Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
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.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
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: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:24:18 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:21:34 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:18:53 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:12:36 GMT -5
Superman isn’t doomed but the DCEU is. The films failure is not an indictment on Superman since the character isn’t in it very much. Public support for the DCEU simply collapsed with Black Adam though even with the much hyped return of Cavill as Superman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:09:46 GMT -5
It's very good, but not as polished so as to be in my top ten superhero films.... but still, very good. It's not a spoiler to mention there's cameos, a good number... but- the neatest ones seem also done in a way that feels a bit chaotic and all over the place. (UPDATE: On second viewing, actually it's fine- but an oddity comes in comparing the experience with every other superhero film and all the superhero films up to now.... but a bit unfair. The material does tell the story effectively and powerfully at times- but it might be the speed of the rate of 'special' superhero films coming out that the other ones are still fresh in the mind whenever ANY sequence is the slightest bit similar to another superhero film.) I've read and heard about a ton of deleted cameos and scenes that hopefully show up on the blu ray. On the flip side..... extremely sad about the bad box office. With this disappointment following Shazam 2 and Ant-Man 3--- I've mentioned my worry and wonder if the general public is not rushing to see superhero films anymore as a special event. Also.... coming from an era where Star Wars' first release had a one-year anniversary in the theatres- it's odd to see even a giant box office movie like Avatar 2 already leave the theatres. The two best (in recent times) superhero movie experiences at the theatre I had were Endgame and No Way Home.... no small part with the large audience in anticipation to see it, and it was an event. Is that kind of a thing of the past now? The Flash was such a mixed bag. I think the good parts are really good but the rest ranges from questionable to cringe inducing. Miller’s performance was very good the problem is I’ve never cared for his take on Barry Allen. The work was solid but his version never really connected with most audiences. I guess that sums up the entire film in some ways. The whole cast tried and many did good work but the story doesn’t resonate enough. They tried to wow people with fan service to cover that but a lot of that was half baked. It’s a fun movie for much of its run time but nothing special. The baggage of the DCEU was also a weight around the films neck.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 23:03:02 GMT -5
He’s a classically trained Juilliard student from the northeast. It worked out well before. I think he’s a good choice. Maybe the best choice out of all the names that came up. He and Rachel Brosnahan were the front runners for Superman and Lois Lane as soon as they were rumored and Corenswet has been a fan choice since it looked like Cavill was done in the role five years ago. I’m very pleased with how the casting has turned out so far.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 22:58:47 GMT -5
Am I the only one that feels a GIANT 'Henry Cavill' vibe from Coranswet? (I liked Cavill though the writing for him was all wrong imo) Facially he looks like a mix between Cavill and Welling but taller than both. In terms of personality he shows more of it than Cavill and he also won’t have to worry about his accent.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 22:56:32 GMT -5
Glad to read your on the mend, CAM. I watched the Slater interview. Very informative. Rosenbaums podcast is really something special.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 22:54:18 GMT -5
It’s not bad but still a bit off. It just needs some extra work mostly on the head sculpt. The Kent statue looks better.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 22:52:46 GMT -5
MOS came out in June 2013. It is disappointing to see that in all this time, we still have not seen: a) an apology to Enrique and the rest of us for the shameful bullying; b) a clear identification of who the so-called "Reeve Only People" were. It's been 10 years -- try to do it please. I think that the forum is smaller with (mostly) very little battling is maybe the best outcome. Plus, considering how old the original Reeve Superman films are, it's amazing that we've been able to still keep any interesting discussions going, no? The Reeve era seems as relivant as ever especially with the strong current push by WB to use Reeve to wipe the taste of the Snyderverse out of the public’s mouths to get them to move on and be ready for the more classic and traditional Superman: legacy.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 22:50:00 GMT -5
MOS came out in June 2013. It is disappointing that in all this time, we still have not seen: a) an apology to Enrique and the rest of us for the shameful bullying; b) a clear identification of who the so-called "Reeve Only People" were. It's been 10 years -- try to do it please. Ten years and the movie is less relevant than ever. And it all ended with a universe going doing in a spectacular failure just like some of us said because the problems were baked in and simply not easily fixable by any follow ups. It was a house built on a Poor foundation.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 6, 2023 22:47:59 GMT -5
I saw what he said. He’s full of it. The issue wasn’t Superman killing but how they handled it. He’s trying to distract from the films real issues with the usual muddying of the waters Snyder Stan’s do to defend the film.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 3, 2023 11:52:28 GMT -5
Kidder was pretty blunt that she felt Lacy was there because certain people felt she was too old to be playing the love interest. But that’s absurd. Typical Hollywood ageism. Reeve had starred opposite other leading ladies who were not only much older than him but had larger age gap than the one between him and Kidder. Objectively speaking her age wasn’t an issue. Only to the people hung up on it. It was particularly meaningless since IV’s other problems killed the film. Having a younger or older female lead wouldn’t have made a difference. I don’t think any of that had any impact on Furie’s ability to put together a better film. Any possible resentment didn’t seem to affect Reeve or Kidders performances. I guess it's ultimately all subjective. I guess we all have different glitches to casting and age at times. To me, Bosworth worked fine as a young mom in SR- and Kidder was perfect imo for the original Superman films- but with SIV... I agree there were a LOT of issues beyond Kidder's age- but for me, she worked fine in half of the scenes, but the other half felt like her performance was off- partly because of the writing at times - partly because I felt like she did feel a touch too old to be doing the same rom-com bit in some parts --- particularly the scene with Lacey/Clark & Lois/Supes' 'double date'. I think she could have worked fine as a really young mom too but that's not exactly what the film was presenting though. Lois had a journalist history before Clark showed up. Then they had a history together. Then Superman was gone for five years and she had and raised a kid. That's a LOT to cram into a limited time. The timelines simply don't add up when you look at how young Bosworth was. And she doesn't come off older. As for Kidder I didn't feel she was too old for what they were playing. It's not like they were trying to present it as s bunch of 20 something's on a double date. I thought it felt pretty age appropriate. It's even funnier to think about since we've seen women older than Kidder doing the romantic comedy/screwball dating scenes for years. I think one could argue the make up and lighting did non of them any favors but that coins have been fixed if the situation were ideal.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
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
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:35:05 GMT -5
@cam I see you mentioned Star Trek The Motion Picture and The Wrath Of Khan as being some of your most watched movies. Same for me too! Love both of them. Again, i watched them back to back on home video quite a few times over the last 40 years or so. Even though they are completely different.....can't get enough of either of them. TMP is a beautiful looking film, as Metallo underlined.....but I love the story and acting even though both of those usually get derided by critics and fans alike. And Khan is still so tight from a structural perspective. Not one ounce of film is wasted in conveying whatever element of the story needs to be told. I am huge fan of III and IV too. One of my big regrets was when they did a triple bill of the the first 3 movies back in 1985....and not being able to go. Also....gotta admit I teared up in the cinema in 82'(aged 8) when Spock kicked the bucket. I also teared up during ET too! Has not happened since though! lol! I actually have big love for STM as well! Many complained, but I was lucky and loved the whole visual/sound experience at a big screen screen that was used for its initial outing. It is, however, missing a key scene by Spock that got deleted- but very much like the restored edition that came out recently! (*Though SII is arguably the best of the Trek films- and flawless! Very much agree! Because of SII, I sought out "Time after Time" by the same director- and it is equally a classic- very very very much reccomend- the best Malcolm McDowell/ Mary Steenburgen film as well!) Surprised you hadn’t seen Time After Time earlier. Seems like something right up your alley. Marvelous film. It’s a shame we don’t have more talents like Meyer involved with Star Trek anymore.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:32:46 GMT -5
@cam I see you mentioned Star Trek The Motion Picture and The Wrath Of Khan as being some of your most watched movies. Same for me too! Love both of them. Again, i watched them back to back on home video quite a few times over the last 40 years or so. Even though they are completely different.....can't get enough of either of them. TMP is a beautiful looking film, as Metallo underlined.....but I love the story and acting even though both of those usually get derided by critics and fans alike. And Khan is still so tight from a structural perspective. Not one ounce of film is wasted in conveying whatever element of the story needs to be told. I am huge fan of III and IV too. One of my big regrets was when they did a triple bill of the the first 3 movies back in 1985....and not being able to go. Also....gotta admit I teared up in the cinema in 82'(aged 8) when Spock kicked the bucket. I also teared up during ET too! Has not happened since though! lol! The great thing about The Motion Picture is it’s closer in spirit to the kinds of stories Roddenberry originally wanted to tell with Star Trek. You can see it when you compare to The Cage (which I love). Obviously certain story elements are similar to some TOS episodes and Phase II but TMP is more of a deeper thinking film. The Wrath of Khan doesn’t have the visual scope of TMP but it’s closer in spirit to the series. TMP was the first and sadly the last time the original cast era films looked like a big time blockbuster and I enjoyed the story it was trying to tell even if it’s a bit slow and bland. I think emotionally if the film had reflected more of what was going on internally with Spock and V’Ger it would have helped. That’s one think II has over the motion picture. Everything about that film reflects the characters and their arcs very well. I’ll still take TMP over any of the JJ Abrams nonsense.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:17:53 GMT -5
I’ve often heard the criticism of Superman III lacked the imagination of Return of the Jedi, released at the same time. Lucas could pull off feats like he did having an entire special effects company at his disposal while the Salkinds had to rely on veterans of the business to pull off their works. I believe there is also terms of delivering something at a lower budget than the first two to maximize their profits. Perhaps, if Superman III as it was, was a bigger head, they would’ve felt inclined to spend more money to produce something on the grander, cosmic scale. I think Salkind on the commentary mentioned how this wasn’t designed to be as epic as the first two, but more of an episode. Ever since I first read that draft on the Internet, I never liked how unimportant Robin’s contribution to the story was. He didn’t really amount to anything since he only appeared in the last fourth of the movie and also gets knocked out cold by Batman when he pursues The Joker in the climax. It made a whole lot of sense later when Hamm revealed those details about how he was shoehorned into it. It felt more organic to have his eventual introduction be in the third film, despite another attempt to include him in Batman Returns. Ilya Salkind mentioned on the SII commentary how he was having relationship troubles and might have gotten more involved creatively when Lester was doing his thing with SII- I get the feeling he was a bit burned out on Superman and more excited about Supergirl and other projects by then. On the other hand... Why would you NOT want to do an epic for SIII.... unless you just want to turn a profit by that time or see how expensive STM-SII was to make an epic? With Batman & Robin at the tail end.... I liked it because I assumed- 'This is a one and done adaptation'- (Sort of like how Excalibur was)- highlighting as many aspects as it could of the Batman story.... so, with that perspective, I really liked it- especially if most of the film was introducing Batman's origin and Joker's origin and the conflict. At the same time, if a trilogy was approved of, or if it was going to be a back to back Batman series- then, yeah, I would have saved Robin for later as well. I think he’s right. I think they were more concerned with maximizing profits because they saw the diminishing returns coming. That meant Superman III was never going to be any bigger than it was despite Ilya’s early ideas.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:15:24 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion for sure, regarding what constitutes a definitive representation of a character, but also as a film in general. Timing is another key. We all love STM(and SII- at least in my case!) not just because of all the elements that you folks have already underlined,but subliminally, also due to the contrast of said film(s) compared to everything else that was out there during the same period(sci fi/fantasy/super hero or any other genre). With Batman, I would be lying if I did not say that Mat Reeve's version is quite a compelling watch. If it had come out in 1989, or even as late as 2005, it would have probably been groundbreaking. As is, in 2022/23, it's a great interpretation.....but it's nothing new from an overall movie going perspective. ..... In the end, Nolan gave the environment, but not the character, at least for me,Bale lacked the psycological charisma of Keaton, ......I know for others it's the other way round!....or as CAM said, they prefer everything Nolan did. So it's horses for courses! Great point that STM - at that time frame - wasn't just the definitive Superman movie, but the definitive COMIC BOOK movie as well! Also worth noting..... prior to STM- Star Wars: A New Hope was arguably the groundbreaker for 'boys adventure' films as giant box office- prior to that, it was Bond.... and it even got BOND to try to change it up to be more like Star Wars with the bizzare 'Moonraker'! What would have been interesting, is if the Salkinds would have also looked more towards Star Wars for Superman III rather than Richard Pryor for a 'fad to cash in on'--- but then again, I know he had Brainiac and Mxypytlik (Spelling?)- for SIII- so maybe it would have gone more Star Wars?.... but I forget what exactly were the forces that pulled it away from using that script... In any case- Lester would have done silly antics for SIII and not gone for more serious stuff. His heart was just too much into sight gags over serious superheroics. (Again, plastic man or shazam should have been his films instead of the superman series- or the Star Wars Holiday special. The problem with Bond is the franchise became less of a trend setter and more of a trend follower by the early 1970’s. Even before Star Wars they tried to follow the camp fad after it was fading, blaxploitation, sci fi, etc. Even when the film series was on the upswing with movies like Goldeneye and Casino Royale they were still being influenced by other films, filmmakers, and franchises of their eras. In the 60’s everyone else was trying to copy Bond not the other way around. By the late 70’s Star Wars was setting the trends that so many tried to follow. As for the Salkinds they were followers too but didn’t have the vision beyond that to do more on their own.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 20:05:29 GMT -5
It's an interesting discussion for sure, regarding what constitutes a definitive representation of a character, but also as a film in general. Timing is another key. We all love STM(and SII- at least in my case!) not just because of all the elements that you folks have already underlined,but subliminally, also due to the contrast of said film(s) compared to everything else that was out there during the same period(sci fi/fantasy/super hero or any other genre). With Batman, I would be lying if I did not say that Mat Reeve's version is quite a compelling watch. If it had come out in 1989, or even as late as 2005, it would have probably been groundbreaking. As is, in 2022/23, it's a great interpretation.....but it's nothing new from an overall movie going perspective. Burton definitely pushed a few envelopes in 89'.....but it seems like we all agree there is a degree of uneveness to the whole presentation. Personally, Keaton's still "my number one guy!", in terms of conveying what I think the idiosyncratic Wayne, juxtaposed against the "in the shadows" Batman would look and behave like. But I wanted the environment to be similar to what Donner(or quite frankly , Lester too) had done for Supes(in terms of using some real locations). Don't get me wrong....I actually love the artificial gothic look and ambience that Burton gave to the environment.....but with the entire story or film being set in said environment......a sense of claustrophobia emerged for me. Maybe that was Burton's intention, but the film felt too monolithic for my likeing. In the end, Nolan gave the environment, but not the character, at least for me,Bale lacked the psycological charisma of Keaton, ......I know for others it's the other way round!....or as CAM said, they prefer everything Nolan did. So it's horses for courses! That’s a good point about timing. Most of the previous versions of Batman that worked were released at just the right time to tap into what was going on creatively and culturally. The same movies made at different points might not have been as successful. One of the big problems The Batman had to face is we’ve already seen so much, so many interpretations, some very recently. Also not enough time to let the hungers and anticipation for a new interpretation to grow. There was almost 20 years between West and Keaton. 8 years between Clooney and Bale. The window has been shrinking with every new take. Same with Superman. Now we’ve got several versions of these characters running concurrently. How much of an impact is that having?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 19:58:48 GMT -5
Of course I read what you wrote. I responded to it. The problem is your questionable usage of the word “definitive.” crazy_asian_man is correctly defining the usage of the term that you’re broadly using. Clearly you didn’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t be misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said. I clearly laid out what I meant. I’m not using the term broadly. I’m using it accurately. You’re picking and choosing how YOU you want to interpret it. All the information is out there. Since you’re expert enough to be researching the films production shouldn’t you already know? I didn’t realize you were such a scholar to be undertaking such a project. What research project? Of what type? In association with whom? What are some of your previous works? I’d love to read/watch them. Since you are an expert of course… Missing the point. We’ll never know exactly how things would have turned out if the strike hadn’t happened since we aren’t omniscient. Who knows what scenarios would have played out if things had gone differently. We do know what we got and we do know it had some issues. Unless you’ve got a magic crystal ball that can tell us of things would have gone exactly the same or not. Maybe they would have maybe they wouldn’t have. We don’t know.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 19:43:57 GMT -5
To cut Furie SOME slack while he wasn’t as good a director as Donner was he also didn’t have even the same kind of freedom and support Donner had while filming Superman and Superman II (which we know wasn’t much). He was a gun for hire for Cannon Films. Someone who they probably thought could get the movie made on their timetable and for the kind of money the were willing to spend which wasn’t much even before the schedule got cut down and the budget dropped. Furie didn’t have the time or the money to do any of it as well as he probably wanted. Golan and Globus were probably on him to get scenes done with as few takes as possible as quickly as possible to save even more money. That was something beyond his control. That was my conclusion, too. But adding fuel to the fire had to be the resentment mentioned that Kidder had towards Reeve for not wanting her to be in the film for being a tad too old by then. Even though reportedly they hated each other in STM/SII- Donner was there for part of it- (Though, sadly, I can see Reeve's point for what kind of story they were going for) Kidder was pretty blunt that she felt Lacy was there because certain people felt she was too old to be playing the love interest. But that’s absurd. Typical Hollywood ageism. Reeve had starred opposite other leading ladies who were not only much older than him but had larger age gap than the one between him and Kidder. Objectively speaking her age wasn’t an issue. Only to the people hung up on it. It was particularly meaningless since IV’s other problems killed the film. Having a younger or older female lead wouldn’t have made a difference. I don’t think any of that had any impact on Furie’s ability to put together a better film. Any possible resentment didn’t seem to affect Reeve or Kidders performances.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,845
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 19:35:11 GMT -5
Reeve was paid $6 Million for Superman 4. That's over $16 Million adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Reeve was very happy with SIV and wouldn't have changed a thing he laughed all the way to the bank. Feel more bad for Mark Pillow as he was only paid $2,500 for the role (and wasn't even allowed food from craft services on set, they made Pillow bring his own lunch) but Reeve kept telling him that the film would make him a big star. Pillow bought that story and even showed up to meet the late Queen Elizabeth wearing the Nuclear Man costume further humiliating himself... Reeve was supposed to back him up by showing up in his Superman outfit but he backed out which really pissed off Pillow since he didn't bring a change of clothes. In reading his memoirs, Reeve really was hoping that SIV was going to help him make a comeback of sorts, as his career was going downhill by that time with the box office and critical reviews not being great for many of his films. I don't think he was laughing even as he was cashing the check for SIV... As for Mark Pillow- if I was that fit and good looking at that time- then, think I wouldn't be THAT embarrassed walking around with those biceps- though, yeah, I wouldn't have worn that while meeting the queen. I'm skeptical of Reeve agreeing to show up in his Superman costume. Where did that come from? Did Mark Pillow say that in an interview? Exactly. The idea of Reeve being happy with how IV turned out is stupid no matter what he got paid. It’s not worth the embarrassment. The films failure and reputation helped severely damaged his status as a theatrical leading man. It took him years to even begin to turn that around. From what I understand the producers wanted Reeve to show up at one of the premiere screenings in his costume. That’s where those photos of Pillow in costume along with some other cast members come from. Reeve was never going to do that though. I doubt he told anyone he’d do it either. From what he’s said before he’d never agree to do something like that. He’s talked about refusing to in interviews.
|
|