BvS Metropolis look in Superman/Batman

[MrsKent26]

^ I like the last one a lot, but the first two are a bit too futuristic.

 

[John-An]

^ I like the last one a lot, but the first two are a bit too futuristic.

I see them futuristic but not that much.I could see that honestly cause if you notice some parts look futuristic and some others look as grounded. That could fit in how parts of the city are greater than others due to the last events.

 

[Loki882]

The first two look really cool, but I'm not sure that I want them to be Metropolis. They look TOO futuristic/advanced. They look more like cities that you'd find in Star Wars or Blade Runner. Now the third one, that looks like it could make an awesome Metropolis.

 

[Jekecy]

The first two look really cool, but I'm not sure that I want them to be Metropolis. They look TOO futuristic/advanced. They look more like cities that you'd find in Star Wars or Blade Runner. Now the third one, that looks like it could make an awesome Metropolis.

The first one looks fine. Metropolis is named "The City of Tomorrow" after all. It's a little annoying to see a lot of these fantasy elements dialed back considerably to seem more "real world". I want to see some balls in tackling these designs for film.

Gotham should look distinctly Gotham. Metropolis should look unmistakably like Metropolis. Not a fan of these melds of cities we can go outside and experience ourselves.

 

[Loki882]

Yeah, Metropolis is called the "city of Tomorrow." However, there has to be SOME limit. This is still 2014. I'm perfectly fine with Metropolis looking very futuristic, but it shouldn't look like something that would make the cities in Star Trek look obsolete by comparison.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I have always hated futuristic Metropolis. Not only that, lets not pretend that as an element in the mythos that it's come and gone, and stayed gone for long periods of time. For myself, SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE got it right the first time. Superheroes are more fantastic when they are juxtaposed against a real world back drop, I find anyway. It's my problem with Burton's Batman. Making it too fantasy looking drains these stories of something vital. For me, superheroes are a mythology of the NOW. The "current" modern world if you will, whenever that time is for each general era. You can have a tone to how the city is shot or a certain amount of stylization, but too much and it can come off as being shot on the set of WIZARD OF OZ or something. That's me though.

 

[Jekecy]

It's my problem with Burton's Batman. Making it too fantasy looking drains these stories of something vital.

Heh. I don't know if I've ever disagreed with a sentence more in a long while.

Agree to disagree I suppose. Burton's Gotham for me is still above and beyond the most memorable city aesthetic I've seen in a comic book movie, and I find that a bit sad. Especially in regards to DC, who are not bound by real world locations like Marvel is. Their backdrop can look like practically anything, and we're still stuck with Chicago and New York? Bleh.

 

[Boy Scout]

The first two look really cool, but I'm not sure that I want them to be Metropolis. They look TOO futuristic/advanced. They look more like cities that you'd find in Star Wars or Blade Runner. Now the third one, that looks like it could make an awesome Metropolis.

That last one looks like a pretty generic city, if you ask me. I think MOS' Metropolis would've looked more or less like that if we had seen it at night.

The first one looks fine. Metropolis is named "The City of Tomorrow" after all. It's a little annoying to see a lot of these fantasy elements dialed back considerably to seem more "real world". I want to see some balls in tackling these designs for film.

Gotham should look distinctly Gotham. Metropolis should look unmistakably like Metropolis. Not a fan of these melds of cities we can go outside and experience ourselves.

I agree. I don't need anything too futuristic, but it would be nice to see some unique architecture and distinct landmarks (if any exist in the source material) here and there.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Heh. I don't know if I've ever disagreed with a sentence more in a long while.

Agree to disagree I suppose. Burton's Gotham for me is still above and beyond the most memorable city aesthetic I've seen in a comic book movie, and I find that a bit sad. Especially in regards to DC, who are not bound by real world locations like Marvel is. Their backdrop can look like practically anything, and we're still stuck with Chicago and New York? Bleh.

You mean the way comic book Metropolis was based on Toronto by Shuster?

I'm just saying that the uber-fantasy of Burton's world is often defended by the notion that it make's the story somehow "timeless". And that misses the point. Like I said, superheroes are a mythology of the "now" for the most part. And when they inhabit a world that is too fantasy based they can come across as less special to me. Sure there can be a tonal difference and a certain amount of stylization as I said. I don't mind that. But when it looks like everything was set/production designed to within an inch of it's life then it just takes me out of the film, and reminds me it's all made up BS anyway. There's a deflation of the stakes for me, as well as a missing "self projection" element. Look, I grew up in NYC during the Pre-Rudy crack and crime era. When I though of Batman beating on criminals it was on the actual streets of an actual city. When I saw Burton's Batman my reaction was "what the cuss is with all the mutha-cussing fedoras? No one dresses like that in 1989. And why does this city seem so cussing fake?" It's one of my problems with TAS too. Sorry.

Let me ask this... If Nolan had continued to use the Burton like production design of Gotham City, would the stories he told seem out of place? Because even the more stylized Gotham in Begins is still very grounded and relatable. This is not a cry to arms for realism above all. Again, my feeling is that when juxtaposed against a real world back drop that the central super hero, with or without powers, comes off as that much more super.

 

[Jekecy]

You mean the way comic book Metropolis was based on Toronto by Shuster?

I think it goes without saying these properties have extended beyond the reaches of their creators' original visions. There are plenty of things I dislike about the early iterations simply because I prefer the relatively modern counterparts.

I'm just saying that the uber-fantasy of Burton's world is often defended by the notion that it make's the story somehow "timeless". And that misses the point. Like I said, superheroes are a mythology of the "now" for the most part. And when they inhabit a world that is too fantasy based they can come across as less special to me. Sure there can be a tonal difference and a certain amount of stylization as I said. I don't mind that. But when it looks like everything was set/production designed to within an inch of it's life then it just takes me out of the film, and reminds me it's all made up BS anyway. There's a deflation of the stakes for me, as well as a missing "self projection" element. Look, I grew up in NYC during the Pre-Rudy crack and crime era. When I though of Batman beating on criminals it was on the actual streets of an actual city. When I saw Burton's Batman my reaction was "what the cuss is with all the mutha-cussing fedoras? No one dresses like that in 1989. And why does this city seem so cussing fake?" It's one of my problems with TAS too. Sorry.

There's the crux, really. I prefer to be taken into the fantasy rather than the fantasy brought into mine. Of the two I think it's more beneficial to delve into those imaginations and truly embrace the other-worldly. I'm not concerned with Gotham not resembling outside, because it doesn't exist. Neither does Krypton, and that looked spectacular. If it's visually arresting, I couldn't care less. DC has that freedom and should exercise it. Marvel doesn't have this luxury. Well, until later this year when they go into space. That's when DC is really screwed.

Let me ask this... If Nolan had continued to use the Burton like production design of Gotham City, would the stories he told seem out of place? Because even the more stylized Gotham in Begins is still very grounded and relatable. This is not a cry to arms for realism above all. Again, my feeling is that when juxtaposed against a real world back drop that the central super hero, with or without powers, comes off as that much more super.

Personally I feel the stronger component would be expressing those "super" elements via the characters and story, rather than the aesthetic. You're not wrong in that the juxtaposition creates a stronger presence of the supernatural and uncommon, but I would argue it's not worth it if certain elements lose their strong visual identity as a result. That's my main issue. While I appreciated Gotham City looking like an actual occupied city, I was not a fan of how indistinct it looked. But I concede this is likely a limitation of tech. We're a long way from creating complicated and detailed fictional backdrops, and making them feel alive. So no knock on Nolan and co. there. For what they were trying to do, it was an admirable job.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Krypton being a fantasy sci fi local is different than Metropolis being a sci fi fantasy local, to me. And again, the city of the future thing has never quite been that huge of a focal point in the source material. And I actually find, again, for myself, that making what is supposed to be a North Eastern American city, fictional or not too fantasy based as diminishing the stakes. Sorry, but I just can't take anything too seriously in the Burton/Schumacher films, plus if I can't see it being a place real people of the modern world live in, it takes something from the theoretical threat the villains pose. Again, I'm not laying down some fast and loose "rules" that have to be universally applied, just my own druthers and general tastes, especially for DC/Marvel properties. For other things I tend to be way more open. Say whatever you will about what Detroit actually is in the real world, it's obvious that the Detroit in THE CROW film is a whacked out fantasy version of the real thing. Also, kudos Jekecy for not turning this into the usual internet "debates to the death".

 

[Fallen Angel]

The first two look really cool, but I'm not sure that I want them to be Metropolis. They look TOO futuristic/advanced. They look more like cities that you'd find in Star Wars or Blade Runner. Now the third one, that looks like it could make an awesome Metropolis.

Agreed the first two look more like a city you would see in something like Star Wars. City of Tomorrow it may be but Metropolis shouldn't look that advanced.

 

[Guts]

The first two look really cool, but I'm not sure that I want them to be Metropolis. They look TOO futuristic/advanced. They look more like cities that you'd find in Star Wars or Blade Runner. Now the third one, that looks like it could make an awesome Metropolis.

the third one, is hong kong.

 

[DeadPresident]

It should be utopian and well lit.

 

[herolee10]

Just no more Streets comprised entirely of CGI like shown below...

I swear, no matter how hard I try, I just can't buy that it's a real street and it bugs the hell out of me, especially considering on how they had filmed so much on location for most of the film (the segments that take place on Earth).

The whole sequence involving Superman fighting Zod in metropolis felt like a different film at times in terms of aesthetics. Prior in the film, Snyder had actually filmed on a real street when getting the reaction shots for several of the civilians as they were looking at Black Zero hovering over them.

Then all of a sudden, when the fight with Superman and Zod takes place, it's all CGI background and it really doesn't fit well with what was established earlier.


Also, I really hope that they don't desaturate the hell out of Metropolis like they did in MOS. If they want to help better distinguish between Gotham and Metropolis, give Gotham that colorless look while Metropolis retains some warmth and colors.

 

[SofNascimento]

I thought it looked great in MoS.

 

[MrsKent26]

I didn't think it had much character. Mos's Metropolis could have been anywhere.

 

[DKDetective]

I didn't think it had much character. Mos's Metropolis could have been anywhere.

I felt like that had a ton to do with Snyder's shooting style. With the exception of the Arctic and Krypton scenes, it never felt like Snyder put much effort into establishing locations. He didn't seem to use the locations as characters in and of themselves, in MOS at least. For instance, Lois being stuck home in her apartment is a great opportunity to breathe life into her character, but I just remember that scene as being rather unremarkable. I don't even remember getting any proper establishing shots of the Daily Planet building.

 

[Loki882]

We didn't see much of Metropolis in MOS, and it wasn't a big part of the story. I'm curious to see what it looks like when we spend much more time there, which I'm pretty sure will happen in BvS. Plus, part of it got blown up and I'm sure that whomever rebuilds it coughLexLuthorcough will make some upgrades. As for the CGI thing, the simple fact is that you can't really do a proper Superman fight without a lot of CGI, it's that simple. I thought that the CGI in MOS was pretty good for the most part. And as I said before, my problem with Burton's Gotham was that it looked like a set, not like a real city.

 

[Jekecy]

As for the CGI thing, the simple fact is that you can't really do a proper Superman fight without a lot of CGI, it's that simple.

Didn't have to be a CG backdrop though. That entire fight could have easily been filmed (for the most part) on location.

And as I said before, my problem with Burton's Gotham was that it looked like a set, not like a real city.

Burton's Gotham come in two different variations though. The set critique applies far more to Batman Returns than it does the original.

 

[John-An]

Just no more Streets comprised entirely of CGI like shown below...

I swear, no matter how hard I try, I just can't buy that it's a real street and it bugs the hell out of me, especially considering on how they had filmed so much on location for most of the film (the segments that take place on Earth).

The whole sequence involving Superman fighting Zod in metropolis felt like a different film at times in terms of aesthetics. Prior in the film, Snyder had actually filmed on a real street when getting the reaction shots for several of the civilians as they were looking at Black Zero hovering over them.

Then all of a sudden, when the fight with Superman and Zod takes place, it's all CGI background and it really doesn't fit well with what was established earlier.


Also, I really hope that they don't desaturate the hell out of Metropolis like they did in MOS. If they want to help better distinguish between Gotham and Metropolis, give Gotham that colorless look while Metropolis retains some warmth and colors.

Totally respect your opinion but IMO I didn't have the feeling on that shot that it was CGI due to the great look it had, the virtual adaption from that shot is well done even more due to the fact of what was happening in the scene. First it is almost impossible to make that effect with background filming and would've been less credible. Then that's because the effect is the sunset (lighting doesn't give the same effect) and they don't look the same. But I didn't see the problem in that. I think it was solid. I really appreciate how they did the battle of metropolis as if it was really happening but at the same time almost taken out from a comic book.
There are other greater shots from Metropolis while fighting or invasion..

Even if that's CGI it was really good.
Althought I'm with you that Snyder needs to do more filming location for this next movie.

We didn't see much of Metropolis in MOS, and it wasn't a big part of the story. I'm curious to see what it looks like when we spend much more time there, which I'm pretty sure will happen in BvS. Plus, part of it got blown up and I'm sure that whomever rebuilds it coughLexLuthorcough will make some upgrades. As for the CGI thing, the simple fact is that you can't really do a proper Superman fight without a lot of CGI, it's that simple. I thought that the CGI in MOS was pretty good for the most part. And as I said before, my problem with Burton's Gotham was that it looked like a set, not like a real city.

Totally Agreed. In the shot that Herolee put is almost impossible to do it with filming in a location.

Didn't have to be a CG backdrop though. That entire fight could have easily been filmed (for the most part) on location.

No it's not. Althought I respect your opinion and I agree that Snyder should and may do more filming location in this sequel, those efects and neither those shots would've been possible with practical effects.

 

[Jekecy]

No it's not. Althought I respect your opinion and I agree that Snyder should and may do more filming location in this sequel, those efects and neither those shots would've been possible with practical effects.

Precisely what elements of the battle are "impossible" on-location? Aside from the obvious flying choreography, most of that is absolutely possible on closed streets. The Smallville fight came off far more credible as a result of looking/feeling like it was an actual location.

 

[John-An]

Precisely what elements of the battle are "impossible" on-location? Aside from the obvious flying choreography, most of that is absolutely possible on closed streets. The Smallville fight came off far more credible as a result of looking/feeling like it was an actual location.

I was refering on the shot of Superman vs Zod powers showed on ground.
Not to mention the falling cars after the explosion.
IMO almost all of the CGI from the city was great handled and for the powers Supes and Zod used it was a solid job.

 

[Jekecy]

I was refering on the shot of Superman vs Zod powers showed on ground.
Not to mention the falling cars after the explosion.

What does that have to do with shooting on-location? Obviously the falling car would likely be CG. But Cavill and Shannon were in front of a green screen when they choreographed that scene, and it would have benefited the backdrop if it actually looked real.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

This is Zack Snyder. If anyone is going to go out of his way to make a cool-looking city, it's him.

Because Metropolis was so cool looking in Man of Steel...

Metropolis looked like a simple boring New York copycat in Man of Steel. There wasn't really any visual element in the city.