Superman (July 11th, 2025)

[ZE_501]

However, CGI is looking pretty bad to me. Only referencing the CGI, Snyder’s team did it better. Hopefully it gets polished up more before release.

I don't know about that take ... plenty of times I thought I was watching a video game in the Snyderverse. But CG in general seems to have dipped in quality in recent years.

Still hate the broccoli haired Clark Kent look.

Really don't love it, but gotta relate to the kids somehow...

 

[Wor-Gar]

has CGI dipped or have we grown so accustomed to seeing it we can "see it" now?

It's like SFX in the 50's and moving up through time, each step was, at one time, believable and then gradually over-exposed so that people weren't fooled anymore. (Yes, there is always inferior or cheap SFX but not talking about those)

A few old films have somehow managed to stand the test of time because they were genius in the way they used the tech of the time... like the T-rex in JP still looks great.

 

[Scout Trooper]

has CGI dipped or have we grown so accustomed to seeing it we can "see it" now?

It's like SFX in the 50's and moving up through time, each step was, at one time, believable and then gradually over-exposed so that people weren't fooled anymore. (Yes, there is always inferior or cheap SFX but not talking about those)

A few old films have somehow managed to stand the test of time because they were genius in the way they used the tech of the time... like the T-rex in JP still looks great.

There's an over dependence on CGI now. It's easier to spot when it fills the entire frame, whereas before, it was used to enhance practical sets, props, and actual people lit in a natural environment.

But it's also dipped, yeah.

 

[ZE_501]

@Wor-Gar I re-watched some scenes from Captain America: Civil War and a lot of it looked fake and rushed. Most of 2008's Iron Man looked better to me. I don't know if it was the colour timing, the animation, textures, lighting ... all of it ... but I feel it's been degrading a long time and part of it is due to cost overruns.

As for this film ... well it's a trailer. I'm not a huge fan of Gunn although I enjoyed the first Guardians; but I find myself liking the tone, the fun, the warmth and lightheartedness ... it's not taking itself seriously and I like the suit in spite of the panel lines which I don't like on most modern superhero suits.

I will go see this in the theatre and hope it's a good time. I think it could make a good HT figure too.

 

[Sixth Scale Man]

You ever think maybe they're wearing trunks cause they don't want their weeners sticking out like a ballet dancer?

 

[davejames]

has CGI dipped or have we grown so accustomed to seeing it we can "see it" now?

It's like SFX in the 50's and moving up through time, each step was, at one time, believable and then gradually over-exposed so that people weren't fooled anymore. (Yes, there is always inferior or cheap SFX but not talking about those)

A few old films have somehow managed to stand the test of time because they were genius in the way they used the tech of the time... like the T-rex in JP still looks great.

I don't think the quality has gone down much (unless you're talking about something clearly rushed like The Flash), but it's so omnipresent now that there's nothing remotely special or impressive about it anymore. And we've already seen every type of superpower, alien monster, and destroyed building realized on screen.

 

[Wor-Gar]

There's an over dependence on CGI now. It's easier to spot when it fills the entire frame, whereas before, it was used to enhance practical sets, props, and actual people lit in a natural environment.

This is very true. As an example, not much in the PT films ever looked real.

@Wor-Gar I re-watched some scenes from Captain America: Civil War and a lot of it looked fake and rushed. Most of 2008's Iron Man looked better to me. I don't know if it was the colour timing, the animation, textures, lighting ... all of it ... but I feel it's been degrading a long time and part of it is due to cost overruns.

Yes, cheaping out is always the fastest way to "see " the FX. Always has been. I was addressing more the 'best of the best' in my original post.... as some CGI today is just as bad as olden times terrible blue screen where the actor is supposed to be in Venice but is clearly lit in a studio.

Also, we all know what we can do as humans and what we can't, so as soon as you see, for example, a flying man you start to look for 'how'd they do that'.

Anyway, I'm sure there's a bit of both -- audience getting savvy and cheapness going on simultaneously.

 

[ironwez20]

Obviously

Nope. That's like saying Jurassic Park is a fictional book movie.

I want it to be taken as seriously as possible considering the fantasy involved.

Good for you.

But it is . What is serious to you? Dark and gloomy all the time? That’s not serious that’s just trying to be dark for the sake of being dark. That’s not what dc is . Jurassic park is a bad example cause the movie is a light hearted version of the book. Try again

 

[ZE_501]

It doesn’t take much for me to blow a film off completely due to local tv channel commercial level acting that can visibly be seen clearly, doesn’t matter their specific role, their significance to the plot or lack
of. I just don’t want that viewing in a picture.

Okay. For myself, I didn't really pay much attention to them and nothing jumped out at me.

 

[ZE_501]

More thoughts: I don't think we needed Krypto but I'll accept it. The high-pitched, synthesized-ish electric guitar is not new, DC films has done that for a while and I can really do without it. Ready for a good classical score.

Finally, I like the casting. Hoult as Lex should be a proper villain and I think Brosnahan is a good actor and fit for Lois. I can see Filion stealing scenes.

I don't need this film to give me back my childhood, it just needs to be fun and uplifting.

 

[Scout Trooper]

This is very true. As an example, not much in the PT films ever looked real.



Yes, cheaping out is always the fastest way to "see " the FX. Always has been. I was addressing more the 'best of the best' in my original post.... as some CGI today is just as bad as olden times terrible blue screen where the actor is supposed to be in Venice but is clearly lit in a studio.

Also, we all know what we can do as humans and what we can't, so as soon as you see, for example, a flying man you start to look for 'how'd they do that'.

Anyway, I'm sure there's a bit of both -- audience getting savvy and cheapness going on simultaneously.

Yeah. It's my biggest issue with the prequels. I love ROTS. It's a shame it doesn't look as good. When I see those lightsabers pasted on the picture without actual light being cast on the characters... yikes.

 

[davejames]

The suit still looks bad. I don’t think it looks any different in the trailer than it did in any of the behind the scenes pics or in the first official photo.

The suit aside, the trailer itself is pretty fun. If the trailer is any indication, Gunn at least gets the tone right. I think if Krypto is used judiciously in the film, he’ll be a nice addition. It was neat to see him in the trailer.

Actually from an interview with Gunn it sounds like Krypto is going to be constantly getting in trouble and serving a bit as the movie's comic relief.

So basically another Grogu.

I do find it funny though that Krypto got a bigger buildup in this trailer than Superman himself. Lol

 

[Misterbadguy]

I have no skin in this game as I'm not a Superman fan, but to chip in on the trunks debate from a non-fan POV - I agree with the sentiment that they don't look great on this suit. The suit itself looks thick, textured, like it's body armour of a fashion, and that I have no problem with; I even think it looks cool in some shots. The trunks with the belt over that suit looks out of place and weird. I'm not saying it completely ruins it, but to me it definitely sticks out in what I would say is a not-positive manner.

The film looks fine for what it presumably will be. It's nice to see Superman in a film that isn't desperately dreary.

 

[ZE_501]

The film looks fine for what it presumably will be. It's nice to see Superman in a film that isn't desperately dreary.

Hell yeah.

 

[T8OO]

But it is . What is serious to you? Dark and gloomy all the time? That’s not serious that’s just trying to be dark for the sake of being dark. That’s not what dc is . Jurassic park is a bad example cause the movie is a light hearted version of the book. Try again

Where you see dark and gloomy, I see challenging and hopeful.

How is it a bad example? Is it not still a movie made from a fictional book?

 

[Gipetto0812]

I don't know about that take ... plenty of times I thought I was watching a video game in the Snyderverse. But CG in general seems to have dipped in quality in recent years.

Idk, I certainly didn’t feel that way. Sure, in non Snyder directed/made Snyderverse movies the CGI wasn’t as good, but as far as the CGI in MoS, BvS and ZSJL, I think it looks better

 

[T8OO]

Idk, I certainly didn’t feel that way. Sure, in non Snyder directed/made Snyderverse movies the CGI wasn’t as good, but as far as the CGI in MoS, BvS and ZSJL, I think it looks better

I think a certain times he lights it a certain way that can even hide average CGI.

 

[ironwez20]

Where you see dark and gloomy, I see challenging and hopeful.

How is it a bad example? Is it not still a movie made from a fictional book?

Hopeful? Challenging? You don't see that in this but you saw that in the other one? The movie where it's dark and rains all the time is hopeful? Ok



Let me explain it to you.

You said you wanted it to be taken seriously. No? But the original JP is dumbed down version of the book. While it is still good. It is a light hearted version for children compared to the gruesome nature of the original source material. In the original a baby literally gets eaten.

So again bad example. JP was still an amazing film but it was not anywhere close to the dark nature of the original books. You get it orrrr do i have to spell it out for you again?

 

[ZE_501]

I think a certain times he lights it a certain way that can even hide average CGI.

Definitely lighting plays a big role. His films are very stylized in that regard but I still "see" the CG when I shouldn't; just as in a lot of the MCU. It's not necessarily Snyder's Superman, maybe more so with his Batman.

As for Gunn's, I'll withold final judgement until I see the film.

 

[Mike86]

CG is a good tool to use when it’s appropriate. The problem a lot of modern films have is an over reliance on it. I can see some of the complaints about that aspect of the trailer.