Sadly, I had no idea "Superman Returns" even existed until a few days ago. But after watching the trailers, it seems like quite a thrill.

Apparently it picks up where Superman 2 left off. So, to get ready for the release, I'll be renting #1 and 2.

Also, apparently, "Superman Returns" was the most expensive film ever, costing $300 million. I guess special effects just cost THAT much.

Considering the above two things, I was wondering: Were people as impressed with 1978 - 1980 special effects of Superman 1 and 2 as we will be by Superman Returns? And if so, in 25 years, what the heck kind of special effects could make people laugh at Superman Returns as being cheezy like we may laugh at Superman 1 and 2 now? My only answer to that is "Brave New World"'s "Feelies".

Thoughts? Psyched about the movie?

I can't wait. I love all things Superman. I have to admit that one of my favorite shows on TV is Smallville. I know it's cheesy as hell, but I just can't get enough.

As far as Superman Returns... I love the trailer where it shows a bullet shattering on his eye. Sooo cool.

I bet they would make more money if they used the techniques that were used to make the original superman movie. Plus it would be a cool gimmic.

I'm pretty excited to see it, seems to be the likely blockbuster for the summer. And can't beat seeing it on company time, the office is all going out to see it on Wednesday afternoon. Nice way to break up the work week.

Almost as cool as a shark riding on the back of an elephant, trampling and eating everything in their path.

I suspect the effects of both Superman and Superman II were more impressive at the time than those of Superman Returns will be today.

Effects have gotten to the point where most people only notice/speak about them if they're crap. Which happens a lot unfortunately. The last three Star Wars movies had some pretty spectacular effects, but were also riddled with a lot of craptastic garbage to complain about. I don't remember anyone complaining about the effects of the time when the first three movies premiered.

I heard and saw a lot of neat stuff from Bryan Singer and Brandon Routh at WonderCon this year. I've been looking forward to seeing it since it was announced, and have been following the video blog.

I have my ticket for the Tuesday 10PM showing.

We'll see...

Probably won't show up here in the Middle East for a couple more weeks. We're just now getting V for Vendetta (which sucked, or so I hear). From time to time, some movies will appear here a day or so before they show in the states (this happened with both MI:3 and X-men 3), but it's rare. I'll be in England in 2 weeks, so I may have to catch it there.

V for Vendetta was good. Another example of how a comic-based movie can be done well. Much better than all three X-Men movies and both Spiderman movies if that means anything. I'd rank it up with Batman begins.

Ah, good deal. I'll have to go see it, then.

I agree. I loved that movie.

- Jon

One thing I saw on a TV show about Superman Returns was that they had spent $65 Million before shooting a single frame. The movie has been in the works for 10 years.

But I have my ticket for 10 pm tomorrow night!

It's been at least 10 years. And I'm still sorry Kevin Smith didn't pen the final screenplay.

Maybe this should go in "best videos", but...

Kevin Smith discussing his involvement with the Superman movie.

that's a great clip! Thank god he didn't write the final script. Too bad that Peters is still a producer though. Here's hoping there's no giant spider in the movie.

Oh, and from a friend to whom I sent the link of that video:

Kevin's Script (allegedly).

I suppose you also wouldn't have wanted to see Nick Cage as Superman then. I was looking forward to that too.

Bruno

Oh hell no! Nick Cage as Superman? If Superman was any known actor it would be about that actor in tights, not Superman. Besides, Cage is a terrible actor and looks nothing like Superman should look (i.e. not 50 years old!)

That was fun.

Superman is also not supposed to have gotten younger after Superman II (when a portion of this movie takes place).

I think Cage could have pulled it off, the same way Christian Bale did with Bruce Wayne/Batman.

I think the biggest question I have is whether or not they'll deal with the absolutely moronic idea that people do not see Clark Kent as Superman, just because he's wearing a pair of glasses. I know my girlfriend doesn' scream bloody terror thinking someone else is getting into bed with her at night when I take my glasses off.

It's because she's thinking something else, isn't it?

Well, the DVD was just a compilation of the speaking tour he went on, mostly at various colleges. It was a great evening, well worth whatever I paid for the ticket. He told that exact anecdote pretty much word for word.

Matthew

"Effects" are becoming more seamless and just blended right into the movie. It's like being desensitized to violence. A lot of movies employ some really sophisticated animation so well integrated into the movie a lot of people don't even realize they're effects shots.

For instance, did you ever see any previews for Hoodwinked? The first thing I thought when I saw the trailer was, OMG, the animation and modelling are totally sub-par for a feature film. Granted, the animators could have been going for that low-tech video game look, but it wasn't obvious enough - such as with the way South Park or Bromwell High are animated for instance.

For King Kong, I thought the effects were decent and worked well with the picture, but I didnt' give them much thought or special attention. Which I hope was the point. Some people commented they looked "cheezy" or cheap. I didn't notice anyone raving about them being good.

George Lucas and a bunch of others tried to rally up some publicity for the last three Star Wars by talking about all the effects shots. Well, they didn't make the movies any better. And so many were so poorly executed they were painful to watch. All in all I don't think they were as groundbreaking or even as well done as movies that both came before and after them.

I guess that's it then. Effects have reached their peak. Anyone who tries to push effects even further will look too "Starwars Prequel".

I guess it is a good point that effects should blend into the movie. I thought many of those LotR "Massive" orcs were somehow acted at first glance.

Effects haven't reached their peak. Not by a long shot. I was definitely not trying to make that point. But we as movie-goers continually expect more and more before we consider something "mind blowing." Especially viewers that are technologically savy, IMO.

The capabilities exist today to create better effects than are demonstrated in most movies. So when something is weak, it stands out like a sore thumb. Like all the various throw-away shots they ended up using in the last three Star Wars movies that made what should have looked like natural human forms look like computerized plastic action figures being animated by stop-motion.

Take for instance all the clips I've seen of the new Superman movie. Everything looks good so far. Well blended and generally well thought out. Including the bullet to the eye. But I'm not jumping out of my seat saying "wow, can you believe that!? How is that possible? How did they do that?" - because it's all common place now and I know very well how they did it. Of course I still appreciate the artistic talent behind all of it. So I suppose now it's more akin to appreciating something like a painting. More for the artistic/creative instinct rather than the technological marvel.

But it's all a matter of perspective. Because when looking at some older productions, I *am* (still? now?) quite amazed. Simply by what they did with the technology of the time. In movies as well as so many other things - going back even to earliest recorded history.