|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 6, 2015 11:23:07 GMT -5
The fact that Star Wars and Superman were completely different from other films that were out at the time(as well as the novelty of showing new cinematic techniques that had NEVER been seen before) is a big part of the reason why they made the cultural impact that they did. In Art, timing is everything.
Star Wars had Smokey And The Bandit,The Deep, Saturday Night Fever, The Gauntlet, Annie Hall, Julia, Herbie Goes To Montecarlo, ect ect to compete with. Superman had Every Which Way But Loose, Grease, King Of The Gypsies, The Deer Hunter, National Lampoon Vacation, Jaws 2, Revenge Of The Pink Panther ect ect.
All these flicks(irrespective of whether they are good or bad) are all distinctly photo realistic films. Does not take a genius to see why Superman and Star Wars stood out from the contemporary crowd. Compare that to the Force Awakens and Baman Vs Superman. They will be using the same techniques used in the flicks below :
Hunger Games, Jurassic World, Age Of Ultron, Ant Man, Terminator Genysis and same generic the list goes on........all feature exactly the same VFX methods. heck .....Terminator Genysis begins with a city/planet destroying sequence.....the same type of sequence that the Force Awakens and Dawn Of Justice will probably end with....yawn.
Very very good post. The interesting thing about STM is that even though it was fantastical and used groundbreaking techniques, it still felt grounded. Most of it has the same "photo real" appearance as other 1970s movies. Superman just fits in with the world in the film seamlessly. With MoS and this new trailer, it is like the world is being forced to look fake so that it fits with the superheroes. Well- so far I like this look better than the desaturated shakicam look that some films feel they need to employ. To me, it's '300' style- which I liked enough. In any case, I'm just happy that Marvel's doing what it's doing and Singer's back with X-men. It makes me more tolerant of whatever WB is going to do, because WB isn't the main attraction in my mind at this point....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 11:23:37 GMT -5
I actually like the stylized images so far- preferable to me, than the 'shakicam' choice for MOS. Kind of wish I were in the WB conference rooms to know what exactly will be the barometer for success, and what the price of failure will be, if Batfleck vs. Supes doesn't deliver. Affleck came out and said in an interview that it would be 'bad'- but I can't see it affecting (at least) the Suicide Squad and WW movie. The others that aren't in the middle of production is a big question mark, though... For my two cents, while WB may not be having a hit ratio on the scale of Marvel Studios..... I have this feeling that it's 'now or never' for a lot of their superhero film ideas. I do think that superhero film fatigue could be setting in with the masses--- and if it is, it might come to a point that even good superhero films disappoint at the box office.... in which case- perhaps the studio budgets and greenlights will start to shrink. Anyhow--- The trailer reaction doesn't seem to be that great for this one versus the last one (which I thought was pretty darn good). Will be interesting to see how X-men, Bat vs. Supes, and Civil War all do against one another next year...
The fact that Star Wars and Superman were completely different from other films that were out at the time(as well as the novelty of showing new cinematic techniques that had NEVER been seen before) is a big part of the reason why they made the cultural impact that they did. In Art, timing is everything.
Star Wars had Smokey And The Bandit,The Deep, Saturday Night Fever, The Gauntlet, Annie Hall, Julia, Herbie Goes To Montecarlo, ect ect to compete with. Superman had Every Which Way But Loose, Grease, King Of The Gypsies, The Deer Hunter, National Lampoon Vacation, Jaws 2, Revenge Of The Pink Panther ect ect.
All these flicks(irrespective of whether they are good or bad) are all distinctly photo realistic films. Does not take a genius to see why Superman and Star Wars stood out from the contemporary crowd. Compare that to the Force Awakens and Baman Vs Superman. They will be using the same techniques used in the flicks below :
Hunger Games, Jurassic World, Age Of Ultron, Ant Man, Terminator Genysis and same generic the list goes on........all feature exactly the same VFX methods. heck .....Terminator Genysis begins with a city/planet destroying sequence.....the same type of sequence that the Force Awakens and Dawn Of Justice will probably end with....yawn.
Great point. I feel the same way all the time. Back then films were so different in various areas. Music, acting, production design, cinematography. There was so much diversity. Now films are so formulaic and so stuck to the same template. You look at the Kryptonians designs in STM and there was nothing like that version at the time. Look at the Kryptonians designs in MOS and I've seen all in dozens of sci fi films. Films don't stand out as much today. I was also comparing the original Robocop to the remake. It looks and feels so different compared to anything else back then. The remake is so generic. Hollywood wants the same safe stuff now.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 6, 2015 11:29:16 GMT -5
The fact that Star Wars and Superman were completely different from other films that were out at the time(as well as the novelty of showing new cinematic techniques that had NEVER been seen before) is a big part of the reason why they made the cultural impact that they did. In Art, timing is everything.
Star Wars had Smokey And The Bandit,The Deep, Saturday Night Fever, The Gauntlet, Annie Hall, Julia, Herbie Goes To Montecarlo, ect ect to compete with. Superman had Every Which Way But Loose, Grease, King Of The Gypsies, The Deer Hunter, National Lampoon Vacation, Jaws 2, Revenge Of The Pink Panther ect ect.
All these flicks(irrespective of whether they are good or bad) are all distinctly photo realistic films. Does not take a genius to see why Superman and Star Wars stood out from the contemporary crowd. Compare that to the Force Awakens and Baman Vs Superman. They will be using the same techniques used in the flicks below :
Hunger Games, Jurassic World, Age Of Ultron, Ant Man, Terminator Genysis and same generic the list goes on........all feature exactly the same VFX methods. heck .....Terminator Genysis begins with a city/planet destroying sequence.....the same type of sequence that the Force Awakens and Dawn Of Justice will probably end with....yawn.
Great point. I feel the same way all the time. Back then films were so different in various areas. Music, acting, production design, cinematography. There was so much diversity. Now films are so formulaic and so stuck to the same template. You look at the Kryptonians designs in STM and there was nothing like it at the time. Look at the Kryptonians designs in MOS and I've seen it in dozens of sci fi films. Films don't stand out as much. I was also comparing the original Robocop to the remake. It looks and feels so different compared to anything else back then. There make is so generic. Hollywood wants the same safe stuff now. The funny thing, though, is that the groundbreakers are the ones that nobody wanted to do... or did reluctantly without support. "Star Wars", nobody wanted until Fox came along. "Superman" had to be an independent project licensed from WB. "X-men" had studio support, but limited- Singer asked for more money I believe for the final act, but the studio said 'no'... "Robocop" was supposedly also a bit of an embarrassment for the studio--- until it made great box office. Wasn't "Iron Man" a giant risk as well? And then, of course, when it succeeds, everyone and his mom want to copy them. Probably will always be the same. The groundbreakers have to be the little guys that go against the grain, apparently.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 11:57:31 GMT -5
Doomsday in this movie is just recycling the Nuclear Man idea from S4. Both created by Lex from Kryptonian DNA. Only difference is that S4 is probably better. I don't mind that but blowing off Doomsday as a one off thug who gets dealt with in one act reminds me of wasting Bane as a mute heavy in batman & Robin instead of a threat in his own right. It took them 15 years to get it right with TDKR. I don't mind Luthor making him but he's the kind of threat you build to. They don't have too many ready made villians who can physically dominate Superman. Best to save that. Just goes to show WBs learned nothing. If Lex must have a monster to fight the league make it someone else. Atomic Skull, Metallo, etc. there's plenty to choose from. if they're just muscle it doesn't really matter if they don't have the name recognition. They also didn't learn anything from how the FF movies wasted Doom, Galactus, and The Surfer. Especially Doom in this last film. WBs got plenty of examples of what to do and what not to do.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Dec 6, 2015 12:13:31 GMT -5
Doomsday in this movie is just recycling the Nuclear Man idea from S4. Both created by Lex from Kryptonian DNA. Only difference is that S4 is probably better. I don't mind that but blowing off Doomsday as a one off thug who gets dealt with in one act reminds me of wasting Bane as a mute heavy in batman & Robin instead of a threat in his own right. It took them 15 years to get it right with TDKR. I don't mind Luthor making him but he's the kind of threat you build to. They don't have too many ready made villians who can physically dominate Superman. Best to save that. Just goes to show WBs learned nothing. If Lex must have a monster to fight the league make it someone else. Atomic Skull, Metallo, etc. there's plenty to choose from. if they're just muscle it doesn't really matter if they don't have the name recognition. They also didn't learn anything from how the FF movies wasted Doom, Galactus, and The Surfer. Especially Doom in this last film. WBs got plenty of examples of what to do and what not to do. These movies are being made for fools with no attention span, which is why so much is crammed into a single film. MoS crammed the broad plots of STM and S2 into a single overloaded film instead of being given time to build properly. Looks like BvS is going to cram in the plot of S4 along with all the other stuff. It's just as bad as the way venom was wasted in Spiderman 3. Speaking of Superman 4, it is interesting that there he goes to the United Nations while now he goes to some Senate Committee!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 12:20:59 GMT -5
Great point. I feel the same way all the time. Back then films were so different in various areas. Music, acting, production design, cinematography. There was so much diversity. Now films are so formulaic and so stuck to the same template. You look at the Kryptonians designs in STM and there was nothing like it at the time. Look at the Kryptonians designs in MOS and I've seen it in dozens of sci fi films. Films don't stand out as much. I was also comparing the original Robocop to the remake. It looks and feels so different compared to anything else back then. There make is so generic. Hollywood wants the same safe stuff now. The funny thing, though, is that the groundbreakers are the ones that nobody wanted to do... or did reluctantly without support. "Star Wars", nobody wanted until Fox came along. "Superman" had to be an independent project licensed from WB. "X-men" had studio support, but limited- Singer asked for more money I believe for the final act, but the studio said 'no'... "Robocop" was supposedly also a bit of an embarrassment for the studio--- until it made great box office. Wasn't "Iron Man" a giant risk as well? And then, of course, when it succeeds, everyone and his mom want to copy them. Probably will always be the same. The groundbreakers have to be the little guys that go against the grain, apparently. That's the way it is CAM. Especially in Hollywood. DC didn't try for a truly shared expanded universe until Marvel did it. They tried to make Batman vs Superman and JLA before Iron Man came out but they got cold feet or didn't see the value in it. If they really wanted to we could have seen Reeve take on Keaton or Cain take on Kilmer/Clooney or Routh take on Bale years ago. Long before Marvel Studios was a gleam in anyone's eye. But Marvel proved it was viable. Now all of a sudden WB gets the lead out of their a s s and decide to push forward and make this kind of thing actually happen. ? WB's been more of a trend follower than a trend setter when it comes to superhero movies for decades. They only set the trends after colossal failures force them to go in a new direction. Besides Batman and Batman Begins their superheroes movies haven't set many trends and Batman was over 25 years ago. Green Lantern was them trying to copy the Marvel formula and ending with an Epic fail. Catwoman was another Batman & Robin. That's like sticking your weiner in the same electrical socket twice...in a row. Even then most of their own stuff was in one way or another a pale copy of Batman. Danny Elfman music, molded rubber/padded suits, etc. even Superman Lives was derivative to an extent. even now Gotham is just more or less another Smallville. The Berlanti shows are following that Smallville formula to varying degrees. The Snyderverse is an offshoot of Nolan's work. It's rare when they create the formula but when they do they run it into the ground. People wonder why so many are gun shy or down on WBs superhero stuff. WBs idea of ground breaking is to take someone else's plan and get greedy with it. "Hey I know! Marvels one shared universe is making a ton of money! If we have two or three we will make even more than they do!" I might be wrong CAM but I think Marvel took out a few big loans to make their first couple of movies and used some of their character rights as collateral. Before the films The Avengers characters were b list to the general public compared to Spidey and the Xmen and even Hulk so yeah there was some big risk.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 12:25:06 GMT -5
I don't mind that but blowing off Doomsday as a one off thug who gets dealt with in one act reminds me of wasting Bane as a mute heavy in batman & Robin instead of a threat in his own right. It took them 15 years to get it right with TDKR. I don't mind Luthor making him but he's the kind of threat you build to. They don't have too many ready made villians who can physically dominate Superman. Best to save that. Just goes to show WBs learned nothing. If Lex must have a monster to fight the league make it someone else. Atomic Skull, Metallo, etc. there's plenty to choose from. if they're just muscle it doesn't really matter if they don't have the name recognition. They also didn't learn anything from how the FF movies wasted Doom, Galactus, and The Surfer. Especially Doom in this last film. WBs got plenty of examples of what to do and what not to do. These movies are being made for fools with no attention span, which is why so much is crammed into a single film. MoS crammed the broad plots of STM and S2 into a single overloaded film instead of being given time to build properly. Looks like BvS is going to cram in the plot of S4 along with all the other stuff. It's just as bad as the way venom was wasted in Spiderman 3. Speaking of Superman 4, it is interesting that there he goes to the United Nations while now he goes to some Senate Committee! They're playing catchup. That's why. It's sad. They want that Avengers money ASAP. I've noticed these movies are reusing a lot of ideas from old failed Superman projects. Everything from Superman Lives to the Peterson/Walker Batman and Superman movie to the Ratner/McG/Abrams Superman project(s). I think it's another way to play catch up. Not that it isn't smart but it is a little lazy.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 12:33:05 GMT -5
Doomsday in this movie is just recycling the Nuclear Man idea from S4. Both created by Lex from Kryptonian DNA. Only difference is that S4 is probably better. Great point. SIV would have been better if it had the advantage of the money and quick fix technology(CGI) that has been thrown at DOJ. I wonder how far Zac Snyder would have got as a director had he been born 15-20 years earlier. the problem with CGI is that it is an easy solution to any potential story telling conundrum. And it has allowed a legion of generic wannabe directors(Snyder,Abrams ect) with no sense of daring originality, to perpetuate hollow box office slush that make a ton of money but leave no residual cultural or soulful impact. Snyder is a poor mans Bay. Wiseman is a poorer mans Snyder. It's like all these guys went to filmschool together loving the exact same techniques but not growing or diverging. At least with Bay he admits his stuff is low brow fluff. Snyder still tries to pass off this idea that his style and his films are higher art than they actually are. He never had the chance to grow and learn over time as a director and all his stuff has been based on someone else's already groundbreaking already influential and successful ideas. Romero did the heavy lifting on Dawn of the Dead. Zack the hack just put a fresh coat of fluorescent paint on it.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Dec 6, 2015 12:35:11 GMT -5
Are there any directors these days who could be trusted to make a great Superman movie?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 12:40:53 GMT -5
Not including old timers like Zemeckis? Oh of the younger generation....Brad Bird with a strong script. There's a few others with some promise.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Dec 6, 2015 12:45:27 GMT -5
I would not trust any of the old "legends" like Spielberg or Lucas. Zemeckis might still have it.
This is probably going to sound crazy, but Mel Gibson could have been good.
I will have to see the new Star Wars before I form an opinion on Abrams.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 13:00:09 GMT -5
Would Gibson be down with directing a movie about a spaceback without a green card? I agree most of the old guys don't have what they used to. I was arguing with a friend of mine the other day about Ridley Scott. I haven't seen the Martian but I told him the old guys still got a good eye for the visual aspect but can't pick a story to save his life in recent years. Exception would be George Miller and it seems like he smartly turned WB down. Fury Road looked amazing and did what MOS failed to: Updated Max for modern audiences without totally forgetting what the character was about.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 13:05:45 GMT -5
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Dec 6, 2015 14:11:27 GMT -5
The flying scenes in this new trailer look really awful. Then again, that looked terribly fake in MoS too.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 6, 2015 16:04:17 GMT -5
I don't mind that but blowing off Doomsday as a one off thug who gets dealt with in one act reminds me of wasting Bane as a mute heavy in batman & Robin instead of a threat in his own right. It took them 15 years to get it right with TDKR. I don't mind Luthor making him but he's the kind of threat you build to. They don't have too many ready made villians who can physically dominate Superman. Best to save that. Just goes to show WBs learned nothing. If Lex must have a monster to fight the league make it someone else. Atomic Skull, Metallo, etc. there's plenty to choose from. if they're just muscle it doesn't really matter if they don't have the name recognition. They also didn't learn anything from how the FF movies wasted Doom, Galactus, and The Surfer. Especially Doom in this last film. WBs got plenty of examples of what to do and what not to do. These movies are being made for fools with no attention span, which is why so much is crammed into a single film. MoS crammed the broad plots of STM and S2 into a single overloaded film instead of being given time to build properly. Looks like BvS is going to cram in the plot of S4 along with all the other stuff. It's just as bad as the way venom was wasted in Spiderman 3. Speaking of Superman 4, it is interesting that there he goes to the United Nations while now he goes to some Senate Committee! They're throwing everything into the trailers and the film (not just this film but a lot of big budget films) to try and guarantee as much interest as possible. Trying to increase the chances of big box office. "Come see this! Come see this character! Hey check out this cool bad guy!" They'll throw every hook they got out there to catch something even if it spoils the experience.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 8, 2015 11:20:41 GMT -5
These movies are being made for fools with no attention span, which is why so much is crammed into a single film. MoS crammed the broad plots of STM and S2 into a single overloaded film instead of being given time to build properly. Looks like BvS is going to cram in the plot of S4 along with all the other stuff. It's just as bad as the way venom was wasted in Spiderman 3. Speaking of Superman 4, it is interesting that there he goes to the United Nations while now he goes to some Senate Committee! They're throwing everything into the trailers and the film (not just this film but a lot of big budget films) to try and guarantee as much interest as possible. Trying to increase the chances of big box office. "Come see this! Come see this character! Hey check out this cool bad guy!" They'll throw every hook they got out there to catch something even if it spoils the experience. Agreed with just about everything you've said. Spiderman 3 I forgive to a degree, knowing what Raimi was up against. (Plus the reboot films ended up being far worse imo). Chris Terrio doing the script has me curious.... but the spoken bits remind me of the main problem Snyder has: he seems mostly incapable of directing good peformances, and his "Sucker Punch" shows me he can't write either. Ridley Scott is a weird bug. He came from commercials and his strength is visuals, but, unlike Snyder- He can direct performances, but sometimes his story sense and choices are truly out there (Blade Runner was a great 'mood' piece, but the original script was far clearer on the story it was trying to tell. The non-religious Moses movie he did was just a bad call from the get go- but even then, I was looking forward to giving it a chance.). Still- he's more trustworthy than the newer breed of directors that can get fame and gigs from doing music and youtube videos, it seems. Basically, it feels a bit backwards nowadays. If a director had a good story sense, knew how to direct actors, then visuals were a nice bonus. Now it feels like: Can you make a great trailer or music video? HIRED! ;p
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 8, 2015 18:30:55 GMT -5
Yeah. Hollywoods been going for music video directors for a while but the problem now is they don't let these guys have any freedom of they get the ones that still can't pick a good story.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 13, 2015 16:16:18 GMT -5
heh
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 17, 2015 23:05:09 GMT -5
heh Interesting.... what is this from?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 18, 2015 13:27:13 GMT -5
The footage of Christopher reeve and Michael Keaton together is from the movie Speechless.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 18, 2015 21:26:03 GMT -5
Thanks! I had no idea they worked together- have to check that one out!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 20, 2015 9:31:09 GMT -5
@cam ,ATP, and Metallo
Agree with all the points you make. The beauty of films like Jaws,Star Wars and Superman is how they triumphed out of production adversity. These films were next to impossible to make(with the technology that was available at the time) and as CAM quite rightly pointed out.....were hardly the most desirable projects to pursue either(disaster or gangsta flicks were in fashion in the mid 70s) . So the likes of Spielberg,Zanuck --- Kurtz/Lucas and the Salkinds/Donner took tremendous risks in bringing those projects to the screen.
When you read about the production of the Avengers, Hunger Games, Dawn Of Justice or The Force Awakens they all seem to be running along rather smoothly without any technical hitches. There are no problem solving dilemmas or huge runs behind schedules which dogged the 70's classics.
Compare that to the production of the The Revenant. Now this looks to be a true classic in the making. Its behind schedule, full of production turmoil with a pissed off cast and crew. Looking forward to seeing the end result. They say DiCaprio may finally bag that elusive Oscar:)
ATP made a great point about cramming too much info into 1 flick. If Batman hurts Superman in DOJ(which he undoubtedly will)......big deal.....Zod,Faoura and that big Henchman already bashed Supes around in MOS.
Compare that to the first time NON knocks Supes into the building in Superman II.....incredible....precisely because Superman was unscathed all the way through STM(Lex Kryptonite not withstanding) and until that moment that NON lands the blow.(If you exclude Rocky stuffing Clark in the Diner).
That's the difference in my view.
Without a measured buildup to a climactic point ,spectacle means nothing.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Dec 20, 2015 10:50:20 GMT -5
@cam ,ATP, and Metallo
Agree with all the points you make. The beauty of films like Jaws,Star Wars and Superman is how they triumphed out of production adversity. These films were next to impossible to make(with the technology that was available at the time) and as CAM quite rightly pointed out.....were hardly the most desirable projects to pursue either(disaster or gangsta flicks were in fashion in the mid 70s) . So the likes of Spielberg,Zanuck --- Kurtz/Lucas and the Salkinds/Donner took tremendous risks in bringing those projects to the screen.
When you read about the production of the Avengers, Hunger Games, Dawn Of Justice or The Force Awakens they all seem to be running along rather smoothly without any technical hitches. There are no problem solving dilemmas or huge runs behind schedules which dogged the 70's classics.
Compare that to the production of the The Revenant. Now this looks to be a true classic in the making. Its behind schedule, full of production turmoil with a pissed off cast and crew. Looking forward to seeing the end result. They say DiCaprio may finally bag that elusive Oscar:)
ATP made a great point about cramming too much info into 1 flick. If Batman hurts Superman in DOJ(which he undoubtedly will)......big deal.....Zod,Faoura and that big Henchman already bashed Supes around in MOS.
Compare that to the first time NON knocks Supes into the building in Superman II.....incredible....precisely because Superman was unscathed all the way through STM(Lex Kryptonite not withstanding) and until that moment that NON lands the blow.(If you exclude Rocky stuffing Clark in the Diner).
That's the difference in my view.
Without a measured buildup to a climactic point ,spectacle means nothing.
6
That "build up" you mention is so important. In the 70s and 80s, things built up over several movies. Think about the original Star Wars, where it took 2 movies to reveal Vader was Luke's father and still another movie before you see him without his mask on. Todays audiences don't have the patience for that, and studios will not take that risk. Dejan, you mentioned the huge shock when Non punches Superman. Exactly right. I remember when S2 came out, the idea that there could be three other people with Superman's exact same powers was mindblowing and very scary. But now, superpowered villains are a dime a dozen.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,847
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 20, 2015 15:30:15 GMT -5
The limits of the technology forced yesteryears filmmakers to become more inventive and more creative with their solutions. To directors of big budget films that isn't even an issue now. You've got a generation of filmmakers that haven't had that kind of trial by fire so they've never been forced to think outside the box. Take Ghostbusters...I think the limits made that for on better than Ackroyd's original idea. Lewis getting taken by the devil dog wouldn't be nearly as good if we'd seen it. Limiting what we saw of the Werewolf in American Werewolf in London made it far creepier. That overhead shot of it in the subway near the end is pretty freaky. It's massive but you just get glimpses of it most of the time.
The Kryptonians brawl on Superman II is better on an emotional level because they understood these guys can't hurt each other. Superman knew the city would just be totaled. Zod knee the one way to beat him was put innocents in danger throughout the battle. That's where the drama comes from.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 23, 2015 19:32:27 GMT -5
@cam ,ATP, and Metallo
Agree with all the points you make. The beauty of films like Jaws,Star Wars and Superman is how they triumphed out of production adversity. These films were next to impossible to make(with the technology that was available at the time) and as CAM quite rightly pointed out.....were hardly the most desirable projects to pursue either(disaster or gangsta flicks were in fashion in the mid 70s) . So the likes of Spielberg,Zanuck --- Kurtz/Lucas and the Salkinds/Donner took tremendous risks in bringing those projects to the screen.
When you read about the production of the Avengers, Hunger Games, Dawn Of Justice or The Force Awakens they all seem to be running along rather smoothly without any technical hitches. There are no problem solving dilemmas or huge runs behind schedules which dogged the 70's classics.
Compare that to the production of the The Revenant. Now this looks to be a true classic in the making. Its behind schedule, full of production turmoil with a pissed off cast and crew. Looking forward to seeing the end result. They say DiCaprio may finally bag that elusive Oscar:)
ATP made a great point about cramming too much info into 1 flick. If Batman hurts Superman in DOJ(which he undoubtedly will)......big deal.....Zod,Faoura and that big Henchman already bashed Supes around in MOS.
Compare that to the first time NON knocks Supes into the building in Superman II.....incredible....precisely because Superman was unscathed all the way through STM(Lex Kryptonite not withstanding) and until that moment that NON lands the blow.(If you exclude Rocky stuffing Clark in the Diner).
That's the difference in my view.
Without a measured buildup to a climactic point ,spectacle means nothing.
6
That "build up" you mention is so important. In the 70s and 80s, things built up over several movies. Think about the original Star Wars, where it took 2 movies to reveal Vader was Luke's father and still another movie before you see him without his mask on. Todays audiences don't have the patience for that, and studios will not take that risk. Dejan, you mentioned the huge shock when Non punches Superman. Exactly right. I remember when S2 came out, the idea that there could be three other people with Superman's exact same powers was mindblowing and very scary. But now, superpowered villains are a dime a dozen. Great points about Vader ATP. The father reveal and mask removal(ok excluding that brief view in Empire) added to the "build up" and mystery.....one of the big attractions of the OT. Would add I just realized it took 3 movies to actually see Vader's booty get handed to him.He whooped Obi and Luke in the first 2 movies in nearly 4 hours of movie time viewing. So when Luke shouts "NEVER!" and actually forces Vader back it was very powerful emotionally........ that and William's music and it's true story telling and movie magic.
|
|