Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,849
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 3, 2023 11:34:59 GMT -5
The Batman suited the hunger and anticipation I felt after seeing The Dark Knight. Everyone was excited and eager to see this interpretation carry on with the approach they took to portraying the villains. We were all colored, surprised when it was announced that everything would end with The Dark Knight Rises and how the movie literally opened with the detail that Batman outright quit after the events of The Dark Knight. Nolan was trying to wrap everything up too tightly and I guess in retrospect, you can’t blame him after the death of Heath Ledger, but it’s definitely a franchise I would have liked to of seen continue, and the next best thing is going to be whatever else Matt Reeve comes up with. The Batman may have appealed to people who preferred Nolan's more grounded approach but it didn't have nearly the swell of anticipation from the general movie going public that Batman or The Dark Knight did. It was actually closer to the feelings in the lead up to Batman Begins. The problem was they didn't let that anticipation grow and we got another version of Batman between Nolan's and Reeves's that tainted the well. If that hadn't happened maybe things would have turned out differently. I wasn't surprised Nolan ended things with the Dark Knight Rises. I wasn't even surprised with how he ended it. The only thing that surprised me was the length of the time jump. Anyone who knows anything about Nolan even back then knew he wasn't going to stick with these films or the character for longer. That's not the type of guy he is. He's not a "franchise" filmmaker at heart. I always figured it would be a trilogy. Even Rises felt like it was made more out of obligation than anything else. He had to wrap it up. Uh…no it’s not. And Reeve had other versions before him. Reeve’s take on Superman was vastly different than George Reeves. A blind man could see that. George Reeves superman was far more of a macho brawler two fisted crime buster. As Chris Reeve himself said the idea of what a “man” was was vastly different in their two eras. He had a softer approach. Reeve’s Superman was a more an emotionally sensitive empathetic “modern” man. George was far more stern as Superman. If George was your dad Chris was more like a good friend. That’s not even getting into their differences as Clark Kent. What made Chris Reeve’s Superman definitive was the quality of not just his performance but how it affected people. The quality of the entire film made it so successful and that’s what made it definitive. Other actors and productions had elements of that but they were never as successful or as popular. Dahahaha! No I definitely haven’t underestimated who I’m talking to. More like OVERESTIMATED with your hilariously self serving responses. Only one who can’t back up anything is you. You still haven’t answered some questions I’ve asked. All you’ve done is puff your chest out. So in other words you’re just another smug stiff @ssed nerd on the internet with an overinflated ego and opinion of himself and his knowledge because you’ve done what plenty of other fanboys have done along with you and long before you. You have more to present? Where is it? What are your professional credentials again? What have you done? I don’t mean as a geek collecting stuff but as far as someone with a career in some industry related to what you’re talking about? Are you published? As far as smartassing maybe you should look in the mirror and take your own advice. Otherwise maybe you shouldn’t be threatening people with talk of what they should do or some “lesson.” No. Your reasoning is too narrow. You’re too focused on one minute thing instead of looking at the big picture. Trying to argue something with one detail without using any common sense. That’s myopic. Dealing with what could have happen is the point which you’re missing entirely but you don’t want to admit that because your entire argument is flawed and you’re clinging to one thing. Your argument is from one specific pov instead of taking a broader perspective. It doesn’t change what I said that if the strike hadn't happened things may have gone differently. It created limitations that weren’t in place before. That’s a fact. Also any writers that they were able to bring in would have been working in a more limited amount of time than they would have had otherwise. You have no clue what would have happened if things had gone differently so you can’t say it had no affect on the outcome of the end product
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 3, 2023 17:00:21 GMT -5
My two cents on Matt Reeves' Batman: I loved the trailer, half-loved the movie. In many ways, he was able to make it feel fresh and focused- and Pattinson looks GREAT as Batman with his ridiculous looks in the mask (he should be contractually obligated to wear it on/off screen for the rest of his life imo )--- But on the other hand- the script was constructed in a way that had me feel like the energy lagged, lagged, lagged, then maybe picked up now and then. A relative LOVED this new version as a mystery- but to me, the Batman-Catwoman element was probably the most interesting bit.... with only dribbled bits that I found interesting and daring. (I'm also mixed on their handling of Wayne's mom) Hopefully the sequel is better, but right now- Nolan's first two Batman films are the best, followed by Batman Returns, and parts of Batman Forever and the Matt Reeves' version.
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 4, 2023 10:10:42 GMT -5
You’re also ignoring that we were still in the mists of a pandemic that shunned people away from theaters. It also wasn’t just the abrupt ending of the Nolan movies that left a narrow sense of anticipation. There was also the botched attempt to reintroduce Batman via the Snyderverse. In retrospect, it’s a shame that they couldn’t have carried on what was already established. That’s why we’re dealing with this mess of multi-verses in the upcoming Flash movie.
Reeve and Reeves shared a similar authoritative approach to the Superman role. He’s very much in Reeves mode when he’s in Luthor’s lair and when he’s performing his super feats. The main difference is that Reeves didn’t get an opportunity to play tender love scenes as Reeve got to because the producers of the show weren’t interested in portraying that aspect.
Once again, you’re showing your very narrow minded way of thinking by loosely using the term “definitive” and you’re rather rude way of responding without the tendency of being insulting. Everything you say can be applied towards yourself tenfold. Can you believe that you haven’t discovered in all the years the Internet has been around that you don’t have to flash a card to show you’re a “professional.” The work speaks for itself.
As I explained to you before, which you clearly didn’t care to comprehend, I’ve collected a large quantity of the production material that I’ve ingested and shared the information via posts. The material itself cannot be shared because that would be a violation of copyright. I’m not sure how Caped Wonder got a hold of the Puzo drafts, but when I acquired them, I was assured that this could not widely shared and could only be used for research material. Similar accounts are also presented on podcasts like Superhero Stuff You Should Know. I know you’re suffering from insecurity on being called out for behaving in defensive way when you find yourself wrong about something, but please follow your own advice and most importantly, act on it.
If you want to drive yourself crazy worrying about what COULD have been instead of what DID happen, be my guest. It’s just an endless loop of infinity that leads to no satisfaction or understanding. It used to drive me mad thinking about what if Donner stayed onboard to do the supposed III and IV he and Mankiewicz had in mind. Whenever they were asked to elaborate on this, they claim that they didn’t remember. Through my research and interpretation of the events, I realized that statement from Donner was just his own ego letting out that it would have been better than what we got. It seemed that likely in the time which they may have said those things, they likely just wanted to finish what they started and moved on to the next project. Superman was relatively an easy job for them to have a complete screenplay sent to them and all they had to do was just cut the jokes they didn’t like and polish the dialogue. That’s exactly why Mankiewicz was denied a screen writing credit and why he was relegated to “creative consultant.”
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 4, 2023 10:25:33 GMT -5
Pattinson’s Batman was a pleasant surprise for me. it seemed that they took more inspiration from RoboCop, which is acceptable. He really nailed the voice down, especially after we had to hear that god-awful voice changer from Affleck and the overt growls from Bale.
I trust that in the future movies, they will refrain from having a three hour run time. I understood why they needed it to properly present and unfold the mystery, but as you said, it does lag in spaces and a faster pace can help drive the story better.
The interpretation of Catwoman was exactly what I was expecting from Nolan that would’ve helped tie everything back into the mob angle of Gotham City that Nolan strayed away from in Rises. The Catwoman in Rises was just a random person thrown into the story to have Bruce end up with someone since they already had Taila Al Ghul set up to the femme fatale. As I may have mentioned before, The Batman is the sequel to The Dark Knight I was looking for. I would have happily accepted it if Nolan was not willing to continue the series.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 4, 2023 11:26:31 GMT -5
That’s what I was thinking… with minor tweaks it could have been the unofficial sequel to TDK!
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 5, 2023 5:48:50 GMT -5
I know, right?! Been an idea of mine since it first came out to revise it to fit as the third Nolan film. So many of its story beats would have worked well such as when Alfred is hospitalized and the idea of Batman pursuing The Riddler, thinking he’s inspired by The Joker, but finds out he’s really a Batman fan instead.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 5, 2023 16:45:06 GMT -5
I know, right?! Been an idea of mine since it first came out to revise it to fit as the third Nolan film. So many of its story beats would have worked well such as when Alfred is hospitalized and the idea of Batman pursuing The Riddler, thinking he’s inspired by The Joker, but finds out he’s really a Batman fan instead. If Reeves had done it that way, I would have preferred it.... though there's other bits in the new Batman film that had me scratching my head- the worst bit imo was the chase sequence where Batman is going after the Penguin, ending up killing what seems like a zillion bystanders during the chase- and not even caring or going back to it. A spinoff tv series with the Penguin has me not interested.
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 6, 2023 6:39:22 GMT -5
I felt the same way about the car chase scene in Begins where he plowed through traffic as well that HAD to have killed someone.
The Penguin series sounds fun because it’s obvious that they’re taking a Bob Hoskins Long Good Friday approach to the material. I’m not much of a fan of the fact that they just put Colin Farrell in Richard Kind makeup instead of just hiring Richard Kind.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 6, 2023 20:00:43 GMT -5
I felt the same way about the car chase scene in Begins where he plowed through traffic as well that HAD to have killed someone. The Penguin series sounds fun because it’s obvious that they’re taking a Bob Hoskins Long Good Friday approach to the material. I’m not much of a fan of the fact that they just put Colin Farrell in Richard Kind makeup instead of just hiring Richard Kind. With Begins, I feel they successfully (to me) danced around it enough- but with the Reeves' Batman- you SEE cars getting rammed, and the giant truck explosion.... then, when they grab the guy- they question him, then let him go. Whaaa? And- I actually really like Colin Farrell after seeing the nominated "Banshees" movie and reading what his and Oliver Stone's intents were for "Alexander" (A film I hated the first time around as being 13 hours, but love the director's ultimate cut enough).
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 9, 2023 3:25:13 GMT -5
Metallo and Kamdan Sorry to see you guys have a bit of a heated discussion back there! Both of you provide insight,knowledge and intuition that are appreciated for sure. With regards to the definitive presentation of Batman, in this case, I found a 2005 interview with Bale that coincided with the theatrical release of Begins:
Great to see Bale reference Reeve , in it's own right! Not sure if Reeve attended the Oscars in 1987, but I think 13 year old Bale was there ,as Empire Of The Sun scooped up some awards. Wonder if their paths crossed?! Anyways, sounds like Bale was a fan(he was born in the early 70s.....and would have been of the appropriate age when the Reeve films hit the cinemas in the late 70s/early 80s). Also interesting to see that he did not think Keaton was "the number one guy!"
As I said in an earlier post, Kilmer's and Clooney's portrayals kinda obscured Keaton somewhat, throughout the mid to late 90s and early 2000s. Bit of a shame. Interesting that Keaton also gave some insights into Nolan's then novel approach:
So even from the perpspective of the artists involved in making these things.....there can be differences of opinions, let alone us fans!
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 9, 2023 5:20:23 GMT -5
The quotes from Keaton always made me inquire as to how far along discussions took place with Joel Schumacher over the possibility of doing a Batman: Year One adaptation, which was apparently what he wanted to do all along. There’s quotes from Keaton post-Returns where you could tell he was reading the reviews at the time that criticized about how the villains were more featured than the title character and the storyline devised for Forever drew from Year One that I’m sure was in place to please Keaton.
What killed it for Keaton was the lighter approach Warners wanted and Schumacher complied with. Now that Keaton has seemingly returned to the Batman role without Burton’s involvement, part of me wishes that he would have stuck to it and be willing to let the character have some development with the introduction of Robin, which unfortunately gets muddled with different actors playing what is supposed to be the same character. That would have let his interpretation have a better sense of “definitive” as Reeve was, who stuck to the role despite the change of directors.
The question at hand with actors in these roles is how much is enough? When they take on roles like this.m, it may cost them a few they’d really be interested in doing. On the other hand, I see some of the stuff Keaton and Reeve did instead of more sequels and I would have gladly traded them in.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 9, 2023 7:18:35 GMT -5
The quotes from Keaton always made me inquire as to how far along discussions took place with Joel Schumacher over the possibility of doing a Batman: Year One adaptation, which was apparently what he wanted to do all along. There’s quotes from Keaton post-Returns where you could tell he was reading the reviews at the time that criticized about how the villains were more featured than the title character and the storyline devised for Forever drew from Year One that I’m sure was in place to please Keaton. What killed it for Keaton was the lighter approach Warners wanted and Schumacher complied with. Now that Keaton has seemingly returned to the Batman role without Burton’s involvement, part of me wishes that he would have stuck to it and be willing to let the character have some development with the introduction of Robin, which unfortunately gets muddled with different actors playing what is supposed to be the same character. That would have let his interpretation have a better sense of “definitive” as Reeve was, who stuck to the role despite the change of directors. The question at hand with actors in these roles is how much is enough? When they take on roles like this.m, it may cost them a few they’d really be interested in doing. On the other hand, I see some of the stuff Keaton and Reeve did instead of more sequels and I would have gladly traded them in. Yes, good points. As far as Reeve and SIV is concerned, there is a direct correlation between the nose dive in his career from an artistic(and maybe a commercial one too) perpspective, circa 1985, and the decision to reprise his Supe's role for the fourth time. I can only speak for myself in terms of opinions, but Somewhere In Time,DeathTrap and The Bostonians all have artistic merit ,from the viewpoint of Reeve's contributions, and as films as a whole, irrespective of whatever they recouped financially. Add the first 2 Supes movies to the equation and one could deduce that Reeve had a fantastic first 6 years or so to his screen career, leaving just Monsignor and Superman III as the outliers. However, The Aviator and ultimately Streetsmart(even if it was made at the same time as SIV) were less viable artistically and also bombed commercially, thus dictating Reeve's direction into returning to Supes. The irony was that because SIV was so bad(both artistically and commercially) , that it ended up darning Reeve even more, resulting in Switching Channels and relegating him to TV stuff he did in the early 90s.! Not so familiar with Keaton's overall output. But I think he did well to stay away from Forever and B&R. This may sound controversial, but I wish that if Superman IV was made(well it was- lol!), that Reeve did not take part(and have someone else play the role!).....at least he would have been disassociated from that whole mess, kinda like what Keaton did with Bat!
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 9, 2023 8:08:51 GMT -5
The two movies that Keaton did around the time of the Schumacher films I had in mind were Multiplicity and Jack Frost. I often think about how under different direction, George Clooney could have been a worthy successor to Keaton. Kilmer felt more appropriate if Schumacher was going to go full Year One mode and do a prequel but it was rather disjointed to have him at his age be a mentor to O’Donnell’s Robin. It messed with the dichotomy of man and boy, and instead made them be brothers. It was something different to the mythos but again felt disjointed by the fourth movie with a new actor in the lead role. I never noticed an arch between Roger Moore’s Bond and Sean Connery Bond.
I too sometimes feel your same sentiment about there, not even being a Superman for at all, but when viewed on its own and not scrutinized in comparison to the others, it’s just a fun little Superman movie on its own. I’m way more forgiving about that than I ever will be towards Superman Returns because they had every warning sign in the world not to do what they did, but you can forgive Superman IV’s naïveté.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 9, 2023 15:10:34 GMT -5
The quotes from Keaton always made me inquire as to how far along discussions took place with Joel Schumacher over the possibility of doing a Batman: Year One adaptation, which was apparently what he wanted to do all along. There’s quotes from Keaton post-Returns where you could tell he was reading the reviews at the time that criticized about how the villains were more featured than the title character and the storyline devised for Forever drew from Year One that I’m sure was in place to please Keaton. What killed it for Keaton was the lighter approach Warners wanted and Schumacher complied with. Now that Keaton has seemingly returned to the Batman role without Burton’s involvement, part of me wishes that he would have stuck to it and be willing to let the character have some development with the introduction of Robin, which unfortunately gets muddled with different actors playing what is supposed to be the same character. That would have let his interpretation have a better sense of “definitive” as Reeve was, who stuck to the role despite the change of directors. The question at hand with actors in these roles is how much is enough? When they take on roles like this.m, it may cost them a few they’d really be interested in doing. On the other hand, I see some of the stuff Keaton and Reeve did instead of more sequels and I would have gladly traded them in. Yes, good points. As far as Reeve and SIV is concerned, there is a direct correlation between the nose dive in his career from an artistic(and maybe a commercial one too) perpspective, circa 1985, and the decision to reprise his Supe's role for the fourth time. I can only speak for myself in terms of opinions, but Somewhere In Time,DeathTrap and The Bostonians all have artistic merit ,from the viewpoint of Reeve's contributions, and as films as a whole, irrespective of whatever they recouped financially. Add the first 2 Supes movies to the equation and one could deduce that Reeve had a fantastic first 6 years or so to his screen career, leaving just Monsignor and Superman III as the outliers. However, The Aviator and ultimately Streetsmart(even if it was made at the same time as SIV) were less viable artistically and also bombed commercially, thus dictating Reeve's direction into returning to Supes. The irony was that because SIV was so bad(both artistically and commercially) , that it ended up darning Reeve even more, resulting in Switching Channels and relegating him to TV stuff he did in the early 90s.! .... A few thoughts... #1: In general, how many 'great' films can an actor have- or- be able to get, even if they're 'A-listers'? A number of actors mentioned passing up parts in the past that have gone on to catch fire- but.... how many things have to line up to make that happen? I think Reeve had mentioned being originally given "American Gigolo"- that went on to be a big success with Richard Gere- but.... maybe audiences wouldn't have wanted to see Reeve in that kind of role, but were ok with Gere being in it from their own perceptions of Gere as an actor at that time? #2: So many actors also become 'almost A-listers' that- even if Reeve had- (according to his own memoirs) been an "A-lister" for a short time... I think a number of actors would have envied having had the success that he had- though--- according to his own memoirs, he was frustrated himself around and post-SIV with his level of success that was waning. #3: In an interview, Reeve had mentioned out of all the films he had done, STM and "Somewhere in Time" were the 'ones for the vaults'--- and having even ONE film that has seemingly eternal longevity is something that - if you go up the chain of actors who are considered fortunate to even get ONE film made.... it's saying something! With Keaton- who had done a zillion films--- which role can be most remembered, though? As time passes- and movies get more and more relegated to the past.... if longevity of one's work is a goal- how many people in the last generation or so would know who James Dean is? Or Brando? Except as Jor-el from a classic Superman movie? Keaton has the distinction of being the 'first' big-budget Batman as well as being the lead in the limited library of Tim Burton films- and Beetlejuice! While I loved him in "Clean and Sober"- that movie might be one of zillions that kind of (sadly) disappear. If Reeve had never done Superman- would he have been able to get the breaks to be a movie lead? Hard to say.... but there have been a lot of talented handsome actors (as well as talented beautiful actresses I'm sure)that never quite 'made it' and then get older--- so, it is an interesting discussion on 'what if's' for these actors, but- ultimately, both extremely fortunate (rather than cursed I feel) to have been the first big budget Superman and Batman respectively. Those particular superhero films are unique enough to have a place apart in film history. Some of the other superhero films- at this point- not so much.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 10, 2023 6:51:23 GMT -5
@cam.
Good and thought provoking points there.
As a hypothesis, maybe it can be divided into 2 camps:
From the point of view of film historians,cineastes and academic students(of film making - be they aspiring actors or technicians), then there is longevity for all the aforementioned actors(the likes of Dean,Brando and perhaps even Reeve himself ect ect )......and great works/performances in general, in the minds and eyes of the newer generation(s).
Here in the UK, we have something called the BFI(British Film Institute) who are doing great work to preserve fundamental European cinematic treasures(Bergman,Herzog,Eisenstein,Truffeaut,Tati,Goddard,Fellini,Rossellini,Pasolini ect ect). They even dip their pockets into world cinema(Satiyagit Rai,Kurosawa ect ect).
But you are right , for the general movie going public(whatever that is!?) as the years and decades roll by......a lot gets lost from the public consciousness, if they were ever in the zeitgeist in the first place. Within the context of films: Inside Moves would be a great example of that! A commercial bomb......but who cares.....it's a great movie. Donner even highlights said fact in that 2019 interview in the Blu Ray special features.........that it's a film that hopefully will be preserved on formats such as Blu, seeing as it was completely off the radar at the time of it's release.
So in this instance/example, folks like David Morse, John Savage or Diana Scarweed who gave fantastic performances in IM, will be recognized certainly from the perspective of cineastes, which is what really counts.......if not from the general movie going public.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 10, 2023 10:18:16 GMT -5
With old movies being put on then off streaming… it feels more like preservation of said films either become digital on some server or blu-ray. As is, sad that some things- like the extended sii- only exists in crappy VHS tapes and could only be partially restored by fans.
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 10, 2023 11:49:02 GMT -5
Fans are the only ones who are willing to preserve material like this. Gotta admit it royally pissed me off when Jon Favreau dismissed all of the efforts being made by the fans of the original trilogy who want the unaltered versions of the films to be released. His reasoning was that it wouldn’t appeal to younger fans because it’s just something older fans would want. All the efforts of the fans that created the 4K versions of the originals are proving him wrong.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 10, 2023 12:36:29 GMT -5
Fans are the only ones who are willing to preserve material like this. Gotta admit it royally pissed me off when Jon Favreau dismissed all of the efforts being made by the fans of the original trilogy who want the unaltered versions of the films to be released. His reasoning was that it wouldn’t appeal to younger fans because it’s just something older fans would want. All the efforts of the fans that created the 4K versions of the originals are proving him wrong. I didn't know he said that- Favreau is a mixed bag to me... On one hand- a lot of the way he talks about how he approaches things sound BRILLIANT--- and.... Iron Man & Mandalorian Season 1 & 2! On the other hand.... Book of Boba Fett and Mandalorian season 3 and Iron Man 2. In ways he really DID emulate George Lucas... both of them. The one that made the original trilogy AND the other one that did the prequels!
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 10, 2023 14:06:03 GMT -5
Just like every other creator, their earlier stuff isn’t as good as their later stuff. There’s also the factor of studio interference getting the better half of them as well. By Return of the Jedi, Lucas was letting the idea of higher merchandise profits drive his creativity instead of progressing the story. Favreau’s success drove him to do the unthinkable like do The Lion King.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 10, 2023 19:15:05 GMT -5
Just like every other creator, their earlier stuff isn’t as good as their later stuff. There’s also the factor of studio interference getting the better half of them as well. By Return of the Jedi, Lucas was letting the idea of higher merchandise profits drive his creativity instead of progressing the story. Favreau’s success drove him to do the unthinkable like do The Lion King. With Lucas- looking at THX-1138 and reading the original Star Wars draft by Lucas and the theatrical one that was reportedly ghost-written by the team that did "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"--- From the difference in clarity and quality of the theatrical release of Star Wars: A New Hope & the original draft (which seems not just unrecognizeable, but imo not very interesting either!).... I have a feeling- with all due respect to Lucas- he's just not that great a writer and has bad instincts at times. Based on the story choices for ROTJ and the prequels- and really enjoying the pacing and fun of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.... I could totally believe that they did ghost-rewrite Star Wars's script. I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that later stuff is necessarily going to be worse, but that other factors can come into play. Favreau's output has always seemed to be hit/miss all along. Zarathustra and "Cowboys and ALiens" put me on the edge of sleep- I don't know if they were 'bad' but dull to me. I was suprised, too, how much he loved doing the Lion King in CGI. But- then again- what the fans love doesn't always equal what the creators of said works love. (Just look at SW: Special Edition!)
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 11, 2023 6:55:48 GMT -5
Lucas at some point didn’t value his collaborations with others. Willard and Gloria Huyck did indeed take another pass at the first Star Wars to make the dialogue sound more natural. It’s painfully obvious in all of the screen tests that when the actors recite Lucas’ original dialogue from the script, it comes off as clunky as many have criticized the prequels for.
Another valued member of Lucas’ team was his wife Marcia, the only Lucas who has an Oscar. She proved her opinion even back during THX that she warned George that the movie was too abstract for audiences to understand. There’s a foreign version of the movie that attempts to salvage this by having a voiceover explain the background of this future. This is something the studio begged for but Lucas was stubborn enough not to want to change his movie for their own benefit. By the time the prequels rolled around and Lucas was left to his own devices, that stubbornness resulted in Episode I. He sought help with the last two prequels but it was too little too late and he became a contradiction of his famous “A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing” quote.
When you look back at some of the original story points for Return of the Jedi and Episode I, Lucas had some rather good first impression ideas that unfortunately must have been overthought and turned into what we ended up with, namely the childish antics of Jar Jar Binks.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 11, 2023 11:30:57 GMT -5
Lucas at some point didn’t value his collaborations with others. Willard and Gloria Huyck did indeed take another pass at the first Star Wars to make the dialogue sound more natural. It’s painfully obvious in all of the screen tests that when the actors recite Lucas’ original dialogue from the script, it comes off as clunky as many have criticized the prequels for. Another valued member of Lucas’ team was his wife Marcia, the only Lucas who has an Oscar. She proved her opinion even back during THX that she warned George that the movie was too abstract for audiences to understand. There’s a foreign version of the movie that attempts to salvage this by having a voiceover explain the background of this future. This is something the studio begged for but Lucas was stubborn enough not to want to change his movie for their own benefit. By the time the prequels rolled around and Lucas was left to his own devices, that stubbornness resulted in Episode I. He sought help with the last two prequels but it was too little too late and he became a contradiction of his famous “A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing” quote. When you look back at some of the original story points for Return of the Jedi and Episode I, Lucas had some rather good first impression ideas that unfortunately must have been overthought and turned into what we ended up with, namely the childish antics of Jar Jar Binks. Great points brought up- a friend of mine who's even more into SW years ago mentioned the same... that Marcia Lucas and Gary Kurtz were also great assets that helped balance Lucas' aesthetics- I'll ALWAYS be giantly greatful for George Lucas for ultimately making Star Wars: A New Hope- just as I'll always be giantly greatful to the Salkinds and Donner for creating STM (Lester only for Three Musketeers to a lower degree, but that one's still a keeper)- Also- for that landmark film that arguably (with STM) made Singer's X-men, Raimi's Spiderman, and the MCU down the line possible sfx tech wise and from a biz point of view on making precedents that made giant box office to convince studios (or at least help persuade them) that an investment in it would be a possible winner. Also- for Lucas being a visionary on the technical side for seeing into the future with digital tech for the film industry, too. (What was interesting was reading how Favreau seems to have adopted this idea to push it forward, too- he had said his fascination and learning from the CGI Lion King - and I vaguely recall it connecting to the volume being created/used? for the Mandalorian). And education! On the flip side.... Like Spielberg, (who I'd read had Paul Shrader ghost rewrite CE3k)- not everyone can be a great director/producer/writer... People poke holes into James Cameron's writing- but- for a solo act, whenever he's written/directed, it's pretty much been a home run critically and box office wise. Speilberg and Lucas may have good instincts in certain areas- but Lucas himself has said he's not a great screenwriter and needed help. Speilberg's only full writing credit was CE3k. At the same time- it's a pity that Lucas didn't have SOMEBODY to tell him that having Luke and Leia be twins was a horrible idea in ROTJ- as well as Ewoks. And..... as bad as the original trilogy was- arguably what Disney delivered overall might have been a lot worse! (* The original ROTJ outline according to Kurtz if I recall right - or was it Kasdan? - Han dies in the first act- at the end, Leia becomes the Queen of the new Empire (more fairy tale like and I preferred that), Luke leaves the galaxy to look for his twin sister and start gathering new Jedi. I don't know if this is/was true, but I do prefer that wrapup!)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,849
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 7, 2023 0:21:10 GMT -5
You’re also ignoring that we were still in the mists of a pandemic that shunned people away from theaters. It also wasn’t just the abrupt ending of the Nolan movies that left a narrow sense of anticipation. There was also the botched attempt to reintroduce Batman via the Snyderverse. In retrospect, it’s a shame that they couldn’t have carried on what was already established. That’s why we’re dealing with this mess of multi-verses in the upcoming Flash movie. Not really. We’re years away from the worst of the pandemic and DC has suffered the same issues. The problems stemmed mostly from the damage to the brand and the overuse and overexposure of Batman on top of the usual hurdles of trying to introduce a new one. Not really. George’s Superman was much rougher around the edges especially during those early years. Chris’s was always a bit softer and less of a literal fighter for truth and Justice. Reeves was more no nonsense even though he could have a sense of fun. You never saw Reeve punch out an average guy or take it to organized crime the way George did. Reeves was much more authoritative. Remember in Superman and The Mole Men when he said he was going to TAKE everyone’s guns away in the mob because they couldn’t be trusted? That’s as authoritative as it gets and would be pure internet controversy if it was done in a project today. Even in Superman IV when Reeve’s Superman declared he’d get rid of the worlds nukes at least many seemed to be for that even if it wasn’t very realistic in any way. You’re projecting because you just described yourself, fella. Only one rude here was you with the smug attitude. What f***ing work? Show it. I’m not asking for a card. You brought up your so called credentials but when you get called out on your pompous strutting you take a powder and have nothing to show for it? Go ahead. I’ll wait. And all that means jack and sh!t beyond you being a nerd on the internet just like most everyone else. I comprehend plenty. I definitely comprehend that you laid out a spread of bullsh!t with no real answer to what I actually asked. I have been talking about what did happen. And you still haven’t disproven anything I said. Like I said you have no clue how things could have turned out. Only one driving himself crazy is you with your desperate grasping of something trying to be right when you have no clue.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,849
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 7, 2023 0:28:33 GMT -5
The quotes from Keaton always made me inquire as to how far along discussions took place with Joel Schumacher over the possibility of doing a Batman: Year One adaptation, which was apparently what he wanted to do all along. There’s quotes from Keaton post-Returns where you could tell he was reading the reviews at the time that criticized about how the villains were more featured than the title character and the storyline devised for Forever drew from Year One that I’m sure was in place to please Keaton. What killed it for Keaton was the lighter approach Warners wanted and Schumacher complied with. Now that Keaton has seemingly returned to the Batman role without Burton’s involvement, part of me wishes that he would have stuck to it and be willing to let the character have some development with the introduction of Robin, which unfortunately gets muddled with different actors playing what is supposed to be the same character. That would have let his interpretation have a better sense of “definitive” as Reeve was, who stuck to the role despite the change of directors. The question at hand with actors in these roles is how much is enough? When they take on roles like this.m, it may cost them a few they’d really be interested in doing. On the other hand, I see some of the stuff Keaton and Reeve did instead of more sequels and I would have gladly traded them in. Yes, good points. As far as Reeve and SIV is concerned, there is a direct correlation between the nose dive in his career from an artistic(and maybe a commercial one too) perpspective, circa 1985, and the decision to reprise his Supe's role for the fourth time. I can only speak for myself in terms of opinions, but Somewhere In Time,DeathTrap and The Bostonians all have artistic merit ,from the viewpoint of Reeve's contributions, and as films as a whole, irrespective of whatever they recouped financially. Add the first 2 Supes movies to the equation and one could deduce that Reeve had a fantastic first 6 years or so to his screen career, leaving just Monsignor and Superman III as the outliers. However, The Aviator and ultimately Streetsmart(even if it was made at the same time as SIV) were less viable artistically and also bombed commercially, thus dictating Reeve's direction into returning to Supes. The irony was that because SIV was so bad(both artistically and commercially) , that it ended up darning Reeve even more, resulting in Switching Channels and relegating him to TV stuff he did in the early 90s.! Not so familiar with Keaton's overall output. But I think he did well to stay away from Forever and B&R. This may sound controversial, but I wish that if Superman IV was made(well it was- lol!), that Reeve did not take part(and have someone else play the role!).....at least he would have been disassociated from that whole mess, kinda like what Keaton did with Bat! Reeve’s problem was he took the more artistic roles in productions involving questionable people. Even going back to the early 80’s. Deathtrap made sense based on the people involved but Monsignor not so much. Maybe he should have done more “one for thems” beyond Superman to get more attention from general audiences. Street Smart was a good idea but again look who made it. If he’d earned more clout doing other more mainstream stuff he maybe could have gotten the arthouse stuff and dramas made by better people.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 13, 2023 23:55:28 GMT -5
I actually could have pictured Donner doing a fantastic Batman film- and have it be like Lethal Weapon 2 tonally- which had the dark edge along with the humor... but JUST dark enough. And I feel he would have done a similar approach- with an unknown for the lead, though I never read Mank's script for Batman. (at least not yet)
|
|