Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
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: 16,852
|
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: 16,852
|
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: 16,852
|
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: 16,852
|
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.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 16:54:57 GMT -5
Charles McKeown and Jonathan Gems were British writers initially brought on to carry on the rewriting process after Hamm was on strike. Their contributions weren’t significant enough to be credited. With that thought process of acknowledging how malleable the character is, there is no chance at there being a definition of “definitive.” Something I’m looking forward to seeing soon is the new upcoming animated series Batman: Caped Crusader. It looks like they really nailed the initial Bob Kane look and atmosphere. I just don’t want to see the entire series played out like that. I hope that once Robin gets involved, they’ll want to be more like the vagina Sprang era and maybe even get into the Carmine Infantino era. The original Bruce Timm and co. animated series was trying to do it all at the same time and missed an opportunity like the one that is going to be presented. When I think of 'definitive' movie or live action adaptation- I think of it as 'up to this point, which one carries the spirit the best of what I liked and felt most faithful to the best parts of it'--- That being the case, Reeve-Donner's Superman is the definitive (for me)- carried with an asterisk to the Singer-Routh Superman- which still doesn't get enough love for trying to bring it forward for Superman. With Batman- Batman Begins doesn't always choose the most favored approach to everything, but to right now- it carries the best elements (and inserts some as well) to the Batman origins, although the last 25 percent of the movie feels not as tight. But TDK for me is 110 percent and goes even further than what I would have wanted for a Batman movie. (Bizzarely, TDKR is -110 percent!) I think those are some great examples. What makes 1978’s Superman a lot of peoples definitive Superman movie isn’t just the creative direction they took the concept in but the quality of the final product. It’s better written better directed better acted than other versions of the character put on screen. The quality is the key. Even the casting was superior to what we would get later. The movie was good enough to get more viewers and fans to buy in. Same with The Dark Knight. It’s much of the same team behind Batman Begins but a lot of people believe they made an even better film with The Dark Knight. Zack Snyder could have made any version of a Superman movie he wanted but it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. He’s a poor storyteller. A poor actors director. I don’t think he understands fundamental storytelling concepts. OR… he just doesn’t care because that’s not what he prioritizes.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 16:43:02 GMT -5
Most of Batman’s problems were at the script level. I think the 1988 writers strike hurt that movie more than we know. I’ve often wondered how much it affected a lot of movies that came out in 1989. A lot of people have similar issues with the writing in Ghostbusters 2 and Last Crusade. As for Batman’s action Burton has never been a guy known for shooting action well. The movie gets by (mostly thanks to its style and production design) but it wasn’t Burton’s strength. Combine that with an incredibly cumbersome and limiting suit and the action and fight scenes were going to have issues. Nolan wasn’t anything special with fight scenes either. I agree that we haven’t seen the definitive Batman movie yet. Many of them do some things incredibly well but in other areas they have their weaknesses. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive Batman actor or performance yet either. There was an interview with the screenwriter who came in at the last minute to totally 'fix' Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas"--- but was annoyed that half of it was already finished even with a page one rewrite- so that things had to be shoehorned in.... but had also mentioned it wasn't the first time that problems weren't fixed on a script level on a Burton script before diving ahead. At first, I thought it was psychotic.... to not iron everything out (as much as possible) - but then after listening to endless directors' commentaries on movies- it seems like 'fixing whole scripts on the fly' -while costly- seems more the norm than the exception. In Batman '89's case..... I forget if it was a Premiere magazine article or other magazine that said the script initially had a lot less Nicholson- until Nicholson made himself more available- then, the script was bent to include more of him- but, the story doesn't really follow that much of a straight line and the story logic isn't really all there with his appearances. I was thrilled with Batman's success.... mostly because it meant the possibility of more superhero films hopefully getting made, but less so for Batman '89 itself. That’s Hollywood for you. It seems absurd to do it that way with that much money on the line but when you look at some of the people involved at the top and their lack of talent, vision, foresight, and an abundance of ego it’s not really shocking. We hear about films being saved in post production but so many films continue to working on the script, even in significant ways, during shooting. How many times have we heard about movies deep into filming without a strong ending pinned down that everyone agrees on?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 16:36:18 GMT -5
Charles McKeown and Jonathan Gems were British writers initially brought on to carry on the rewriting process after Hamm was on strike. Their contributions weren’t significant enough to be credited. They weren’t the only writers brought on board to continue to work on the script though. The bigger issue is the strike affected the series of events during the production and who was involved. If it hadn’t happened things may have gone differently creatively with different rewrites happening. Maybe by someone else. Maybe better. Maybe worse. Maybe no different. You can’t say for sure what would have happened. No one can. Also changes to a script even after shooting can also have a massive impact on a final product depending on what is done. We don’t even know for sure how r they could have been credited depending on the circumstances depending on what their contributions where and where exactly the line to for crediting them would be. Once again you missed the point or didn’t read what I wrote. When I said definitive I’m not talking about creatively or conceptually but in terms of the success of how well it’s executed WHATEVER direction they go in. The creative malleability of the character and what take someone goes with isn’t the main factor there. It’s dependent mostly on the talent level of the people involved, how well they do, and everything lining up to make the best film possible across the board. A great new different version of the Batman concept is still going to lead to a terrible film of the acting, direction, writing, etc. are poor.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 6:04:26 GMT -5
The strike was over by the time filming began in October of 1988. I’ve often heard Sam Hamm give the strike as an excuse as to why he didn’t stay on once they went into production, but I think that was largely an attempt for him to save face over the fact that he wasn’t asked to return. Warren Skaaren worked for Tim Burton rewriting Beetlejuice and performed a similar job Tom Mankiewicz did on Superman and his arbitration to get screenplay credit went through as he demonstrated that he changed much of Hamm’s original script. I believe the consensus was that Hamm was foregoing decent drama for the sake of being comic accurate, which Burton wasn’t that keen on maintaining. We can see what Burton thought of Hamm’s work when he has his draft for the sequel completely scrapped. People’s minds do like to change at the drop of a dime. There was a lot of praise for Matt Reeves’ The Batman when it came out but it quickly got turned on it’s face once it was available for home viewing with complaints about its length. It’s not the first or last time similar reactions have occurred but it’s definitely a testament to how the variety of interpretations of Batman creates a broader sense of appreciation of his mythos. I used to think only The Dark Knight interpretation of the character was the only way to go, but the Nolan movies proved to me that having him be the same kind of character makes him too boring. You need him to go through some development like what was intended to be for Michael Keaton’s Batman had he returned for Batman Forever. Most of that gets muddled since it’s another actor in the role, a mistake made again with Brandon Routh intended to be the same Christopher Reeve Superman. I doubt anything in this day and age will ever warrant being called “definitive.” You’re forgetting that the script was still worked on AFTER the strike began but before it ended. Hamm claims he didn’t want to do certain things so Burton brought in other writers who did. Writers who probably weren’t bound by the same guild restrictions. By the time the strike was over those changes were already made. Wether Hamm owns up to his own ideas being faulty it doesn’t change that he wasn’t the only one to work on the films script. As for people changing their minds at the drop of a dime…I’m not them. I’m speaking for myself and I’ve never changed my mind on that issue. Batman can be interpreted a lot of different ways. You may have thought differently at one time but I never didn’t. I’ve always understood that part of the characters appeal IS that he’s so malleable creatively. When I say “definitive” I mean in terms of quality and execution not necessarily WHICH interpretation of Batman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 1, 2023 5:51:49 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 17:32:36 GMT -5
Chip in here with me thoughts, chaps! It's an unfair comparison because they are different genres......but LW2 is much better than Batman 89' IMHO. Batman 89' had so much hype going into it before release, that it was always going to struggle to live up to said hype in the minds of some(like me!). But much like it's chief competitor that heady summer , Last Crusade, it ended up being a champ for a lot of folks. But that hype ended up obscuring stuff like The Abyss and LW2, which had real meat to the bones, IMHO. I think Donner could have done a better job on all fronts compared to Burton, with Batman, if given the opportunity. The tone would have been radically different for sure. I was under impressed with Batman's action sequences ways back then.....they almost seemed quaint compared to what Donner was doing with LW2. Ok some of the fight choreography was decent in the Church sequence at the end.....but still ways too little for me. I could say something very controversial and admit that I am still waiting for a definitive Batman film to be made! Neither Burton at one end of the spectrum......or Nolan at the other, hit the jackpot for me. But granted....I am in the minority on that one! Most of Batman’s problems were at the script level. I think the 1988 writers strike hurt that movie more than we know. I’ve often wondered how much it affected a lot of movies that came out in 1989. A lot of people have similar issues with the writing in Ghostbusters 2 and Last Crusade. As for Batman’s action Burton has never been a guy known for shooting action well. The movie gets by (mostly thanks to its style and production design) but it wasn’t Burton’s strength. Combine that with an incredibly cumbersome and limiting suit and the action and fight scenes were going to have issues. Nolan wasn’t anything special with fight scenes either. I agree that we haven’t seen the definitive Batman movie yet. Many of them do some things incredibly well but in other areas they have their weaknesses. I don’t think we’ve seen the definitive Batman actor or performance yet either.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 17:17:07 GMT -5
Hi Metallo I definitely agree that Furie upheld the essential characteristics of what makes Supes....Supes. An area where Snyder has failed miserably. The problem for me was in the contrast of the tone of the material(of SIV) relative to prior entries. Furie specifically stated that he wanted SIV to harken back to STM. So he had already set out his creative stall or intent. But if we use Hackman as an example: Under Donner, Hackman applied a subtle, almost sarcastic tone,yet at the same time, fully aware of his physical limitations relative to Supes. There is a brief reaction from an awe inspired Hackman, it's barely a few seconds long, blink and you will miss it....as Supes breaks through the door to the lair. It's a very clever insertion from Baird and Donner, highlighting that aspect of.......verismilitude! So we as the audience get the idea instantly: Luthor is toying with something that's potentially out of his control.....as if he is out of his depth. So when Lex says to Otis: "Get the gentleman's cape" ....it's almost like he is pretending to be cool! And whilst it's funny....there is also a distinct sense of unease with the 2 bad guys.....as if Supes could blow them away at any second. That little glance from Reeves at Beattie which induces the: "I don't think he wants me to, Mr Luthor"! ....confirms it! And to be fair you even got it in SIII ; when Supes says to Gus and co: "You could have fooled me Mister"! The look on Prior's face of: "oh s**t"! ....was reminiscent of the reaction from Lex and Otis in STM. One could even argue that Snyder got that beat, when Lex confronts Supes on the roof after showing the Martha mug shots! But in SIV that sense of gravitas was completely missing. I never felt Lex was afraid or in awe of Supes at all. Which ended up diminishing the dramatic impact of the interaction between the two protagonists. When Luthor whispers to Supes: "He's(NM) not one of your great thinkers"! .....the way Hackman delivers it.....just feels so jokey.....as if the whole upcoming fight is not to be taken seriously anyways, no matter how good the effects would have been! Blame goes not just to Furie, but to Rosenthal,Konner and quite frankly Reeve himself. These were the kind of scenarios that Donner wanted to avoid with STM in the first place. However, I do like how Hackman, after saying: "partying(or parting?) is inevitable" ....then turns to NM with a serious face: "destroy Superman"! We needed way more of that in the dialogue only scenes. So for me it's not a case of budget or time, but skill with very delicate material....which Furie and his creative team team did not have. As for Snyder's directorial skills in general, be it with Dawn Of The Dead,300,Watchmen,Sucker Punch, Supes or Army Of The Dead....he can't elicit any real spontaneity from his actors. They are indeed,like stones. I have never seen The Owls Of Ga'Hool or even his DC version of JL.....but my instincts tell me it won't be any different! So for me Furie's sin was to contradict Donner's premise....whilst claiming to uphold it in the scenes which needed no VFX. Snyder on the other hand ,simply conformed to his tried and trusted formula of slo mo(ok MoS held back on slow moing everything) kick booty, CG top heavy action with dour and uninspired acting - lol! 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. Snyder’s just an incompetent manchild playing director. His leads in MOS had zero chemistry. The Kent’s come off as unlikable even when they weren’t supposed to be. Michael Shannon was the best thing about the movie and he was chewing scenery left and right like he was in a different movie. That’s not even getting into BvS or Justice League. Jessie Eisenberg is absolutely unbearable. Did you hate Nuclear Man in Superman IV? Well Zack Snyder reworked the character and made him even worse in BvS!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 17:02:44 GMT -5
Their age really wasn’t an issue. People just make it one. Look at the actors playing these characters now. Even in their primes they are older than the Superman IV main cast. The hangup is with the audience. We have this is idea that because the characters are ageless in the comics they should remain the same age on screen. Stuck in amber. That’s the difference between mediums. On film if you’re going to have the same actors they’re going to age. The only issue was to address it. Look at Fox. Look at Marvel. The characters get older. Look at RDJ. But in those films they address the characters changing and what comes with that in the passage of time. They don’t try to pretend they’re they exactly same even visually. But that’s also a difference in the approach to these projects now vs then. As for Superman IV if you tackle a serious real world issue you have to do it in a serious real world way. Once you step into that territory you can’t ride the fence but unfortunately Superman IV did. They didn’t tackle the films main story with the kind of depth and details they should have. Again another product of the time. For parts of the approach I do think Lois/Margot was done well- other parts I feel they wrote her as a little too much as if she hadn’t aged at all.. which felt off to me. Superman 4’s attempt to tackle a real world issue but have a sort of resolution I admired for trying as it’s seemingly impossible. I don’t think studios were ready for the Dark Knight yet so it doesn’t get the credit but derision for trying to push the boundaries…. Though- as you said, the execution was off. I do get where you’re coming from but I do think that script got closer to straddling light hearted family fare and being a darker ambitious comic book film that says something than I would have expected coming off of the bad of Supergirl and S3. At the same time, some Superman movie fans saw this when they were extremely young and loved it as their first Superman film and aren’t as critical as us. Considering the company and lack of other studios willing or committing to making another Reeve Superman film- it was such a long shot I was giantly disappointed but still glad they made it for its parts and to see Reeve as Supes one more time. I didn’t really have a problem with what we got with Lois in IV. I just wish it was more and done better. But what we got character wise wasn’t bad. It wasn’t a complete misfire like Amy Adams as Lois Lane. I think all the characters in all those films stayed in a state of arrested development not just Lois. Jimmy is a perfect example. The most personal development he got wasn’t even in the main film series but in Supergirl when he got a girlfriend at the end. But that’s just how it was back then. A change or growth usually didn’t happen until it was forced on the production by other forces beyond their control As for Superman IV’s Story the wall they’d hit is there is no quick fix solution to the problems they addressed. But to give the film credit that’s the point Superman makes at the end. The problem is that point is driven home hard enough. The movie just ends without time to really dig into that conclusion and reflect on it.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 9:49:59 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 8:06:58 GMT -5
Superman the movie working hinges on the relationships between the characters and how they drive the story. It’s why Man or Steel simply doesn’t work. The characters and their relationships are either secondary or poorly developed and explored. STM does more with Pa Kent in 5 minutes than Snyder ever did on his films. The Reeve Superman sequels didn’t need to bring him back in some stupid dream sequence on a snowy mountain. He worked so well and his relationship with Clark and what he taught him was so on point that it still resonated in later films. If Donner had done another superhero film I’d want something different from Superman. He’d already done that. I would have loved to have see what he found have done with some Marvel characters. The problem is there a generational issue. Donner got Superman because he was part of that first generation of children to grow up with him. It’s why he felt he had to “protect him” from someone else screwing it up. Donner was a great director but I’m not sure he “got” the heroes that came out of the 60’s as well as he got Superman. It was a different era of heroes and stories made for a new generation of young people. I actually would have been fine if he used his same style with Superman towards Batman- With Superman, there were different tones used with the PZ criminals and the Daily planet staff- but for what was done by Donner in SII- it seemed to work out great. What I really enjoyed about Ladyhawke and the first couple of Lethal Weapon movies is that it felt like (to me) a number of Speilberg adventures around that time... beautiful looking films that had a sense of adventure, humor, and romance- but also have some standout scenes that would make it stand out. His real world approach and eye for action would have been great. Gotham may have ended up more like Nolan’s but that’s ok. What I’m not sure about is the tone. The atmosphere. Burton nailed those in his Batman film. Tonally Batman is very different from Superman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 8:00:07 GMT -5
The basics of Superman IV’s story are fine. There’s something good in there under all the flaws. It’s in the details and the execution where they messed up. Obviously to do the story they did you'd need a massive budget. Even by todays standards if you did Superman IV as it was written you’d probably need a budget of $200 million. I’d streamline the film and focus on the basics of its story. The nuclear arms issue wouldn’t take a backseat to nuclear man. It would be the A story. I’d want to make nuclear man bizarro but Superman III sort of already did it. Nuclear man is supposed to represent and embody the problems Superman’s fighting against with the nuclear issue so maybe I’d take an existing character and try to craft them to be closer to that. I’d keep Lana and Lois. I’d keep Warfield and the plot with the planet but maybe tie it more to what Luthor is doing. I might keep Lacy. Not really sure. For the most part I’d keep the bones of the story and try to make it better. I think the idea of a child sending a letter to Superman and that nudging Superman to take a dive into doing what he was forbidden to do and get involved with changing the world- was ambitious as heck- but could have really been moving under a Speilberg perhaps, with script adjustments and healthy production values. There's something fairy tale-like to the story idea that could have really been something (as was the idea at the end to have Superman let Jeremy see the world from his vantage point).... but it would have required a delicate touch, I think, to make it work really well. (And money!) But- having said that.... the age of the actors I still felt was pushing it, even if. I do think, also, that the retaining of the memory kiss bit was something that was something that the screenwriters danced well enough with- but at the same time.... felt a little like an odd burden that would have been in the back of any following sequels that would have happened, had things worked out. Their age really wasn’t an issue. People just make it one. Look at the actors playing these characters now. Even in their primes they are older than the Superman IV main cast. The hangup is with the audience. We have this is idea that because the characters are ageless in the comics they should remain the same age on screen. Stuck in amber. That’s the difference between mediums. On film if you’re going to have the same actors they’re going to age. The only issue was to address it. Look at Fox. Look at Marvel. The characters get older. Look at RDJ. But in those films they address the characters changing and what comes with that in the passage of time. They don’t try to pretend they’re the exactly same even visually. But that’s also a difference in the approach to these projects now vs then. As for Superman IV if you tackle a serious real world issue you have to do it in a serious real world way. Once you step into that territory you can’t ride the fence but unfortunately Superman IV did. They didn’t tackle the films main story with the kind of depth and details they should have. Again another product of the time.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 22:06:50 GMT -5
I put STM into a similar category to Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. A fantasy movie with some sci-fi trappings. I always wonder about what Mank said- that he had said to Donner (Or was it the other way around?)- that if they could get the romance to work, that everything else would- and in thinking about and rewatching the film- it really is true. Despite the sometimes silly humor and different tones (though intentional) - the reality of the relationship onscreen (and charm of it) is what gives STM its main core. If the romance had no real weight - then, there still would have been the other neat bits- but definitely a lot would have been lost without the magic generated by not just Reeve and Kidder's chemistry- but how it was written/directed. The balcony scene just had so many layers of charm and humor- someone had remarked how it felt like the nervous energy of a first date, and it comes off that way in a sense. Another thought I'd had was: Donner said he never wanted to do another superhero film, because he lacked confidence he could do it as good as this- but, I would have loved to have seen him try Batman as well. Or Supergirl. Can you imagine? Superman the movie working hinges on the relationships between the characters and how they drive the story. It’s why Man or Steel simply doesn’t work. The characters and their relationships are either secondary or poorly developed and explored. STM does more with Pa Kent in 5 minutes than Snyder ever did on his films. The Reeve Superman sequels didn’t need to bring him back in some stupid dream sequence on a snowy mountain. He worked so well and his relationship with Clark and what he taught him was so on point that it still resonated in later films. If Donner had done another superhero film I’d want something different from Superman. He’d already done that. I would have loved to have see what he found have done with some Marvel characters. The problem is there a generational issue. Donner got Superman because he was part of that first generation of children to grow up with him. It’s why he felt he had to “protect him” from someone else screwing it up. Donner was a great director but I’m not sure he “got” the heroes that came out of the 60’s as well as he got Superman. It was a different era of heroes and stories made for a new generation of young people.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 21:57:03 GMT -5
I find this difficult to answer. None of those other films do anything for me. I honestly think that I am not a superhero fan. To me, the Reeve Superman movies (especially STM) are romantic fantasy movies and not superhero movies. James Cameron said that all of his films were at the core romance films- when looking at the superhero films that really connect or work, arguably they all had a relationship of some sort at the center of it. Spiderman 2 (the best one imo) had Peter Parker's struggle between a real desire for a kind of life with healthy relationships- but also the cost of being a superhero. Dark Knight also had that (sortof) as well... Logan also- though as a father relationship with his daughter. So, maybe it's more that a superhero film NEEDS to be more about a character's desire for a 'normal' life (or containing a peaceful world to fight for, for that)to really be a good one. I don’t know about romance but love is at the core of all Camerons films. Love of something or someone. With Aliens it’s the love between a mother and child. Newt basically becomes Ripley’s surrogate daughter. The extended version makes it even more powerful. With many of the best superhero films there’s always that balance between the heroes feelings and the heroes duty. Sometimes it’s represented in literally having to choose who they save. Superman did it. Batman Forever did it. Spider-Man did it. Dark Knight did it. Logan did it. A few MCU films did it. There are several examples.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 21:48:55 GMT -5
It’s not just that she was too young to be believable as that kids mom. She was also too young to have a a five year history since Superman left, then years of history with him before that, then some kind of journalistic career before she met him. Bosworth looked and came off as every bit her age which wasn’t even 25 when they film was released much less when it was filmed. For me it’s a toss up between her and Adams for worst but at least Adams was believable as an older experienced person and is a better actress. Even Tulloch looks more like Lois, acts more like Lois, has been given better material, and comes off as the age she’s playing. Bosworth looked like she belonged on the Smallville cast. She just didn’t have the maturity along with not having the tough edge. I get what you're saying (and you make solid arguments for it)- but, it thankfully worked for me overall anyhow- but for me, what you (and others) feel about Bosworth, I felt about Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. She wasn't bad, but felt like she was in a whole other movie and stuck out like a sore thumb. Nolan's said that it wasn't ideal to recast, but I do think Maggie Gyllenhall was better and felt far more like she belonged in that movie (though I don't know if she had the best chemistry with Bale)- Pity, though, that they didn't use Gyllenhall from the beginning to matchup with TDK. It is very much a similar problem with Katie Holmes and Kate Bosworth. In both cases the studio and filmmakers cast someone up and upcoming to have a certain appeal. At least with Holmes Rachel Dawes was a bit younger. Bruce was just turning 30 in Batman Begins. They had a history together that went back to childhood so they could still be young and have all that backstory crammed into several years. Superman and Lois had known each other for ten years at most by SR but Holmes was far too young for that. At the time I do think Bosworth was a better actress than Holmes but Holmes also had the luxury of playing a newly created character that people had no preexisting opinions of ideas about what she should be. Rachel was a clean slate. Lois not so much. That gave them some latitude with Rachel Dawes.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 21:38:21 GMT -5
The problem is Gamora had her own story going on with Quill and Thanos so it made sense to separate the group and let their own personal stories play out. True.... I was trying to think of which character would have made Thor's revelation land more- beside the CGI Rocket Racoon- but maybe... Mantis? In any case, with so many balls juggled in the air for the plot, it's still great that the other pairings came up with a lot of great material, considering how rare it had to be to get the schedulings of all the great talent lined up to make it happen. Nah. Mantis didn’t have the right personality to play off Thor when it came to that moment. She also didn’t have the history and as much of a connection with the audience. Rocket had all the emotional baggage and the chip on his shoulder to make that scene with Thor work. He’s a kindred spirit in a lot of ways. That cgi Raccoon has ended up being one of the best deepest characters in the MCU. It’s stuff like that that made GOTG work.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 21:29:35 GMT -5
Watched "Three Thousand Years of Longing"- directed by George Miller. It was fine - (although tonally a little odd as it was fairy tale/horror/love story but then again, it is his style) - but with Miller's perfectionism, I don't put too much stock in the script for the JLA knowing Miller's amazing track record as a director.... but it made me think again for a bit - if Miller had done Superman - how would it have looked in any time frame? He knew how to expand a buck creatively with the mAd Max series and has a vast imagination- I wonder how his Krypton would have looked, but moreso how his Superman would have come across. He does have a tone that bends slightly towards the horrific side but also has real emotional cores to his films... and his films are ambitious- but not pretentious because he earns the emotions in his films. Any thoughts on Miller with Superman revisited? Also: Miller did do the reboot of Donner's acclaimed Twighlight Zone episode in the movie- to acclaim. He did a great job. I did question some of his casting for his JLA movie but I have no doubt it would have been better than anything Zack Snyder gave us when it comes to DC film adaptations. I'm not sure Miller was right for this movie but he's a great filmmaker. Great visual storyteller. Great action director. Compare his early low budget efforts to Snyders and its night and day. Miller created a new type of action movie and cinematic world with Mad Max. The best Snyder could do was ape another George's masterpiece and "bro" it up to fit his own style. Fury Road was better than it had any right to be considering all the behind the scenes problems, struggles, and delays during its long development. Not sure what Millers Krypton. would have looked like but we do get a good sense of what his Themyscira and Atlantis would have looked like based on costume test photos and concept art. They looked like they could have been impressive. With his Twilight Zone movie segment he showed he could follow Donner, honor Serling, and make the story his own with his own unique style and execution. That's the kind of talent we needed working on DC films. Maybe not Justice League or Superman but something.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 21:01:41 GMT -5
First off id keep the original Brainiac idea but rework it. "He" would be computer code for most of the movie. No Supergirl. Or Mxy. I'd keep Gus Gorman but make him a down on his luck computer programmer at some big company who lost his job because wanted to do more. He gets a low level job at Websco and gets greedy. Maybe to finance his dream computer project.
He gets caught stealing and Webster uses him just like in the actual film. He uses the Vulcan satellite just as in the film and scans a piece of kryptonite to synthesize so they can kill Superman. He also unknowingly scans an alien object. Brainiacs code gets into Webster's computers and it convinces Gus to build his super computer which Brainiac will take over.
Most of all I'd make the film less silly. Focus more on Superman and Lana and Smallville. I'd keep Lois around but still in Metropolis. I'd keep evil Superman. Like I said just less humor. Less focus on Gus. I might not even cast Pryor. I'm a huge fan but he overshadowed a lot of other things about the movie and didn't seem to want to play it as funny as Lester and the producers wanted him to. If they wanted a quirky funny guy maybe Robin Williams as Gus.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 20:47:16 GMT -5
hehe I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is! I am probably in the extremist zone as I truly hate it. And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance. I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision. Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation. Same for Donner or Lester. But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction. That's fantastic at face value. But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for. Actors taking their characters seriously? Nope. Versimilitude. Nope. A sense of passion and joy for the work. Nope. An attempt at perfection. Absolutely not! They did not even try! I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them. The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner. But it's far, far, far too little. The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen: Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch. I could go on..... So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO. Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter). Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time. No different to SIII or most productions, really. And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff. It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says: "Clark....you gotta go with your gut". Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too. All Furie had to do was say "cut"! Try again. But no. We got what we got. Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all. The scene where Hackman tells Reeve: "Why don't you smell the roses?" The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"! Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself: "Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"! Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure. I feel like from a storytelling and acting pov MOS is far more incompetent than Superman IV. Snyder had his vision but it was so poorly handled beyond the visuals. The man doesn't understand the basics of storytelling and has no discipline as a director. Some great actors in MOS totally miss the mark because with Snyder it would by like be blind leading the blind. Cavill isn’t great in much of anything but he’s an absolute plank of wood in man of steel and it’s not just because it was part of Snyder’s vision. Superman IV killed a film series. Man of Steel severely wounded an entire shared universe/franchise right out of the gate. Ten years later they're still struggling to deal with the long term damage done.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 20:31:12 GMT -5
Hi CAM Nice catch, highlighting the fact that Reeve had been cited in the press a couple of times ,during the 1981-82 seasons, saying the narrative arc of the Clark/Lois relationship had come full circle and that there was nowhere left to go with it. That was before SIII came out! So as you astutely observed,by the time of SIV, some bad feelings may have still been lingering....... Ofcourse, given our discussions on this thread, and because I had to cite the timings of one or 2 scenes so I could answer ATP, .....thought I'd pop in the old DVD from 2003/4 for SIV and give it a quick spin(sorry it's not worthy of a Blu Ray or UHD viewing - I know, you guys think I am waging some kind of jihad against SIV - lol!) But one tends to forget just how short SIV is! Hour and a half and done! But it gave me a chance to re-appraise(or not!- lol!) the acting. Sheesh! The actor who plays the american arms dealer, William Hootkins, was given waaay too much latitude to play his character over the top.......over the top?.....he was practically in the statosphere! - lol! (By the way, love the actor :Star Wars,Raiders,Batman to name but a few.......) But Furie completely misdirected him in SIV. When Luthor opens the blinds Hootkins blatters out: "The sun is hurting my eyes!" Then later on with Luthor again: "We have been thinking about increasing your commission"! Hootkin's deliveries are just so campy that even Batman 66' looks serious by comparison! Furie is the director and it's his duty to inform the actors on tone,pacing,intuition and performance. But it looks like Furie was absent at the wheel, allowing all sorts of eccentricities to punctuate various actor's performances. As for Pillow.....he comes across as very nice person in interviews and I am glad that people appreciate the physicallity he brought to Nuclear Man. But the fact of the matter is that the poor chap cannot act. Sure the crappy costume did not help......but a decent actor would have given something for Chris to play off from. As it was.....it's just hilarious to watch Nuclear Man declare: "Destroy Superman"(even with Hackman's overdub!). "If you will not tell me...I will hurt people!" Lol!!! I'd read Nuclear Man was envisioned as someone who would come off as more of a cool menacing effect--- but... neither the budget (or the sfx tech at the time) could have pulled that off. Still- imagine Nuclear Man if it was pulled off in the same way that in T2 the 'liquid metal terminator' wowed audiences at the time. Still- even so.... The inner 7 year old preferred the zero-budget battles between Supes and Nuclear Man over the battle between Superman and the robot-secretary at the end of SIII! Hootkins wasn’t much different in Batman. I think that’s just how he saw that kind of material. “You mean when you run the show? You ain’t GOT no future, JACK! You’re an A One nutboy and Grissom knows it!” His deliver was pretty darn over the top at times in that movie. Mark Pillow, bless him, had virtually no experience as an actor. The only way to save that performance was to have him not talk at all. He reminded me of a pre Rocky IV Dolph Lundgren only worse.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on May 30, 2023 20:24:30 GMT -5
Was going to add that whilst I will always regard SIV to be an abomination of a movie.......one thing it did do, was preserve Supe's ethos.....basically saving people and doing good(the Russian cosmonauts,the underground train,the folks on the great wall of China,the Italians at the volcano,Lacy in outer space???!! ect ect.). But that was also standard for the Supes/Salks/Reeve series up until that point.....so it's not like Furie broke new ground by having Supes perform said deeds. But at least he preserved them....so that's one thing he failed to s***w up! What's rather sad is that newer interpretations of the character(here's looking at you Zack!) have kinda forgotten that aspect(or at the very least- distorted it). Superman IV is a bad movie but it’s still very much a Superman movie. Man of Steel isn’t. It tried to be a sci fi alien invasion movie but then gave up and became a dumb action movie that completely falls apart by the third act. Man of Steel was made by guys who loathe any classic version of Superman. They look down their noses at most of the characters history and material.
|
|