The Man Of Steel Would Actually Look Better If It Was Graded To Color

April 24, 2015 by Udi Tirosh 15 Comments

If you ever wondered about how grading deeply impact a film, take at a look at this interesting experiment or re-grading the Man of Steel – Zack Snyder’s 2013 superman remake.

VideoLab took the film for a ride and re-colored the released, desaturated film, to bring some of the natural color back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du-eYiD9OfM

VideoLab assumes that the bleak grading of the Man Of Steel tried to follow Batman’s The Dark Knight look and feel but what fits a dark and melancholic super hero may not be a good fit what humanities symbol of hope.

The team used Synthetic Aperture’s big muscles Color Finesse, and tried to bring back whatever color they could.

Here is Video Labs assumption about the grading decision:

We believe Man of Steel had a more traditional-looking color grade until later in post-production when they decided to go darker. They should have followed their first instinct

Here are some side by side (or top by bottom comparisons)

Which one do you prefer?

[What if Man of Steel was IN COLOR?]

About Udi Tirosh

Udi Tirosh is the Founder and Editor in Chief of DIYPhotography, he is also a photographer, a relentless entrepreneur, a prolific inventor and a dad, not necessarily in that order

« About Patents, Design Patents and DIY Mockups

Lighting Tutorial: Using 1 Speedlight And Recyclable Stuff From Around The House »

Wayne Palmer Jr.

Nah
Michael Leatherwood

Meh, I liked the original.
Greg Starnes

I actually agree with the article, to include wondering if the darkened everything in post because of the Batman movies
- Azety Photographe
  
  Same son of a bitch who ruined Batman and Superman : christopher nolan
Itsamee

I feel the muted tones actually work with the feel of the movies generally humorless script. Clark Kent isn’t a happy person for most of it, he bullied and his (earth) father has him convinced that he is better off letting kids die, and his entire life is one gigantic struggle that culminates in his existence being the sole reason that Metropolis (and possibly Atlantis) is destroyed. Sometimes depressing stories don’t work as well with happy colors. Psycho probably wouldn’t work as well if Hitchcock had filmed it in color and Toy Story wouldn’t work if Pixar made it contrasty and dark. I think the color tones are perfectly suited for what Man of Steel was going for.
- Gvido Mūrnieks
  
  Trololo!
  :D
Michael Goolsby

The last Superman film was utterly joyless. And now I see just how the color grading lent to that feeling. Everyone has been so afraid of letting Superman just be Superman, instead trying to impose the kind of psychological angst we might expect from Batman or Wolverine. Superman should be, above all else, FUN.

The original 1978 film promised that “you will believe that a man can fly”. And indeed we did. And it was thrilling, exciting, and… COLORFUL. What a shame that such an iconic character has been put into the hands of apologists.
- St3fanH2
  
  The Superman you are so fond of was a first time experience for you and those of your generation. It was applicable to that audience at the time. This generation is grittier and expects more than just “colorful”. I’ve seen the original Superman film. And watching it now, its campy as hell. I’m not saying it was bad. Its was a fun movie..at the time. Will I enjoy it as much now that I’m grown? No. Because I’ve outgrown that version of the him. Now, Snyder’s version on the Man of Steel was is better suited to my tastes. I enjoyed the muted tones. It brought a sense of realism to the whole affair. This version of Superman/Clark Kent is a darker take. As for some folks take on the destruction in the movie,, thinking it was overblown and didn’t jive with who Superman is etc, I say to them, ask yourself this question? Two beings, with almost God-like power, speed and capabilities, engrossed in a grudge match to the death in a crowded city, how are they to throw down with causing immense damage to the surroundings? Of coarse, people will be injured, killed, property damaged etc.
  In closing all I’m saying is that, there’s nothing wrong with taking a different path with these iconic characters. The target audience have changed. Folks like us, from an older generation always compare new iterations of characters, to what we felt the first time we saw our heroes on the big screen. Nothing can replace that first high. Its like a junkie chasing that first feeling. We need to understand that for this generation, there are younger ones that will be feeling that same high watching these comic book heroes come to life on the big screen as well.
  - Michael Goolsby
    
    “We need to understand that for this generation, there are younger ones that will be feeling that same high watching these comic book heroes come to life on the big screen as well.”
    
    That’s a valid point, as far as describing a “first experience” goes. But it’s largely irrelevant insofar as tone and style for a modern audience are concerned. Just because a film experience is different doesn’t mean it has to take on any other particular tone.
    
    Though I loved the original film, I am not wishing that any new film attempt to DUPLICATE the tone and style of the original film. I was 12 when it first came out, and I’m certainly not twelve today. As such, I welcome something new and different. My only concern is that the new film simply was not FUN in any way. And, by and large, superhero films have been quite fun as of late. The Avengers, Captain America, and Spider-Man… all films that were quite successful in part because they promised a great time at the movies and delivered.
    
    In the case of Christopher Nolan’s Batman films… these films are dark, gritty and, within the context of a superhero film, quite realistic. But the subject matter — vigilantism, emotional damage and mental illness, etc. — are a part of that character and its universe.
    
    I understand that Hollywood has been looking to revive the Superman franchise for years. One of their chief problems was taking a character who is, today, a rather campy boy scout of a character (certainly when compared to Iron Man with all his cool toys and sardonic wit, Hulk with his brutish, uncontrollable nature, and Wolverine, a cigar-chomping character with deadly knives in his hands) and make him viable in a more modern and sophisticated world. Obviously, Zach Snyder decided to take a cue from Batman and make him broodish and dark. An unnecessary mistake, in my opinion.
    
    And indeed, opinion is all this stuff really is. There is no right or wrong. I didn’t want to simply see the same stuff I saw back when Christopher Reeve first flew from the Fortress of Solitude back in the 70s, making his first appearance rescuing a cat, thwarting a robbery, and saving Lois Lane AND a falling helicopter. Those were thrilling scenes, but they belonged to the 70s, not today. But I was disappointed as heck that a modern Superman film could be so joyless and drab, with so little humor, wit… or plot. I don’t mind dark films, mind you. But I’d rather leave such a tone for a Richard Gere drama, not America’s greatest superhero in blue tights and red cape.
    - St3fanH2
      
      Good point there..
Rob Morris

I dunno – I realize it became trendy to bash the MOS movie, but I loved it. I would be hard pressed to pick out something I did NOT like about it, including how it looked. I thought it looked great.
Aray

But that’s not the original restored color.
What we’re looking at it is still the usual, boring teal/orange blockbuster cliche’.
So, I guess what they’re actually asking us, is what cliche’ we prefer.
Erwan Cloarec

Nope
quesadina

Transformers?
Nick Dunlap

Way better with the color