|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 10, 2017 12:40:56 GMT -5
In rewatching STM.... why is it that the cinematography seems so much better than SII? We know that much of the footage had to be shot by Lester's cinematographer because of Unsworth's death and Lester's choice not to use Unsworth's assistants, but...
I know that one interviewer way back when asked Lester why the colors and details seemed so washed out in SII- and Lester's response was that some actors had aged significantly between the two films, and that filters were put on.
Still...
I also wonder how much can be from the color correction choices as well.
Anyhow- if the cinematographer tried to match Unsworth's choices (From the Starlog interviews)- then it's a shame that still nobody really looks to SII overall and be floored by the cinematography outside of the Donner footage.
With SIII- there was no burden to match anyone's footage, but things looked cheap all the way around.... even with a healthy budget.
With SIV- there's no budget, and suddenly SIII looks incredibly impressive by comparison. Here, some actors REALLY have aged. Still- with sets that look incredibly cheap and actors that look a little long in the tooth, any thoughts?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,843
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 10, 2017 13:13:37 GMT -5
I think Lester was going for something more comic booky on the whole so there's not as much visual depth as STM. Most of it has a more simple visual style. STM stands out for the use of light shadow and soft focus. Donner seemed to have more interesting looking nighttime scenes. SII looks more evenly lit. Same with III. IV just looks flat most of the time. If anything it looks the most modern with the different focus and more basic use of color.
I also think on IV they may have had a more basic lighting set up to shoot faster and save more money. I doubt they did very many retakes for certain scenes. Shooting the outdoors stuff in England probably didn't help with that English weather. With the sets they either used what was there or three some stuff together very cheaply. The limited sets used during the Russia scene look like sh!t. Like painted paper used in a parade float.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 13, 2017 19:37:48 GMT -5
I think Lester was going for something more comic booky on the whole so there's not as much visual depth as STM. Most of it has a more simple visual style. STM stands out for the use of light shadow and soft focus. Donner seemed to have more interesting looking nighttime scenes. SII looks more evenly lit. Same with III. IV just looks flat most of the time. If anything it looks the most modern with the different focus and more basic use of color. I also think on IV they may have had a more basic lighting set up to shoot faster and save more money. I doubt they did very many retakes for certain scenes. Shooting the outdoors stuff in England probably didn't help with that English weather. With the sets they either used what was there or three some stuff together very cheaply. The limited sets used during the Russia scene look like sh!t. Like painted paper used in a parade float. In re-looking at STM, the ambition with the cinematography and the high standard is what makes STM a bit of an 'art film blockbuster'. I remember that John Landis criticized (though in general) the 'A film by' credit that Donner had for STM- but nobody behind or in front of the camera seemed to have any problem with it.... I imagine because they saw that he really was shooting for the moon and that it wasn't 'just a job' once he got into it. With SII- It's hard to really get into Lester's mindset. We know that he needed/wanted the money owed to him by the Salkinds, that he had a different perspective on the material (especially seeing how SIII turned out) than Donner, and that he was determined to shoot it fast and cheap so as to fulfill the Salkind's demands. If he was in love with the material (and as respectful) in the same way Singer was to the Donner vision, he probably would have tried harder to get SII to be what Donner intended (and what was written by Mank)- I actually was 'ok' (though not crazy about) the Lester fill-in material for much of the movie up to the Metro battle, but (and I know I say this endlessly) the Metro battle goes so far off the rails dramatically into slapstick, that it felt like a REAL betrayal to the personal investment in the story prior to the battle. Anyhow.... I do want to check out more of Lester's other films. I hear the Robin Hood one he did is the best, behind the Three Musketeers. (I know the "Hard Day's Night" was revolutionary for what it did at the time, but wasn't overly crazy about it as a film.)
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Feb 19, 2017 18:20:38 GMT -5
In rewatching STM.... why is it that the cinematography seems so much better than SII? We know that much of the footage had to be shot by Lester's cinematographer because of Unsworth's death and Lester's choice not to use Unsworth's assistants, but... I know that one interviewer way back when asked Lester why the colors and details seemed so washed out in SII- and Lester's response was that some actors had aged significantly between the two films, and that filters were put on. Still... I also wonder how much can be from the color correction choices as well. Anyhow- if the cinematographer tried to match Unsworth's choices (From the Starlog interviews)- then it's a shame that still nobody really looks to SII overall and be floored by the cinematography outside of the Donner footage. With SIII- there was no burden to match anyone's footage, but things looked cheap all the way around.... even with a healthy budget. With SIV- there's no budget, and suddenly SIII looks incredibly impressive by comparison. Here, some actors REALLY have aged. Still- with sets that look incredibly cheap and actors that look a little long in the tooth, any thoughts? For SII, in 1981, Pauline Keil wrote: The special effects are highly variable in quality, and the whole film--blown up from 35 mm to 70 mm for the big-theatre showings--is grainy and bleached and often poorly framed. You're much better off if you see it in 35 mmwww.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/s11.htmlSounds to me more of a laboratory processing issue which could have been due to the Salkinds being tightwads or the technical limitations(or a combination of both) of doing the blow ups from 35mm to 70mm. I actually have SII in practically every home video incarnation(from the 1982 VHS/laserdisc to the 2011 Blu ray). The Blu Ray is the clear winner and when projected in 4K on a big screen it looks impressive. The grain is a factor but every movie back then had the stuff......it's what 35mm is composed of! Some of the shots are spectacular....the close ups of the Eiffel Tower,the overhead shots at Niagra Falls and the set pieces in the Metropolis show down do have depth and detail. Same for SIII as well.....the production definitely does not look cheap.The problem with SIII was the story...not the technical aspects of the production. It is in my opinion, the best looking of the 3 Salkind flicks(at least on my system ).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,843
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 19, 2017 19:03:47 GMT -5
I think SIII really is the most consistent of the Salkind Superman films as far as the technical side because with STM they were still figuring it out and and with II there were time and budget limitations. Like you said the Salkinds really skimped because they reshot so much. Some of the effects in II were atrocious by their own standards. I think as far as the flying and effects Supergirl is the best out of the four Super films produced by the Salkinds. Some of the better flying shots in that movie rival the best stuff in STM and SIII. STM is still the best directed though. I think Donner is just a more creative action director than Lester.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 20, 2017 18:19:30 GMT -5
I think SIII really is the most consistent of the Salkind Superman films as far as the technical side because with STM they were still figuring it out and and with II there were time and budget limitations. Like you said the Salkinds really skimped because they reshot so much. Some of the effects in II were atrocious by their own standards. I think as far as the flying and effects Supergirl is the best out of the four Super films produced by the Salkinds. Some of the better flying shots in that movie rival the best stuff in STM and SIII. STM is still the best directed though. I think Donner is just a more creative action director than Lester. Supergirl has an extremely lame script.... but seeing Helen Slater as Supergirl plus the Jerry Goldsmith music and some really beautifully shot flying sequences justify that movie's existence. Without Donner- if Lester had directed STM and SII- I think we would have had a marginally 'good' Superman, but VERY much on the campy side and cheaply shot. Given that at the time audiences were wowed by Star Wars and Close Encounters at the time- it's unlikely that they would have been 'wowed' by a STM shot like a tv movie (i.e. SIII) even then. On the flip side: Can you imagine if Jeannot Swarc had finished directing SII instead of Lester? While Swarc was a bit of a 'yes' man to the producers--- If: #1: He insisted on keeping the Mank script- (which already changes quite a bit from the Lester SII) #2: He was more respectful than Lester of the Donner material and kept a majority of the pre-shot Donner material (i.e. the DP jump and final act) Less would have been reshot so cheaply, and (presumably) more money could have been on-screen. With Swarc being a bit of a romantic (his "Somewhere in Time" being a cult romance w/Reeve)- Even if he had to replace Brando with York, I imagine we would have gotten a SII completed that would have been far less farcical and the romance less cynical than when Lester took over.
|
|