dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 23, 2016 2:22:13 GMT -5
In the commentary, originally the Hulk created by the Scarlet Witch was going to be GRAY Hulk- which I thought would have been an awesome touch, but Marvel decided it would have been too confusing for audiences not that familiar with the comix. (I reluctantly agree) With the beatdown by Bane- I think it would have had a far stronger impact if it were Bane vs. Batman in his prime--- the 'all over the place' credibility on what Bruce's health condition is like, didn't make for more realism, just more confusion (add to that Catwoman's bizzare and unexplained equal ability to kickass with a guy that supposedly was trained in all martial arts disciplines and was a ninja at one point). There are bits and pieces of the Donner repowering that are really nice, and I know all were confused/disappointed with the RDC- But: 1- We know Donner wasn't a 'one take wonder'- he was a perfectionist, that drove the Salkinds crazy for multiple takes. 2- We know that Thau was advised by Donner to keep 'faster faster' takes in 2006- to cover up the Lester stuff, including removing some really nice deleted scenes (Arctic Police for one)- so that may have been a giant mistake, particularly for how this scene was setup in the transitions. (It does feel really weird that we see him slowly trudge over miles and miles of land, then suddenly run in, quickly look for the crystals, then shout out.) and- As is, the performance is odd in that he seems like he does expect an answer in the beginning.... versus the Lester take, where it's clear throughout that there's nobody listening. Without seeing the other takes, it's really hard to know if it was the edit choices or if the redo really was better at the end. Personally.....the only beef I had with the Donner cut..... was with Donner himself...for not having been accurate with his estimate of how much was shot for SII. The claim made by Donner (made in Starlog 1979) used to be that about 75% was completed. The fact is that only 50% was done if even that. Back in the 1980s(and into the 90s) as the fans started to become aware of SII's production woes, Donner kept playing up "his unseen version"in interviews. I guess that was easy to do at the time(prior to the internet) because the reality was that Donner's footage would never see the light of day......therefore both Donner and Manck could mythologize the unseen footage and exaggerate both it's quality....and the amount that was actually completed. It was not the fan's fault...they were only going on the info that was available...so when the internet push came in the late 90's/ early 2000's for a Donner cut.....it was done on the basis that a nearly completed film could be formed. Had the fans known just how little was completed back in 77/78, I think that internet campaign would have been more geared to a "lets just see the footage in a deleted scenes section" which would have lowered expectations to a more realistic level. I guess that is the reason why Lester was always comfortable in keeping SII's history under wraps...and claiming the film as his own. Ilya himself says in the commentary that some of Donner's footage "just was not a 100%"...and in my opinion he is right. Whatever the controversy about the amnesia kiss.....the fact is that the acting and direction in that scene is in a different league to the corresponding "next day at the Daily planet stuff" ........after Supes turns the world back lensed by Donner. Also there is no way of knowing if Donner would have been able to rise to the same level of quality even if he had been allowed to return to complete SII in late 1979. Zemekis and the Wachowskis struggled to maintain the integrity and quality of their material with the Back To The Future and The Matrix sequels respectively after sojourns. It is all just conjecture now(as it has always been).
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 19, 2016 14:24:57 GMT -5
Or Kara hangin' out with Jorel:
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 19, 2016 14:18:46 GMT -5
haha Don't forget Lana Lang's relationship with Salvatore Maronni:
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 16, 2016 10:03:27 GMT -5
Ahh yes..... I forgot about the lighting up of the Bat symbol.......that was intended to deliver the emotional "thump".....and it did to a degree(credit to Zimmer's score) The problem was that they introduced Wayne coming back at least several times albeit in the space of a few minutes......thereby detracting from the emotional impact of his return. 1)When Wayne encounters Selina after she saves that kid from getting beaten up. 2)Lucius taking Wayne to the underground shelter to retrieve the suit and other gadgets. 3)When Gordon reveals Batman by lighting up that firestick thing. 4)With the illumination of the symbol 5)Batman saving Blake/Robin from getting killed.
I guess Nolan had to figure out within the context of the story how to hit the emotional/dramatic notes.....and it was hit and miss.
The original Lester version of SII worked quite well in terms of Clark discovering the green crystal and then cutting away.......for Supes to fly back onto the Daily Planet pole a couple of scenes later. The 2 greatest factors here were: 1)Clark being absolutely down and out and the audience not knowing whether he would regain his powers(ironically the abscence of Brando's stuff actually favoured the storytelling) . 2)The 3 criminals marching on imperiously until that critically /emotionally important moment that Supes shows up to challenge them(the audience had been waiting for this moment for nearly 1.5 hrs...or even 3.5 hrs if you watched it back to back with STM like i did:) ) For me this added to the quality of the drama(especially on a first time viewing).
Yes the choreography for both fights between Buck and Cap was very good.....could have done with some of that quality in Avengers 2. I felt the Hulkbuster stuff was too easy for IronMan.....DowneyJr's interjecting remarks:"vagina move Banner!" kind of diminished the effort needed to defeat the Hulk. Sacrificing substance for some style....which is too prominent these days.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 15, 2016 13:12:49 GMT -5
Agree with both of you that Rises was a bloated mess. However I thought the bashing Batman got from Bane was superb. Very rare that you see the hero get totally stuffed(was so disappointed when Iron Man beats Ultron with barely 30 mins of the film gone in Avengers 2) So Batman taking a beating was bold story telling from Nolan .....too bad the stuff that preceded that beating....and the stuff that came after it did not hold up.
Contrast that with SII(either Lester or Donner)......Clark taking a hiding in the Diner was surrounded by great storytelling both before and after that scene.
On Edit: When Gordon lights that candle to reveal Batman on that frozen ice...it is almost anticlimatic. Contrast that with Supes flying onto the Daily Planet Pole to confront Zod in SII...saw it in the cinema twice(in 1981 and 1982)...people clapped and cheered on both occasions. That is the difference in quality storytelling(among other things!)
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 14, 2016 15:55:18 GMT -5
Yeah....trying to work on the other poster next to Blade Runner in Supes III....will see if 4K projection does the trick. was always fascinated by this in the shop window in SII: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leroy_Hutson
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 10, 2016 6:26:10 GMT -5
How about this for a weird time travel/crossover: remember when Zod and Co were were blowing stuff over in Metropolis. They happened to blow over the news stand that was running the "White House surrenders". Look what else was on that news stand. An advert for a then new flick called "King Of The Gypsies". It featured a very young Eric Roberts(then 19 years old) in the lead role. The same Eric Roberts who would later play Salvatore Maronni in the Dark Knight(almost 28 years later)!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 8, 2016 6:01:52 GMT -5
Yeah I agree. It's a pretty simplistic observation of what Reeve did. Like you said it was more than that. The different voice, occasional timidity and stuttering, the physical transformation. All that is conveniently ignored. Cavill doesn't even mention the elements of the disguise. True Kent might draw attention to himself but the point is no one would ever buy this guy (Reeve's Kent) as Superman. Nobody takes him seriously. Just seems like Cavills backhanded way of criticizing Reeve to defend what he's doing when he should have the confidence to do his own thing and not even mention Reeve's take. Just seems to be in bad form. You don't hear Affleck saying anything like that about the previous Batmen/Bruce Waynes. And as for Cavill yeah I agree that staying invisible is a good way to not get noticed but he's playing it with not much difference that I could see. In such a realistic world anyone who knows Clark should instantly figure out he's Superman. Is Perry White a dimwit or something? Reeve's Clark had a lot of sides so what Cavill is saying is a generalization at best. Like you said by 3 and 4 he'd toned down the clumsiness. At least when he was around people he knew well. Reeve's Kent also had something of a personality when not doing that other stuff. There was a Clark when not doing his "act." Cavill seems to be doing the same monotone performance in the trailers. I hope he shows up with some actual emotional range in the movie. That's where Reeve and all the other great Supermen distinguished themselves. That's what made those guys likable and relatable. Not just brooding depression and misery. Totally agreed on why Cavill maybe saying the things he is saying. I am not sure if Cavill's limitations with his representation of Clark is his own making....or that of Snyder's....or a combination of both chap's deficiencies with understanding the soul of the Supes/Clark dynamic. Agreed on the Perry White not recognizing Supes dilemma.....especially given the way Cavill seems to be portraying it. This will be one of the things I will be observing closely when I watch DOJ......just how cleverly Cavill portrays the "invisible" Clark. ......but knowing Snyder.....I am sure there will be more emphasis on the crash, bangs, and wallops than character portrayals.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jan 7, 2016 19:17:49 GMT -5
An interesting quote from Henry Cavill:
I actually believe Reeve's Clark was incredibly well layered(although this did span several films) The "Clumsy Clark" was really only evident in STM. In SII you had Clark in the Diner getting smashed up and the resolution with Lois resulting in the amnesia kiss. I thought Reeve's performance in both those scenes was superb.
In the diner scene: Reeve expresses Clark's naivety(for daring to challenge Rocky),Clark's being shocked(and being punched through the glass door) and vulnerability("my blood!"). Even as a 6 Year old I remember the hush that came over the cinema when Clark says "excuse me sir.....would you care to step outside"....you kinda knew Clark was out of his depth and that he was in for a beating(credit to Reeve for emphasizing this) ......and then the gasps in the audience as he goes crashing through the glass. Also to note that Clark struggling to even get up with Lois helping: "go slow...go slow....I'm alright!"...adding further sympathy to the character(credit to Donner for nailing this scene too)
In the Daily Planet kissing "memory wipe "scene: Very mournful and contemplative...almost playing Supes and Clark at the same time without being either.....unusual and unique....credit to Lester here too.
And what about the SIII fight between Clark and Supes! Definitely not clumsy Clark here.......as well as the scenes with Lana.
So I think it is simplistic to define Reeve's portrayal as just the clumsy Clark. It was an element....but not the only element.
It is also something that is missing from practically all contemporary comic book hero flicks at the moment......the contrast between the Superhero and his/her disguise.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 23, 2015 19:43:01 GMT -5
The limits of the technology forced yesteryears filmmakers to become more inventive and more creative with their solutions. To directors of big budget films that isn't even an issue now. You've got a generation of filmmakers that haven't had that kind of trial by fire so they've never been forced to think outside the box. Take Ghostbusters...I think the limits made that for on better than Ackroyd's original idea. Lewis getting taken by the devil dog wouldn't be nearly as good if we'd seen it. Limiting what we saw of the Werewolf in American Werewolf in London made it far creepier. That overhead shot of it in the subway near the end is pretty freaky. It's massive but you just get glimpses of it most of the time. The Kryptonians brawl on Superman II is better on an emotional level because they understood these guys can't hurt each other. Superman knew the city would just be totaled. Zod knee the one way to beat him was put innocents in danger throughout the battle. That's where the drama comes from. Exactly. Its amazing to think that a generation of filmakers who were inspired by filmakers(or films) who thought outside of the box........think so passively within the box(CGI)! Yes that american Warewolf in london scene is a classic example of where less is more.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 23, 2015 19:32:27 GMT -5
@cam ,ATP, and Metallo
Agree with all the points you make. The beauty of films like Jaws,Star Wars and Superman is how they triumphed out of production adversity. These films were next to impossible to make(with the technology that was available at the time) and as CAM quite rightly pointed out.....were hardly the most desirable projects to pursue either(disaster or gangsta flicks were in fashion in the mid 70s) . So the likes of Spielberg,Zanuck --- Kurtz/Lucas and the Salkinds/Donner took tremendous risks in bringing those projects to the screen.
When you read about the production of the Avengers, Hunger Games, Dawn Of Justice or The Force Awakens they all seem to be running along rather smoothly without any technical hitches. There are no problem solving dilemmas or huge runs behind schedules which dogged the 70's classics.
Compare that to the production of the The Revenant. Now this looks to be a true classic in the making. Its behind schedule, full of production turmoil with a pissed off cast and crew. Looking forward to seeing the end result. They say DiCaprio may finally bag that elusive Oscar:)
ATP made a great point about cramming too much info into 1 flick. If Batman hurts Superman in DOJ(which he undoubtedly will)......big deal.....Zod,Faoura and that big Henchman already bashed Supes around in MOS.
Compare that to the first time NON knocks Supes into the building in Superman II.....incredible....precisely because Superman was unscathed all the way through STM(Lex Kryptonite not withstanding) and until that moment that NON lands the blow.(If you exclude Rocky stuffing Clark in the Diner).
That's the difference in my view.
Without a measured buildup to a climactic point ,spectacle means nothing.
6
That "build up" you mention is so important. In the 70s and 80s, things built up over several movies. Think about the original Star Wars, where it took 2 movies to reveal Vader was Luke's father and still another movie before you see him without his mask on. Todays audiences don't have the patience for that, and studios will not take that risk. Dejan, you mentioned the huge shock when Non punches Superman. Exactly right. I remember when S2 came out, the idea that there could be three other people with Superman's exact same powers was mindblowing and very scary. But now, superpowered villains are a dime a dozen. Great points about Vader ATP. The father reveal and mask removal(ok excluding that brief view in Empire) added to the "build up" and mystery.....one of the big attractions of the OT. Would add I just realized it took 3 movies to actually see Vader's booty get handed to him.He whooped Obi and Luke in the first 2 movies in nearly 4 hours of movie time viewing. So when Luke shouts "NEVER!" and actually forces Vader back it was very powerful emotionally........ that and William's music and it's true story telling and movie magic.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 20, 2015 9:31:09 GMT -5
@cam ,ATP, and Metallo
Agree with all the points you make. The beauty of films like Jaws,Star Wars and Superman is how they triumphed out of production adversity. These films were next to impossible to make(with the technology that was available at the time) and as CAM quite rightly pointed out.....were hardly the most desirable projects to pursue either(disaster or gangsta flicks were in fashion in the mid 70s) . So the likes of Spielberg,Zanuck --- Kurtz/Lucas and the Salkinds/Donner took tremendous risks in bringing those projects to the screen.
When you read about the production of the Avengers, Hunger Games, Dawn Of Justice or The Force Awakens they all seem to be running along rather smoothly without any technical hitches. There are no problem solving dilemmas or huge runs behind schedules which dogged the 70's classics.
Compare that to the production of the The Revenant. Now this looks to be a true classic in the making. Its behind schedule, full of production turmoil with a pissed off cast and crew. Looking forward to seeing the end result. They say DiCaprio may finally bag that elusive Oscar:)
ATP made a great point about cramming too much info into 1 flick. If Batman hurts Superman in DOJ(which he undoubtedly will)......big deal.....Zod,Faoura and that big Henchman already bashed Supes around in MOS.
Compare that to the first time NON knocks Supes into the building in Superman II.....incredible....precisely because Superman was unscathed all the way through STM(Lex Kryptonite not withstanding) and until that moment that NON lands the blow.(If you exclude Rocky stuffing Clark in the Diner).
That's the difference in my view.
Without a measured buildup to a climactic point ,spectacle means nothing.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 6, 2015 9:30:25 GMT -5
Doomsday in this movie is just recycling the Nuclear Man idea from S4. Both created by Lex from Kryptonian DNA. Only difference is that S4 is probably better. Great point. SIV would have been better if it had the advantage of the money and quick fix technology(CGI) that has been thrown at DOJ. I wonder how far Zac Snyder would have got as a director had he been born 15-20 years earlier. the problem with CGI is that it is an easy solution to any potential story telling conundrum. And it has allowed a legion of generic wannabe directors(Snyder,Abrams ect) with no sense of daring originality, to perpetuate hollow box office slush that make a ton of money but leave no residual cultural or soulful impact.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 6, 2015 5:37:27 GMT -5
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 6, 2015 5:23:44 GMT -5
Today's directors don't grasp that less is more. The simple mushroom cloud in STM from the missile in California was so much more ominous and "solid" than the huge explosions in MoS and in this BvS trailer. Absolutely. Very much a case of the action dictating the story as opposed to the story dictating the action.
Money and profit making have always been intrinsic to the film making business. But now it is worse than ever. Snyder, Abrams and the rest simply conform to this standard.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 6, 2015 4:12:56 GMT -5
I actually like the stylized images so far- preferable to me, than the 'shakicam' choice for MOS. Kind of wish I were in the WB conference rooms to know what exactly will be the barometer for success, and what the price of failure will be, if Batfleck vs. Supes doesn't deliver. Affleck came out and said in an interview that it would be 'bad'- but I can't see it affecting (at least) the Suicide Squad and WW movie. The others that aren't in the middle of production is a big question mark, though... For my two cents, while WB may not be having a hit ratio on the scale of Marvel Studios..... I have this feeling that it's 'now or never' for a lot of their superhero film ideas. I do think that superhero film fatigue could be setting in with the masses--- and if it is, it might come to a point that even good superhero films disappoint at the box office.... in which case- perhaps the studio budgets and greenlights will start to shrink. Anyhow--- The trailer reaction doesn't seem to be that great for this one versus the last one (which I thought was pretty darn good). Will be interesting to see how X-men, Bat vs. Supes, and Civil War all do against one another next year...
The fact that Star Wars and Superman were completely different from other films that were out at the time(as well as the novelty of showing new cinematic techniques that had NEVER been seen before) is a big part of the reason why they made the cultural impact that they did. In Art, timing is everything.
Star Wars had Smokey And The Bandit,The Deep, Saturday Night Fever, The Gauntlet, Annie Hall, Julia, Herbie Goes To Montecarlo, ect ect to compete with. Superman had Every Which Way But Loose, Grease, King Of The Gypsies, The Deer Hunter, National Lampoon Vacation, Jaws 2, Revenge Of The Pink Panther ect ect.
All these flicks(irrespective of whether they are good or bad) are all distinctly photo realistic films. Does not take a genius to see why Superman and Star Wars stood out from the contemporary crowd. Compare that to the Force Awakens and Baman Vs Superman. They will be using the same techniques used in the flicks below :
Hunger Games, Jurassic World, Age Of Ultron, Ant Man, Terminator Genysis and same generic the list goes on........all feature exactly the same VFX methods. heck .....Terminator Genysis begins with a city/planet destroying sequence.....the same type of sequence that the Force Awakens and Dawn Of Justice will probably end with....yawn.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 6, 2015 3:47:57 GMT -5
I can't cut the movie any slack on the cgi. Compared to most other big budget effects movies BvS has had more time and more money to do a good job on the cgi. Most of it looks good but there's really no excuse for any of it not to. The render work and physics for Doomsday look mediocre at best. I'm not talking about the design but the digital rendering. Same thing for some shots of the cgi Batman. The films been in the can for a long time so it's not like they've been rushed. The effects should look perfect and they don't. There's really no excuse. At least Civil War has the excuse of starting production well after BvS and Marvel being more frugal with their budgets.
I was thinking the same thing. Snyder takes ages compared to other directors and yet the effects really don't reflect the extra time spent generating them!
It was one of the biggest personal disappointments for me regarding MOS. Compared to Now You See Me, The Great Gatsby, Pacific Rim, Oblivion and a few other flicks from 2013,MOS from a VFX standpoint did not stand out from the crowd, when it had all the advantages(due to the lengthier Post Production) to have done so.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Dec 6, 2015 3:41:31 GMT -5
Even the visuals and artwork look awful in this trailer. Everything is dark and gloomy and just too busy. CGI looks awfully fake. Too many weird machines and flashing lights and general filler. In all honesty, I believe that S3 was much better visually -- and that is almost 33 years old!
agreed. I have projected the SIII Blu ray through a 4K projector onto a 70 inch+ screen and it looks exceptional. The cinematography is excellent as is the colour palette. Have also projected Man Of Steel using the same parameters. The de-saturated look which is quite a common stylistic aesthetic used in post production these days is something that I cannot quite fathom. MOS looks pin sharp with what looks like a dose of artificial grain added to give a slightly "gritty" look. But it pales when played side by side with the original Reeve films ,which while softer due to the cinematic processes used at that time(70s-80s), still have more punch to the image thanks to this same analogue technique. My opinion anyways.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Nov 1, 2015 8:08:28 GMT -5
CapedWonder uploaded this video. Wish it was longer, especially hearing more from McClure. Wonder what kept Salkind from attending. The hatchet not quite buried? youtu.be/GFGy2wHzvAUJust watched the full panel on Caped Wonder. That is a GREAT video, the editing was really nice- gave the sense of being in that room. The presentation with the slides and all were REALLY nice. Love Margot, what a wonderful personality. Yeah.... wayyy too short. At Comicon and Wondercon, they have too many useless panels and shorten the really good ones. I'm not suprised Salkind didn't attend... would feel awkward, especially with all the interviews slamming him from the actors in print over the years.. but I can't help but feel that that's why Donner didn't show up in person.
Yeah the chemistry between the cast comes through.
reminded me of the recent comic con panel with Hamill, Ford and Fischer bantering and feeding off each other and it's the same with this one.
Also great to see a huge crowd.
Just re-listening to the DVD commentary tracks by Spengler and Salkind, it seems such a shame that Donner continues to peddle the good guys/bad guys meme. Spengler and Salkind are far more complimentary to Donner in their commentary than Donner and Manklwitz are to Spengler and Salkind in theirs.
It's quite simple ,no Salkinds, no Superman.
No Donner or Lester means there would still be a Superman ....just not as good. Would have been the icing on the cake to have Lester, Donner , Salkind and Spengler on the same panel.
I can dream.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Oct 22, 2015 17:11:23 GMT -5
Well I've never held Reeve's other work up to what he did as Superman. I've always been able to view each part on its own. I'll watch Noises off and never think of Superman. But I do think that he's impressive against other more seasoned comedians and holds his own against John Ritter when it comes to physical comedy. That's one thing I think he's underrated for. But he was better at certain roles than he was at others. There were times when he did stretch and it worked out great. Sometimes not. Sometimes he didn't have the edge to pull off seedier characters. He tended to excel at roles that matched him or sent up his leading man image and old Hollywood good looks. It's one thing that made him great as Clark Kent. It's also why he did better in films like Noises Off. There's a reason he gravitated towards certain roles. It's what he was good at. Then there were roles where he could have been more diverse but turned them down. As much as a loved the guys work I've never thought he was on a DeNiro level. Then again DeNiro isn't on that same level now but much like Reeve even DeNiro had certain types of roles he exceeded at more than others.
Of course DeNiro had Scorsese as back up! Di Caprio has fed of Scorsese's ability as a director in more recent years. As for Reeve I think his performances are subtle and distinct from role to role. I actually like his performance in street smart which has officially gone down as Freeman's show. But in my opinion, Reeve held his own against Freeman and played the timid ,out of his depth journalist quite convincingly until the final act where he takes charge and wins the day.
I also like the Aviator where he plays the loner postal pilot who is burdened with the guilt of his dead comrade from the war. As for seedier characters, I think he was fantastic in Deathtrap and should have gained an Oscar nomination. Had DeathTrap come out BEFORE Superman I and II, I think the comic book fandom would have had a tough time reconciling whether the actor depicting a sociopathic killer would be convincing playing the role of Supes (even before the internet).
Even in Monsignor, which was weighed down by some cumbersome editing, I thought his portrayal as the Priest who is engaged in a moral quagmire was eclectic. Something which is the complete opposite to Supes.
Ironically Reeve's accident kind of deflected attention away from his other roles.
But even the likes of Robert Downey Jr are impressed with Reeves output:
Christopher Reeve went on and did a bunch of other great movies, and his notoriety from the “Superman” franchise helped that, and nobody held it against him. But the other thing is, everybody knows Chris Reeve was a really good guy. A lot of it has to do with personality. Are you the type of person who incurs ill will? variety.com/2014/film/news/robert-downey-jr-tells-variety-what-its-like-to-be-iron-man-1201144706/
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Oct 15, 2015 2:12:25 GMT -5
I have only ever seen the beginning of this film. I remember Marc Singer getting beaten up by Bronson(lol)
As for Reeve.....his only problem was that everything he ever did would be calibrated against (or by) Superman because he did supes first(if you exclude his role in Gray Lady Down).
But I often wonder how differently we would have looked at Reeve's ability had he done films like Death trap, Monsignor, The Bostonians and Street Smart BEFORE doing Superman. Had that happened people would have talked about Reeve in DeNiro proportions(I am not exaggerating).
Heck....hypothetically(!)...... had DeNiro done something like Superman as his first role(and nailed it like Reeve)......DeNiro would have been affiliated to Supes no matter what DeNiro did next.
Superman is such an otherworldly potent symbol/icon......the danger for an actor is that if you do perform the character perfectly and especially if you do it as your first leading role.....you will not be able to shake it off.
Again hypothetically , Reeve could have recited roles like Corleone in the Godfather II,Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver or Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull after doing something like Superman....and even if he had nailed those iconoclastic roles(as DeNiro eventually did)......Reeve would have still been identified with Superman because of the all encompassing symbolic power that a character like Supes has.
My theory anyways!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Sept 17, 2015 12:01:48 GMT -5
You mean the 2001 version
regarding Supes on VHS.
I remember people gathering outside one of the 1st video stores that opened in our city centre(Cambridge,UK)in 1982......just staring through the window watching a TV that was demoing the Superman II VHS...a pretty big crowd from what I remember----in fact that was the 1st time I became aware of the concept of home video!
LOL---just the other day people were walking past a demo of the newly released Age Of Ultron BLU ray that was playing in our local HMV store.....without batting an eyelid....how times have changed.
For Supes: I personally prefer the theatrical edits. With Baird at the helm in 78'....all the fluff that Donner did shoot was excised. Those deleted scenes are nice to see but the editing team of 1978 knew thy were redundant and rightly ditched them.
the continuity error regarding the hairstyles and stuff was symptomatic of the problems that Donner would have faced had he been allowed to complete his version back in 1979. Reeve had grown into the role more by late 77/early 78 and onwards. There is no question that Donner would have had to re-shoot a lot of material just to get the standard of Reeve's performance to sync with everything that was shot from the summer of 77' onwards
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Sept 17, 2015 11:36:42 GMT -5
just ripped out my 1985 Superman III laserdisc and gave it a whirl(I have the blu ray too but i'm in nostalgic mode!!).
Some other witty liners:
Gus: "I don't wanna go to jail because they have robbers and rapists who rape robbers!" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Stokis:
"This is the 1st time I won anything"
Mrs Stokis: "My hand Mori!"
Mr Stokis: "This is the 1st time I won anything valuable" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webster: "This one piss ant little country that thinks it has the gall(balls?) to dictate the economy of an open market"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lana(referring to Brad):
"Oh look he is stewed to the gills in the middle of the afternoon"
Clark(Thinks she is referring to Ricky): "gee...all he had was a chocolate milk shake!"
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Sept 16, 2015 13:28:28 GMT -5
I really enjoy SIII. In fact, I love it. SIII is a curious thing. It obviously doesn't touch the first two movies, but there's still something about it that I find unceasingly watchable, enjoyable and fun. It's a little easier to appreciate if you're not doing a marathon. Watching it right after Superman I and II is a rough transition. Watching it randomly is more fun. It is easy to watch. The pacing is good, and it is the most polished of all three Salkind Superman films. Unlike the other two, it doesn't feel uneven or rushed. There is actually some pretty darn good contemporary editing:
Webster: "Like everybody else in the 20th century Gus-you push buttons"---cut to Olsen taking a foto.
Or:
Webster: "How about somewhere....small"---cut to close up of Poster slapped on side of building in Smallville.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Sept 16, 2015 13:10:29 GMT -5
Just looked through my collection regarding Supes I:
1979/80 VHS(US-NTSC) 1st official home video release on any format 1981 VHS(UK-PAL) 1st release in the UK 1983 Laserdisc(Pan And Scan) 1st Release on Laserdisc 1990 Laserdisc(Widescreen) 1st Release in Widescreen 2001 DVD 2006 DVD 2011 Blu Ray.
My favourite?!
Technically it would obviously be the Blu Ray.
But:
That 1979/80 release is a product from the time and as such truly belongs to the era of when STM was still in cinemas(or at least not long after)so it has a special feeling for me.
Also
IMHO The 1983 laserdisc is technically the best release of the film in it's original theatrical form(i.e without any digital manipulation.) Yes it is in Pan and Scan but the picture and sound are superb. The 35mm print used for this transfer is full of scratches, dirt and grain but this gives it a very filmic sensation. And that truly represents the way the film would have been experienced by audiences back in 1978. As opposed to the digitally scrubbed versions that have been released post 2001.
What are your favourites?
|
|