dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jul 19, 2015 4:09:39 GMT -5
In a way, the delay with the movie probably has helped me get used to many of the elements that irritated the heck out of me over the project. With Superman Returns, there was the excitement of the Donner universe being reborn. With the DC movieverse now, it's just like an alternate dark universe, just glad that I'm only counting on Marvel's movies for my main comic book 'fix'---so... just lowering, lowering, lowering expectations to have a good time...
This is kinda cool......Cavill acknowledging Reeve's contribution(at 22:33):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXP-uvc7DZs
Off the top of my head I don't think he has done that before(correct me if I am wrong) and it is nice to see.
Also nice to see Amy Adams saying she watched Supes II over and over as a kid.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jul 12, 2015 0:12:25 GMT -5
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 15, 2015 11:07:38 GMT -5
I think technology has large part to play here. Making a movie that depicts stuff on a grand(or fantastical) scale is now very straight forward.
When you think of all the production "troubles" that went into making Jaws, Star Wars and Superman in the 1970s-----that production "trouble" actually resulted in creating something special precisely because of all the blood and sweat that was spilt by cast and crew alike.
It is what happens when you push the boundaries of what is possible. At the moment only James Cameron seems eager to take a chance on stuff----results are there for all to see in Terminator 2,Titanic and Avatar.
Whatever the critics maybe of Titanic and Avatar they for me represent the type of film-making that is lacking in Marvel's(Or DCs) studio's repertoire.
IMHO the current bunch of super-hero flicks are slick, stylish and entertaining , conforming to a set formula but lacking in something that has weight, and that is real and tangible.
I don't disagree about the Marvel studio films, but after so many horrible tv movie adaptations it's amazing that there are movies that actually resemble their comic book counterparts and are actually any good--- Would I want them to be deeper and more filmic? Absolutely, but I think it's a progress thing. Marvel intentionally isn't going too dark, but I can't help but applaud how many marks they DO hit in adapting their own works. On the other hand..... Marvel's Daredevil DOES have weight and feel real--- so, will be interesting to see how the rest of their Netflix shows do, too. If all succeeds well--- maybe Marvel will be darker and weighter with Phase... Four? Will see....
Just watched the 1st episode(and a bit of the 2nd ) of Daredevil on netflix--not bad!
On edit:- Some very cool fight choreography and quite a bit of exposition through the flashback method.
Definitely takes inspiration from Nolan's Batman.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 12, 2015 5:14:55 GMT -5
That's the best thing about CGI villains. They never age. Speaking of which....have you seen the footage of CGI Arnie from the new Terminator film---that is the best I have seen so far when it comes to depicting a younger "real life" human CGI actor(the young CGI Jeff Bridges in TRon legacy looked quite hokey in 2010). here is the link: www.yahoo.com/movies/james-cameron-genisys-terminator-endorsement-121016156362.htmlProbably should have posted this in Don's diner.....but what the heck!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 6, 2015 4:18:39 GMT -5
It is kind of ironic with all the blu/green screen shooting in contemporary flicks nowadays....that Christopher Reeve's and Marlon Brando's only scene together back in 1977 would be against......blu screen!!
This is where hiring someone like Brando could be a pain----he would not be available for the dates when the FOS was finally built which in my opinion compromised the quality of the re-powering shots----with obvious composite shots when Jorel appears in person to touch Supe's on the shoulder.
It could be another reason why no-one cared that much back in 1979 when Brando's re-powering scene was junked---- because of all the different optical elements that would have been involved would have made it very difficult to assemble effectively with 1978/79 film technology.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 6, 2015 4:07:54 GMT -5
Slightly off tangent but still relevant:
A rare interview with John Victor Smith talking about the editing of SIII(would have been cool to hear his thoughts on editing SII!)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTkLOKDHwxo
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 6, 2015 3:45:27 GMT -5
I think a 4K scan off the 35mm original negative might be the next logical step for all 3 movies.(frack SIV!)
The blu ray set is composed of editions that were derived from 2k scans off 1st generation 35mm interpositives(one generation removed from the o-negs).
Now given the amount of optical composites and dupe negative that formed large parts of the 35mm o-negs then a 4K scan might indeed be overkill.
Given that Unsworth was prone to using filters to diffuse the sharpness for certain scenes then those may not lend themselves well to higher resolution scans.
Also 35 mm film stocks from the time had higher grain densities anyway(especially for darker /less lit shots).
But a 4K scan wouldstill be interesting to see.
I own a 4k projector and the 2011 blu rays already look phenomenal(so long as you appreciate the film making techniques involved) when displayed through it.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2015 2:34:22 GMT -5
Well, it's nice to see some of you guys are still trying to keep the place afloat. We were a great group...once, so it's nice to see people continue to feel strongly about it. I was a member of this place since 1999 or so. It was like my "Internet Home", or something like that. Like the Avengers, we had our own "Civil War", and I had my own role in "torching" the place. Maybe like the fictitious Avengers, the place can reassemble one day? Anyway, Avengers 2. I just saw it about a week ago, and I liked it. But it reminded me of Iron Man 2 in the sense that I enjoyed the film and thought it was a good, not great, sequel, and undeniably a notch below the first in execution. Overall, I *love* the MCU. My whole life, I've loved Marvel, but I always had a slight preference to the DC characters because of Superman and his relation to the Universe. I also enjoy Batman a lot. But with the MCU, they've really created a quality series of films. With the exception of the "disappointment" of IM2 (again: good, not great, sequel) during Phase 1. The quality has been a consistently phenomenal, which is astounding considering all the different creative talent involved. IM1, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America 1, amd Avengers were *ALL* awesome movies. Different directors, actors, and creative staffs with SO MANY opportunites to screw it all up. But it was consistently awesome. Then with Phase 2,---IM3, Captain 2, Thor 2, Guardians of the Galaxy---we got, remarkably, that consistency again! And then with Avengers 2, I was confused by Stark in the fight again. I assumed (possibly incorrectly since I only saw the movie once) that Stark walked away from being Iron Man (of course, I knew it would be temporary since he would be cast in Avengers 2). But in the beginning, I feel that the characters, especially Stark, regressed a bit. I thought the romance between Banner and Black Widow felt artificial. The Safe House scene with Hawkeye's family didn't ring true either. I also felt that the Avengers reunion movies would involve a story so epic that the heroes would *HAVE* to come together or risk Earth's destruction. We got that in Avengers 1 when Earth was invaded. That urgency, I felt, was missing in Avengers 2. I didn't get or understand what it was about Ultron that forced everyone to make an Avengers 2. The plot and character felt like it could've been in any one singular character's movie, not the big reunion movie. So yeah, I enjoyed Avengers 2, but I also felt it was not as meticulously written as the first. And like Iron Man 2, I also felt Avengers 2 had a "padding" feel to it. While I don't believe there's been such a thing as a bad MCU movie, I definitely felt the MCU showed some vulnerability here for the first time. And considering the high profile nature of an Avengers movie, some might perceive the dip in quality as making the next not as much of a must-see. As for the original topic: Compared to MOS, I'm glad to see the characters try to save people and not just "destruction porn" we got in MOS. But I also feel DC might be able to capitalize and get some of the market share back...if BvS is awesome. While I was not impressed with the trailer for BvS, trailers aren't the end all be all, especially if the film gets good word-of-mouth. Visually, I'm not impressed with what we've seen from BvS either, which is surprising given that Zack Snyder, nobody how good or bad his movie is, has always been fantastic with the visual aspects of all his films. 300 was awesome, Dawn of the Dead was gun, Watchmen was ok, Sucker Punch sucked, MOS was disappointing, but they were all visually impressive. Let's see what happens... Agree with so much in this post- Particularly with the MCU.... one thing forgotten by many fans, I think, is just how rare it is to have a studio that gets the basic idea of its characters and is able to keep a (mostly) great standard of production film after film--- AND have it link together, despite many writers and directors mixed in the pot. I never dreamed that I'd live to see an Avengers movie done- particularly with actors from their own standalone film. As a kid, I'd dream of these things, but the scarcity of supehero projects in Hollywood at the time just made a SINGLE superhero film done well a small miracle, let alone a string of them and/or crossovers, of all things. Avengers 2 I think could have benefitted from a longer running time and maybe a little more time. I think it's twice as ambitious filmmaking wise, and hits many points, but it's not as polished as, say, a James Cameron Terminator film- but for a factory made product, it's EXTREMELY impressive, even if it doesn't feel quite as successful as the first Avengers film. As far as DC goes, it's a pity that George Miller's JLA didn't happen. If they really wanted to go this route of multiple versions and universes within its DC world, then this would have been a nice thing to see. Under Snyder....... I cross my fingers. Great stylist, but so far I think he's terrible at dramatic scenes that need to be believable.
I think technology has large part to play here. Making a movie that depicts stuff on a grand(or fantastical) scale is now very straight forward.
When you think of all the production "troubles" that went into making Jaws, Star Wars and Superman in the 1970s-----that production "trouble" actually resulted in creating something special precisely because of all the blood and sweat that was spilt by cast and crew alike.
It is what happens when you push the boundaries of what is possible. At the moment only James Cameron seems eager to take a chance on stuff----results are there for all to see in Terminator 2,Titanic and Avatar.
Whatever the critics maybe of Titanic and Avatar they for me represent the type of film-making that is lacking in Marvel's(Or DCs) studio's repertoire.
IMHO the current bunch of super-hero flicks are slick, stylish and entertaining , conforming to a set formula but lacking in something that has weight, and that is real and tangible.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2015 2:13:06 GMT -5
Personally for me--it is not a question of whether the movie is fast or slow or video gamey or realistic--it is a question of ,for want of a better word-- "a vibe".
IMHO Zack Snyder films just have a flat feeling to them--as if there is no charisma. Lawrence Of Arabia and 2001 Space Odyssey are very slow moving films but they have a palpable sense of cinematic charisma that seeps into every frame.
So when that soldier in Man Of Steel says "they have got Superman in tow--the alien sir--that is what they are calling him--Superman".....it is said with so little emotion that the whole dialogue just falls "flat"!
I watched STM back to back with SII in 1981 and the audience atmosphere was electric.
I watched MOS in 2013 and the audience was just in a soporific trance.
To me, there are specific great things that MOS had that I give Snyder credit for in MOS, and other specific things that ruin much of the film for me. Most of it has to do with the awkwardness of the performances in the scenes- but this is some of the same awkwardness I noticed in some of the Thau-edited RDC scenes- so, that's why I've always wondered if I would be able to enjoy a good fan edit of MOS.... and Watchmen.
I think I know what you mean. I can quite happily watch some of the action sequences in MOS in isolation and admire how cool they look. But that "action" aspect alone wont stand the test of time.
In fact some of those action moments from MOS mirror stuff from Ed Norton's Hulk from 2008.
Lots of quick edits and characters smashing into or through stuff at pace.
IMHO Hulk 2008 was pretty good as an exposition piece until it fell down under the weight of having to have a spectacular final climax that relied too much on CGI---not dissimilar to MOS IMHO.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2015 1:50:23 GMT -5
and here are the thoughts of Sarah Douglas and Valerie Perrine regarding Man Of Steel:
(apologies if this has been posted before)
Sarah Douglas:
I have to be honest in that I enjoyed the 1st half and I did not particularly enjoy the 2nd half. I felt like I was in a video game and it was all wham wham wham and it was all a bit too much and I really love Henry- I thought he was the hottest thing since sliced bread -thank you very much - however Christopher Reeve is still my Superman
Valerie Perrine:
I hated it!! (audience laughter) I hated everything about it-1st of all I fell asleep-and then all I saw was SFX and smashing into buildings-there was no story going on -there was no sympathy between characters-there was no character build up-it was just SFX and slam bam thank you mam.
Sarah Douglas: I have to say I really miss the humor- this new movie -I know the kids love it and a lot of people enjoyed but it is a different generation
watch more:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ixgS2qm3AQ
Pretty funny. When I saw the movie, my reaction mirrored Sarah Douglas' actually. I thought the first half was stronger than the second.
hehe
I think I am in the Valerie Perrine camp---I hated it---still did not stop me from buying it on blu ray though!!!
Welcome back by the way---I am new here(in terms of posting) but am familiar with the history of Supermancinema having been an observer for the best part of 13 years!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2015 1:45:07 GMT -5
MOS producer(s) said they were doing it as though a Superman mvoie had never been done. Yet, we have Jor as a sentient hologram, the S crest on his suit, then the origin story and the fight with Zod that we were hoping to see in SII - not even to mention that it's strange that Superman would fight Zod...again... Then a bully in a bar, Ma Kent stays alive and so many more stuff that is not from comics but from the Salkind movies.
very true!
I also noticed the Kent barn with the windmill is featured in one or two quick shots.
I found this obnoxious remark from Snyder:
"At the end of the movie, Christopher Reeve looks in the camera and smiles. In 1978 that made me crazy.
"I was 12 years old but it made me say 'why would you do this? You just ruined it for me because I believed that was real until that moment and now I know I'm watching a movie'." www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22894714
And this might be the problem---Snyder just does not get it.
I may have only been 6 in 1981 but I endorsed the 3-dimensional quality a flesh and bone version of Superman offered(as seen in STM) as opposed to a film that religiously followed the 2-D quality of a comic book template.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 30, 2015 4:12:57 GMT -5
Either you love Reeve and hate MoS or like MoS and find Reeve too 'slow'. Today's movies are 'filmed video games'.
Personally for me--it is not a question of whether the movie is fast or slow or video gamey or realistic--it is a question of ,for want of a better word-- "a vibe".
IMHO Zack Snyder films just have a flat feeling to them--as if there is no charisma. Lawrence Of Arabia and 2001 Space Odyssey are very slow moving films but they have a palpable sense of cinematic charisma that seeps into every frame.
So when that soldier in Man Of Steel says "they have got Superman in tow--the alien sir--that is what they are calling him--Superman".....it is said with so little emotion that the whole dialogue just falls "flat"!
I watched STM back to back with SII in 1981 and the audience atmosphere was electric.
I watched MOS in 2013 and the audience was just in a soporific trance.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 17, 2015 8:18:01 GMT -5
The absense of Geoffrey Unsworth probably didn't help her looks either. I think the wig made it worse in those DP reshoots. *sigh*
Kidder in january 1979.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 17, 2015 7:45:41 GMT -5
Likely we will never know. IMHO--I think the biggest disappointment with the RDC was how much less Donner did actually shoot. Throughout the 90's and 2000's it was estimated that he had shot up to 80% of II--of which 20-30 % ended up in the theatrical release.
But the fact of the matter was that he had really only shot about 50 %----when you think of the technology and scheduling that was available at the time it was amazing that he had shot that much.
But I am a bit pissed off with Donner for allowing a few myths to take on a life all of their own during these years when his footage was unavailable to the public. The Honeymoon haven scenes in particular which he claimed he had completed when in fact he had not----- being the biggest example.
Agreed.... the tech was so primitive compared to today, that it is incredibly impressive how Donner was able to get as much done as he did and the quality he had done them with. Donner might have forgotten how much he shot- but.... that's where I think it just gets weird in figuring out the dip in quality with those missing scenes (some of them anyhow) from STM to SII- 1. Ilya Salkind mentioned Donner shooting way too much on every scene, since he was a perfectionist. 2. Almost all of Donner's films at that time had excellent performances, as he's an actor's director. 3. Almost everything Thau touched editing-wise took a notch down or felt flawed in the RDC.... at some points, EXTREMELY flawed to a point where things are confusing. (Jor-el not disappearing during the explosion of the crystals, horrible voice dubs in spots, and just generally bad choices overall) 4. Donner's insistence in 2006 to take takes that go 'faster faster'- versus his self in 1978. So, anyhow, I may be giving too much credit to Donner for takes that may or may not exist, but STM is just so pitch perfect that it's hard not to give the benefit of the doubt.
Well Thau is no Baird either in terms of technical ability or personality.
The fact that Baird argued with Donner quite a bit during the original editing run back in 1977-78 contrasts quite dramatically with Thau just accepting without resistance all of Donner's suggestions in 2005-06---or so it would seem.
Bearing in mind that Donner himself is no longer looking at the old footage with the skill set he had in 77-78. He was looking at this footage through the eyes of some-one with all the experience and skills he had amassed since 77-78(non -linear editing, CGI ect ect)
To be fair Ilya does say in the SII commentary that certain Donner material "was not 100%" and that this was recognized in 1979. And whilst that may sound blasphemous you only need to look at the stuff that was deleted from the original STM edit to realize just how instrumental Baird was in contributing to the rhythmical beauty of STM and that Donner was not immune from shooting "fluff".
The Miss Teshmacher looking for the toilet in the FOS is a prime example.
In 1979 ---and had they been allowed to finish; I would have predicted that the Baird/Donner team would have junked that toilet reference. John Victor Smith did in his 1979-1980 assembly.
But Thau did not have the guts to tell Donner(or vice - versa?) to keep it out in 2005-06!
Film-making is a collaborative effort--there is no one individual who can do it all by themselves.
Something that is lost on a lot of fan-boy editors(Adywan take note!).
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 16, 2015 8:39:11 GMT -5
Agreed-I think the cut STM Brando scene works well when seen in isolation but disrupts the flow of the narrative when it is inserted into the theatrical version--hence the reason why Baird cut it out(maybe over the protestations of Donner?).
The only alternative I can think of is that Thau did not choose the best takes that Brando gave for SII?---highly plausible given the other editorial choices Thau made in the RDC.
That's what I've been saying..... That the takes either weren't the best, or the editing of it just killed the performances- but it's just hard to know without being able to see all of the takes. Now, if BAIRD edited these and this is what the result was, then, yeah.... it would be definitive that the Donner footage was at fault.... but that's why I look at the string of Donner films to get a better sense of what Donner was able to do with many actors, versus just looking at the RDC alone....
Likely we will never know. IMHO--I think the biggest disappointment with the RDC was how much less Donner did actually shoot. Throughout the 90's and 2000's it was estimated that he had shot up to 80% of II--of which 20-30 % ended up in the theatrical release.
But the fact of the matter was that he had really only shot about 50 %----when you think of the technology and scheduling that was available at the time it was amazing that he had shot that much.
But I am a bit pissed off with Donner for allowing a few myths to take on a life all of their own during these years when his footage was unavailable to the public. The Honeymoon haven scenes in particular which he claimed he had completed when in fact he had not----- being the biggest example.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 16, 2015 8:30:01 GMT -5
I wish there were another way to have Superman lose his powers. The whole "giving them up to marry lois" thing is just stupid. Plus, the idea of Jor El sending along a molecule chamber with red sun rays just in case his son decides to become human is just childish and even more stupid. What happened to "He will need that advantage to survive"? Problem is, if you lose the molecule chamber, you also lose the way he defeats the villains at the end. He would instead have to break each of their necks, like he did in MoS.
Again in isolation it seems a bit harsh for Ol' Supes to relinquish everything.
But as a way of contrasting a depowered Superman to the all powerful 3 criminals from Krypton I think it is a terrific piece of storytelling.
The bashed up Clark watching Zod taunting Superman on TV was brilliant.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 16, 2015 8:24:35 GMT -5
I still think it's the first flight scene in Supergirl.. those flying sequences have yet to be topped. I appreciated the sheer velocity of Cavill in MOS but his first flight scene doesn't compare to Supergirl's. I also think the other flight scene just after ethan is zapped by Selena from the beach back to her HQ--and Supergirl goes in pursuit is also pretty amazing.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 16, 2015 8:16:55 GMT -5
I love the chasing rockets flying scene in STM. All of the take offs and landings in S3 are incredible too. They looked so real. Look at how he takes off to rescue the people on the roof at the chemicals plant. And the way he lands at the lake before freezing it. Not really "flying" but I thought the way he launches out of the acid in the junkyard was brilliant as well. I thought MoS had awful flying scenes. They all looked fake, like a video game. The speed made it look even more fake. There are very few actors who are a joy to watch moving. Bruce Lee was one. Christopher Reeve was another. Agreed on all the above.
It is not for nothing that Roy Field said that : "the best special effect was Christopher Reeve himself"
It is amazing that both modern contemporary flicks(Superman Returns and Man Of Steel) completely missed this vital essence of the character--flight.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 15, 2015 23:32:57 GMT -5
Brando could have been bored or maybe it was Donner's direction(possibly because of time constraints).
The Brando recitations from part II actually resemble the cut scene from STM where Jorel encourages Supes to maintain his double identity. The acting is roughly on the same level and that scene was wisely excised from STM. I think Donner would have re-shot those Brando scenes for II if he had come back in 1979---assuming Brando would have been available?
The Donner depowering scene ---- without the reaction shots of Kidder's Lois goes down a notch. Not sure if those were never filmed(which would have been inexcusable) or if they were simply never found.
Lester filmed good close-ups of Kidder for his version and that provides the emotional equilibrium for the scene as a whole .
I quite liked parts of the deleted Brando scene in STM, but overall, I am glad it was deleted. There's such a thing as too much Jor El. I now think the amount we saw in STM was enough. There is a limit to how many times we can hear Brando saying, "My son".
Agreed-I think the cut STM Brando scene works well when seen in isolation but disrupts the flow of the narrative when it is inserted into the theatrical version--hence the reason why Baird cut it out(maybe over the protestations of Donner?).
The only alternative I can think of is that Thau did not choose the best takes that Brando gave for SII?---highly plausible given the other editorial choices Thau made in the RDC.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 15, 2015 16:25:23 GMT -5
Brando sounded bored when he was talking about the crystal chamber and Kal El becoming an ordinary man. Even the way he gestured towards the crystal chamber seemed uninterested. Brando could have been bored or maybe it was Donner's direction(possibly because of time constraints).
The Brando recitations from part II actually resemble the cut scene from STM where Jorel encourages Supes to maintain his double identity. The acting is roughly on the same level and that scene was wisely excised from STM. I think Donner would have re-shot those Brando scenes for II if he had come back in 1979---assuming Brando would have been available?
The Donner depowering scene ---- without the reaction shots of Kidder's Lois goes down a notch. Not sure if those were never filmed(which would have been inexcusable) or if they were simply never found.
Lester filmed good close-ups of Kidder for his version and that provides the emotional equilibrium for the scene as a whole .
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 15, 2015 12:22:15 GMT -5
I think some of it definitely should have been left on the cutting room floor. Some of its just flat. I actually think some of the Lara footage is superior in certain scenes where she replaces him. I think the repowering with Brando is a must but at the same time I prefer the flow of the theatrical cut where you're not sure what happened until Superman flies into the city to face Zod and co.
yes-the re-powering scene as seen in the theatrical(on a first time viewing) left an air of uncertainty as to whether he had in fact claimed his powers back.
It was edited perfectly-you had the dramatic impact of Clark/Supes getting battered in the dina(again hugely powerful in it's own right because this was the first time that Supes gets physically beaten in nearly 3 1/2 hours of running film time--if you include STM and you were watching it back to back with SII)---I will always remember the gasping sound in the audience when Clark goes smashing through that glass door/frame when Rocky hits him from behind.
Also Yorke's /Lara's delivery is pretty much bang on: "You can be hurt like an ordinary man"---having now seen Brando's equivalent line---IMHO Yorke's is better.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2015 11:49:49 GMT -5
they are expensive trash which make a lot of money !!-----if you subscribe to the tried and trusted formula
If you look through MOS you have:
Oil Riggers--no build up or introduction. Children in Bus--jarring editing cutting into scene mid -sentence " hey booty wipe!--so what did you about the game--- vagina splash!"--minimal build up...very little introduction.
Clark not saving Pa Kent--lost opportunity to have Supe's save someone with some dramatic impact.
Supes saving Lois when she escapes in the malfunctioning capsule-----scene loses sense of urgency because of the interjection of Jorel telling Supes about saving mankind.
Supes flying into Zod's ship just before he is about to zap the C-130 cargo plane ----- no build up---and when Zod's ship goes crashing through several skyscrapers as a result it hardly portrays Supes in caring light.
I just read a very interesting article that claims movies today are deliberately made like this because most of their revenue now comes from overseas markets like the far east. According to the article, audiences there want things to have a formula and fit a template. Brands are more important than quality, which is why franchises with 6 or 7 sequels are being made. Storyline and dialogue would be lost in translation anyway, so is seen a less important. Big action scenes don't need translation. Read below. It is an interesting theory. www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-is-making-films-for-foreign-markets-2012-9?IR=T
Thanks for this--very interesting.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2015 10:01:00 GMT -5
Even when MoS took time to introduce characters, it still failed to make anyone care about them I was more concerned about the old man with his cane and the mother and her baby in S2 (when steeple was falling) than I was about Jenny buried under rubble in MoS. darn, these modern superhero films are just expensive trash. Nothing more.
they are expensive trash which make a lot of money !!-----if you subscribe to the tried and trusted formula
If you look through MOS you have:
Oil Riggers--no build up or introduction. Children in Bus--jarring editing cutting into scene mid -sentence " hey booty wipe!--so what did you about the game--- vagina splash!"--minimal build up...very little introduction.
Clark not saving Pa Kent--lost opportunity to have Supe's save someone with some dramatic impact.
Supes saving Lois when she escapes in the malfunctioning capsule-----scene loses sense of urgency because of the interjection of Jorel telling Supes about saving mankind.
Supes flying into Zod's ship just before he is about to zap the C-130 cargo plane ----- no build up---and when Zod's ship goes crashing through several skyscrapers as a result it hardly portrays Supes in caring light.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2015 4:49:23 GMT -5
And how about Superman saving that soldier falling from the helicopter in MoS? Compare that with the helicopter rescue from STM. Or the way he stopped the falling steeple in S2.
Indeed--that soldier falling from the chopper is probably the best example--Snyder is more obsessed with how cool it is to see the Big Kryptonian guy throw that truck at the chopper (that in turn destabilizes it) than showing us a few quick establishing shots of the soldier who is about to be threatened!-- so when he is saved it is more a case of "who was that"?
just found another clip from Age Of Ultron:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTqIVv07YC4
I know the clip is not of great quality and has been sped up to circumvent the copyright infringement policy but you still get the gist. Quicksilver saving a load of anonymouse people at super- speed without so much as a look as to who he is saving or a reaction from the people he has saved.---looks cool but it is practically F**cking guaranteed----in 20 -30 years time the kids will not remember these scenes the way we remember STM, II and III now
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2015 4:19:06 GMT -5
100 % agreed.
take Zod threatening to kill those civilians with his heat vision at the very end of MOS before Cavill's Supes breaks his neck. Just after Supes does the dirty deed there is no cut away to the civilians whose lives he has just saved. That is criminal editing-unless Snyder did not even film their reaction-which is even more criminal.
Compare that to the truck driver who comes back to check on his iced out fuel tank in SII just after Supes reflects(courtesy of the wing mirror) Zod's heat vision back onto him. He sticks his hand on the cap of his head as if to say "wow!" Stuart Baird and John Victor Smith were very skilled editors.
The elongated cuts of STM and SII show just how good Baird and Victor Smith were at trimming out the redundant/bloated stuff to make the theatrical versions lean mean fighting machines.
I have a short throw projector which can display large images(up to 3meters wide from a very short distance) I have projected Supes II onto my white wall and when you see the image this big it really makes you appreciate the production values of Supes I , II and II.
there is no substitute for a real life set.
These films were made in the pre-VHS-DVD era and as such were designed to be seen big.
The contruction of Times square in Supes II easily surpasses the same reconstruction of times square in Garfield's Amazing Spiderman 2(which wreaks of green screen syndrome.(I watched the making of special feature and it indeed was lensed that way)
Speaking of criminal editing, you could already tell MoS was going to be crap as soon as you saw the oil rig fire scene. The audience is given no reason to care about the people on the oil rig or what happens to them. Now compare that to the people trapped in the burning chemical plant in S3. Same situation, but the way the two films handled them were like night and day.
Yeah- the oil rig scene is symptomatic of the way "saving" scenes are handled in most super hero flicks these days. Almost as a byproduct or an afterthought and as nothing more than an excuse to make a scene look cool.
Just seen the full Hulkbuster vs Hulk scene on youtube in Age Of Ultron---those people that iron man saves in the elevator when Hulk goes crashing through the shaft pretty much sums it up.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY7Dh9Th_l0
No build up -no wow factor- no resonance--it just looks cool!
|
|