that I've imagined ever since I was a kid. Bizarro Supes is an ill fated attempt by Luthor to clone Superman.

I don't read the comics, I'm sure this has been touched upon, I just want to see a segment in a Superman movie with Bizarro.

Disputed by AICN

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44074

Wait didn't Supes 4 have a nuclear clone of Superman created by Luthor being pounded into the moon or pounding Supes into the moon?

Count me in with the crowd who thinks that CGI-Superman is an awful, awful idea. Believable giant cat people in Avatar is one thing, but a CGI human (-looking Kryptonian)?

The last time a filmmaker tried to CG an existing human actor, we got the uncanny valley of Zemeckis' Beowulf.

And how would this even work, if the studio was interested in switching out Clark Kents every few years? Unless the plan is to make Superman look more "alien", which is another stupid idea, though a bit more novel, I admit.

Uh, you tell me. If that's where I got that from, then pity my imagination. I never finished Quest for Peace.

Me still want Bizarro Superman, not Nucular Man.

I'd rather see it done linearly, beginning on Krypton, but that's the boring traditionalist in me, I guess. What you're saying could work, though, and it's basically what they did in Batman Begins (and the '89 Batman), where you get crucial moments in flashback.

I doesn't seem possible that Nolan would let an all cgi Superman happen, but that sounds so real it's scary.

Well if you look here around the 5:38 mark or so you'll see of what I speak where Nuclear Steve Winwood administers the lunar beatdown in question.

...and while we're at it, if you look at this deleted scene here you'll see that Bizarro (kinda) was meant to be in the film anyway.

Thing is we've had that - and not just in Supes but in so many superhero films over the last 20 years. Even average film goers are getting tired of it. Yes Supes was one of the first templates of the origin mythos, but the standard 1st Act = origin is pretty stale at this point.

I think it's really fucking hard to top what Donner did personally and Timms has also had a pretty decent crack at it in recent history.

I disagree. I think the origin (specifically his upbringing) is so important that it informs everything he does as a character. Now, I know you understand that and that what you're saying is the origin is so familiar that it's already in the back of everyone's mind when they see Superman, but I'm not so sure a film audience doesn't need to be reminded of it. Most non-comic fans are probably only familiar with the origin story from the '79 film at this point.

But more to the point of the relevance of the origin, I see Superman as so entrenched in modern mythology at this point that I think of him as intrinsically linked with the origin, as if the more important aspect of the mythology is the story itself, rather than the character. Much as when people think of King Arthur, they think of the story elements in the Arthurian legends more than the qualities of the character himself-- the drawing of the sword form the stone, Merlin's guidance, Lancelot's affair with Guinevere, the treachery of Morgan le Fay, etc.-- because the qualities of the character are defined by those events.

Now, you can make a King Arthur film without any of that, and just have it be about him in some battles and then rescuing some noble family, the end, but that's boring. I don't think 2 hours of Superman punching giant robots would be as boring as that, but to me that detaches the character from what "the myth of Superman" should express if the character is to come to the big screen again.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convert everyone to my point of view, but I wanted to express it so that you all can see where I'm coming from, since I think it's an interesting way to view the "phenomenon" of Superman.

So really, comic-book people, none of you read Birthright?

And really, CGI experts, none of you saw Benjamin Button?

No, they're still living in 1995.

Benjamin Button wasn't fully CGI.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the facial capture elements, which is what devin was talking about with regard to Superman©

Yeah but the facial capture elements in BENJAMIN BUTTON were done using a specific facial model. I don't doubt that the technology exists to create a workable Superman avatar, I just don't see how it would gel with the completely separate actor playing Clark Kent. I think people would reject it as goofy.

Thing is, if you are going to do something like this why not just go down the fully animated route?

Please, please please don't do an all CGI Superman. Bad enough this will be in 3-D.

I liked parts of Returns. I thought Routh was good, and the plane rescue sequence was outstanding. I'm glad they're dropping the son though. (I'm assuming) I don't like the idea of of Superman as a dead-beat dad, rescuing people and then flying off to a parent-teacher conference.

I liked the version of Brainac we got in the 90's animated series - that he was a Kryptonian computer - it made their confrontations more personal.

Anyway, I'm a lifelong Superman fan, and I'm rooting for those involved to get it right. Can't wait to hear more.

I don't know nothing about nothing CGI, but what's to stop them from just plugging in different faces into the same avatar-generating program once the technology exists? That way, Clark and Supes always match up. And honing the process over multiple sequels is cheaper than upping the stakes in a returning actor's contract.

If they're going to do that, why waste money on creating an expensive digital avatar? All of the advantages of a digital Supes lay in his face remaining the same from incarnation to incarnation. Plugging every new actor's face into it defeats the purpose.

All of the reasons Devin stated iearlier: they can put the Avatar in commercials, have it do promotion, crossover movies, etc. If the avatar is "Superman," you don't have to pay it like an actor. Even a Crispin Glover-like situation would be dealt with by a clause in the Clark Kent actor's contract. It would cost less than the actor actually performing, and he'd be signing up front to it when he got hired.

I'm not saying this is happening. But I could conceive of how it's a lot more appealing from the studio's perspective to hire a marionette with an actor's face than the actual actor.

I have to add to the chorus. What is the point of an all CGI Superman anyway? He's always been completely normal looking. No one can be stupid enough to also want some sort of physical transformation to happen. Right?

And as for using the avatar for ads and stuff it still seems like overkill to me. I'm pretty sure they won't have any trouble with that, no matter which actor they pick.

What I'm getting from this is that Superman won't be 100% CGI just his face. You'll still have a body double to interact with, it's just the face that will be generated. I understand why they would want this, but I'm curious if it can be pulled off in a flawless manner.

I've read birthright. It would be a very intresting movie, but I saw it more as a follow up with the Smallville story line... Clark and Lex knowing each other and so fourth.....

That's even dumber. Why in the hell would they bother with that sort of complicated shit for every single shot of Superman when they could just do as they've always done: find an appropriate actor.


I'm sure the CGI Supes makes sense from a money-grubbing studio perspective, but from any other angle, it's fucking retarded. Especially this whole aspect of, "well, he'll sorta look like Clark."

I could see this CG alter ego idea being used for a SHAZAM film if they developed the property into something that could feasibly become a lucrative enough franchise to warrant the initial CG character construct. A Harry Potter meets Superman adolescent wish-fulfillment fantasy series where the lead child actor gets switched out every few years while Captain Marvel is a never changing icon for that property.

Except if it were the old head-paste they'd absolutely have to pay the actor for every use of it. No-one in their right mind would give away their likeness for free.

No actor (or agent worth their salt) will sign away likeness rights for a CG version of themselves to be used and abused by the studio. That's why some action figures look nothing like their human counterparts, and the ones that do, come at a price. Paying an actor to use his likeness for a CG Superman in other media makes very little sense financially. Given the amount of expensive CG work it would take to make the synthespian believable, it could very well be cheaper to just use the actor in question, especially if they cast another no-name looking to boost their image.

Now, yes, for SHAZAM!, I could almost see this working. Captain Marvel is an otherworldly avatar. But to render a believable CG Superman that the audience cares about, that can hold the screen under intense scrutiny, that credibly matches a human actor playing Clark Kent, is a far greater, more complicated and more expensive task than the BUTTON crowd is making it seem.

ETA: Damn you, Merriweather.

Yes, I suspect you and Merriweather are correct. I was trying to reason out how the Clark Kent/Superman avatar could match up, thinking it would cost less for the likeness than for the actor to actually have to perform every time. But it probably is too prohibitive a scenario.

As long as Patrick Warburton has a pulse, there is no need for a CG Captain Marvel.

Just toss this up on the screen at the beginning:

That would work. Hell, people liked the Alex Ross Spider-Man 1 recap in the opening credits of Spider-Man 2, right? Have him paint that for the credits, ending on the iconic AC #1 cover, dissolving to a Daily Planet headline of Supes in action, photo credit James Olsen. Then, have Perry throw it down, complaining how pictures of this guy are the only thing keeping this paper open.

Here's hoping they can get this thing into theaters before the "Estate of Two Old Guys Who Were Pens For Hire" take back ownership of the Kryptonian origin.

There's nothing to get from this. It's all just speculation and Devin through it out idly. We have no details on how they might plan on using a CG Superman in a film.

Given that Nolan is in charge, I think he will insist that the face of Clark and Superman be the same. They may need to create an all CG Supes for effects shots, but I believe they will use the actor's face for it. Nolan will likely be interested in the "humanity" of the character. He is SuperMAN, after all, and his life outside the suit will likely be an important aspect of the film.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio also made a CG Superman with a generic face that they could stick in commercials with Jerry Seinfeld, for example, if the movie is successful. They wouldn't have to pay the actor from the film that way, and people watching the commercials will be so used to seeing different Supermans over the years that no one is going to say, "Hey, that's not Superman, damnit!"

Great points. I agree for the most part.
I came in to say the same thing. Works for Shazam (and Hulk), but not IMO for Supes.

And as far as Goyer's involvement? Fine if he wants to script, just keep him outta the director's chair.

Agreed that an all CGI hero (for a non-creatukre "human" character) would probably work for Captain Marvel in a Shazam! movie. Captain Marvel is an adult who doesn't look like his adolescent counterpart. If they give CM an otherworldly type of look, it may work.

I'm just not sure that the tech is 100% there yet for an audience to buy into it. Again, it works for aliens (Avatar), costumed heroes who don't show their face (Spider-Man) and other creatures (Gollum/Kong); for humans, not so much.

I have to wonder what kind of budget they'll throw at this thing. All of those years developing what eventually became Superman Returns pretty much blew up in their face, but I can't imagine this new film coming in at anywhere under $150,000,000.

That's the image I was just going to add to this thread. Perfect.

I'm surprised people let this one go through to the keeper (or the catcher for my american friends).

How dare those 'two old guys' estates try to take ownership of the ideas they had that so many other made money off.