dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2015 4:06:18 GMT -5
'I, II & II'... ??
I have been here for over a decade and Gandalf leaving here is no surprise. Back in the days when he was still here - he really hated the hypocrites. And you'd be surprised by some of then names he mentions on facebook too.
Kris
Sorry-meant to say I, II and III !
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2015 3:30:10 GMT -5
I missed this part, but totally agree. Rather than just focusing on how one movie turned out to make judgements on a director's ability and standard of quality, I really was looking at his string of films around the same time period... and was pleasantly surprised ('The Toy' notwithstanding, but Donner himself even distances himself from it) - and from looking at the Mank script and the Donner/Baird footage, (I don't like to count the Thau stuff)--- it really is a shame because I feel it would have been one of Donner's best films in his career, full of a good number of great movies. Lester, on the other hand..... I LOVED his work on Three Musketeers, was not bowled over by "A Hard Day's Night" nor "Four and Five Musketeers" and definitely (for me) not Superman III. Anyhow- moot point. What amazes me the most is that the way the action is shot and cut - to me- still towers over many of the superhero action sequences today- even if the fx have more polish now. There's just a rhythym to Donner/Baird's action sequences that stands the test of time, I feel. I agree but I think Lesters action sequences (some of them) are also much better than anything today. It wasnt just Donner and Baird that could achieve that. The Chemical plant fire and junkyard fight in S3 are way above anything I have seen in modern superhero films. I also think the alleyway change in S2 - and the buildup to it - were perfectly done.
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)
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 5, 2015 10:50:27 GMT -5
@ ATP
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head---Superman was the equivalent of a cinematic god.
STM established him as pretty much invincible( the Lex kryptonite trick notwithstanding).
I remember watching Spiderman : The Dragon's Challenge a week or 2 before the STM/SII double bill back in 1981.
In that film Spiderman gets shot several times as well as being manhandled by bunch of Kung Fu baddies.
So in my 7 year old mind this established that a Superhero could be quite vulnerable----so when I watched STM I was blown away by just how invulnerable Supe's(compared to Spiderman) was!
So SII's impact was based on the premise that he could be matched by someone---in fact the SII trailer even emphasizes it!
"The adventure continues with the 3 villains from Krypton---Each one with the same powers as Superman!!!!" www.youtube.com/watch?v=68hRt0Pz7HI
How times have changed eh?!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 5, 2015 10:33:17 GMT -5
@ ATP
Agreed.
The scene on the moon scared the f**k out of me 1st time out.
In much the same way we are impressed by the stylistic visuals when Faora destroys those US military soldiers at super-speed in Man Of Steel----Zod and Ursa kicking those poor astronauts into space was just as stylistically impressive as a special effect back then.
But wheras Faora's decimation of the US military is only visually impressive without any dramatic impact----Zod's and Ursa's killing of those 2 astronauts was pretty chilling.
This is where Brando' exposition was crucial in the opening trial scene in STM(and even the short reprisal at the beginning of SII)----it defined the villainy of these 3 quite succinctly.
But the payoff is on the moon when you see instantly just how bad these guys are.(A woman kicking a guy into the atmosphere was practically unseen back then!)
This is where Lester used Donner's footage intelligently. He allowed Donner's raw footage of the brutality of the 3 criminals to give the audience this scare. He then used his own footage to add the bits of levity knowing that Donner's stuff would counterbalance his own.
I often wonder had Lester been ordered to re-shoot everything-- how he would have approached the moon and white house and daily planet destruction scenes. Would he have been as brutal as Donner? I actually think he would have been---knowing full well that those moments gave the villains their dramatic weight/impact.
And Lester could do brutal action stuff as witnessed by the Clark vs evil Supes in III.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 4, 2015 16:55:32 GMT -5
@ ATP
Good point about Tron(and War Games).
I saw Tron in 1982(aged 8) .
And I will always remember the audience gasping when Bridge's gets sucked into the Computer by the MCP.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 4, 2015 16:51:14 GMT -5
atp
Yes that is very true regarding the novelty of Computers.
In that trailer you saw Supes getting hit by the MX master missile and being hurled backwards into the rock( a very cool special effect for the day)
Remember when Mike Tyson was invincible and if an opponent so much as landed a jab it was a big deal.
As a kid I always regarded Supes(as played by Reeve) in much the same manner--if he took a hit( like when NON hits him into the building in SII) it carries weight because it did not happen often.
As opposed to the Avengers or any of the other contemporary drivel where the hero gets battered about on a regular basis to the point where it does not matter if they are taking a beating.
So when Supes gets hit by that MX missile or when the 2 computer arms force him backwards into the Computer's main Annex(also featured in the trailer) it meant something----now we have seen the flicks a million times it has lost it's sense of weight but it was a big deal for me(at least that is the way I saw it personally--I know my friends at the time who were the same age as me saw it the same way " wow the computer is beating Superman!!"
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 4, 2015 1:46:20 GMT -5
I remember my anticipation for III went through the roof when I saw this trailer:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9fVrQxkfcY
In 1983 they were re-running Warlords of Atlantis as a sort of afternoon matinee' type thing--we went to watch it a twice just so we could se the trailers for Return(Revenge) Of The Jedi and Supes III.
ON edit--just found this interview with Prior in promoting SIII: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPN2m6gpxzs
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 4, 2015 1:33:44 GMT -5
On a far more superficial note:
It would have been interesting to have got Reeve's impressions on both Returns and MOS and the glut of other superhero films of the last 10 years.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 2, 2015 5:03:01 GMT -5
Good points bro
Even though I did not know it at the time , Donner directed that Twilight Zone episode with Will Shatner-and that was bloody awesome. Mystery, tension, drama, horror, psychological, humanity all rapped up into one-great direction.
Have not seen Inside Move or LadyHawke but I have seen the Omen(also tremendous directorial work--especially on a first time viewing)-will try and check out the other stuff.
Actually Donner's Lethal Weapon 4 resembles Supes II in some ways in terms of how you have a build up to the final climactic showdown.
Both films spend time building up the abilities of the antagonists so when they square off at the end it packs a wallop. Both Lester and Donner understood this aspect and implemented it well into Supes II.
Compare that to the Man Of Steel.
The tall,big henchman of Zod who combines with Faora to fight Supes in Smallville has absolutely no characterisation exposition at all. You see him standing in the background a couple of times during the opening destruction of Krypton sequence and that is it--so when he shows up in smallville and attacks the fighter jet it really just falls flat in terms of dramatic impact--even though it looks visually impressive--which is pretty much standard fare now.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 23, 2015 14:34:31 GMT -5
Sorry still trying to get my head round the multiple quotes option!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 23, 2015 14:33:43 GMT -5
Delete:
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 23, 2015 14:01:36 GMT -5
Jenny was such a worthless plot device of a character and she even failed at that. Didn't know her enough to be concerned about her being killed by the world engine. Then at the end when Lombard asks if she wants to go to a ballgame with him (huh?) she's like screw you loser go troll the intern pool. What a b****. She coulda turned down the dude in a nicer way after he risked his life for her. Wish she had died.
Yeah--it is a problem that is prevalent in the Man Of Steel:
We only see the Oil Rigger after he rips open the door. We do see the school children for a little bit longer before the bus goes into the water-but even then you get the kid(Pete) saying rather abruptly and without any organic sense of context:
" so what did you think of the game d***ksplash!
hardly endearing to the audience although it does show Supes jr showing some humanity by saving the kid who is offensive to him.
You get the soldier falling out of the chopper who is rescued by Supes--but you see the soldier's face for the first time after he has been saved---there is no introduction to him(even a few seconds of him flying the chopper would have been enough) for you to have any connection with the character.
Geez...at least Donner gave us some establishing shots of Frisky(that quick zoomed in shot) before Reeves swoops down and scoops him out of the tree
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 23, 2015 13:46:31 GMT -5
Reminds me of Nicholas Meyer talking about AbramsTrek. Diplomatic but obvious he's not s fan.
I actually rewatched Returns for the first time in a couple of years at the weekend.
It just seems like the rhythm, tone and expression in the dialogue is off.(even if the intentions are good)
The scene with Lois and Supes on the roof of the Daily Planet is a good example.
Lois says something like "Clark said the reason you left was because it was too unbearable for you-personally I feel that is a load of crap"
And Routh responds rather blandly: "Clark?"---without any real sense that he is searching for the correct measured response.
Compare that to Reeves response to Kidder when he says :" Clark --who is that-your boyfriend?" If you look closely you can even see Reeve(even though it is shot from the side) look up as if he is searching for an appropriate improvised response--I remember this little exchange getting a few laughs in the cinema back in the day-classic moment.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 23, 2015 13:30:17 GMT -5
Avengers still did more to show the man on the street reaction to the aftermath of an alien invasion and city wide destruction than MOS did. The Avengers were also shown saving people during the battle and being concerned with what was going on around him. Cap looked sheck shocked after getting blown out of that bank window. With MOS Superman came off as indifferent at best and not giving a darn at worst. He's making out with Lois cracking jokes. Goyer and Snyder just totally failed here. Say what you will about all the Reeve movies but he always came off as concerned about the people. That's Superman at his core even if he's not sure about what to do. He cares. For all MOS's talk about making a more human superman if anything he comes off as more cold and alien. Shannon's Zod had more pbootyion. How fracked up is that?
Totally agreed.
Although I would say that compared to the Reeve films- Avengers lack that "saving" wow factor.
But compared to the Man Of Steel it is a slam dunk - its the Avengers all the way.
All we get in Man Of Steel is Jenny Olsen saying very flatly and without any real sense of emotion :"he saved us"
I'll take the fire fighter in SIII any day of the week:
"That man is a miracle!!"--said with far more sense of relief, emotion and amazement.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 23, 2015 12:31:53 GMT -5
Donner's version (and Singer's imo) of Superman is/are the most sentimental and humane. Sydney Furie had his heart in the right place, but there was too much going wrong for that ever to really come together. Lester does a certain type of movie great- but it wasn't what I was looking for- particularly in SII- where half of it was designed to be a certain way under a certain director who brought the giant success home with the first one. Lester might have been perfect for a Plastic Man movie, or a Shazam movie. If one looks at the beginning of SIII- Lester wants to emulate Charlie Chaplin and silent movie comedies. Donner wanted the romanticism and sentiment. Lester couldn't completely wipe out the romanticism and sentiment of SII- but darned if he didn't try. Lois is so unlikeable in SII- it kills me, though I know a lot of folks don't have that problem with SII. O well... IMHO :
I always considered Lois's character arc in SII a natural progression from STM.
I never found her annoying or unlikable.
She comes out pretty bluntly after just having been resurrected in STM:
"There is never a Man Of Steel around when you need one!" "Do you know what was happening to me while you were flying around!"
Not saying she is unlikable(in fact I love her in both flicks)
As I said in another post-Lester knew he had to imply or provide the impression of a timelag between the 2 movies.
I also think that he has better directing chops than Donner with regards to these more intimate /romantic/bittersweet interactions.
In terms of acting-I think lester coaxed very good performances from both Kidder and O'Toole that were conducive to the tone and context at hand.-In O'Toole's case it was the script that limited Lana Lang as a romantic character-not the directing.
I am not sure why the Newmans did not go with a situation where Lana was kidnapped by Webster and turned over to the super - computer--would have made for an interesting climax-Supes trying to retrieve Lana from the Comp-it would have increased the tension and the stakes. Could have even had a scene where maybe Lana suspects Clark is Supes--don't know--just throwing ideas out there
Superman movies are not about incestuous love and sex!
It has to be implied.
Just like in Empire Strikes Back.
I am not sure how Donner would have approached the Supes/Lois love scene in the fortress of solitude as originally scripted;
"Oh oh Superman!"
I think Mank thought he was still writing a Bond flick!
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 18, 2015 1:36:26 GMT -5
Salkinds were first and foremost businessmen. If Brando scenes and etc would've been better than sliced bread - they would've remained. Richard Lester did not decide everything for SII. If it was made the way it was it's because it worked best. And it does. One year or thirty years later is too late to remake the same movie with same actors - just to change tone. Fans want cgi, hidden footage from area 51 and I don't know what. Won't happen and if it did - prepare to be sorry. Just about ALL movies have alternate takes - that's because they do more than one take and use the best. The more money, the more time = the more takes. SII can be seen in 1001 different ways. A the end - the official Richard Lester cut will remain the best.
Gotta 100% agree with this.
When I first saw SupesII the emotional build up of when "beat up" Clark finds and picks up the green crystal in the FOS--and then that very quick cut away to NON staring at those ball bearings in the White House actually worked in the sense that I felt that we(as an audience) were not 100% sure if Supes had succeeded or not.
That was actually very clever editing.
Now I was only 7 at the time so maybe I was not clever or mature enough to comprehend that yeah Supes is gonna get his powers back!
Maybe an older person would have seen it differently at the time.
But I think that from the moment of that superb Reeve stare at the green crystal to the few minutes with Lex and the villains at the white house to the villains then arriving and trashing the DP the audience was held in a state of suspense(when and how and if Supes is coming back)---also the audience was getting well and truly riled up that the villains have been have been marching on un-opposed for the best part of an hour in the flick by this point--it is why people cheered and clapped when Supes flies onto the DP pole("general--would you care to step outside!")---basically audience relief that yes-he has got his powers back and he can finally take on these 3 seemingly unstoppable characters.
I think as a first time viewing experience-it worked perfectly--and in my opinion better than say when Tobey Maguire's Peter re-discovers his powers in Spidy 2 in 2004.--but then I was 30 when I saw that one ---had I seen Spidey 2 as a 7 year old maybe I would have interpreted it in the same manner as Supes II.
My opinion of course
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 18, 2015 1:09:28 GMT -5
supes81
You said it better than me--there are indeed 2 different timelines for 2 different narratives.
I think CAM is right to say Lois is more perky in STM-but that does fit with the spontaneity of having just met both Clark and Supes.
When Supes saves Lois in the Eiffel tower there is that quick look up from Lois(just before Supes says "mam I think this is your floor").
That Lois reaction under Lester matches the same spontaneity that you get from Lois in STM.
In fact she is so amazed she forgets about the bomb : "There is a b-b- bomb!!!!"
That moment got a great reaction/laughs when I saw Supes II in 1981(and again in 1982).
So I think Lester got that sense of urgency/spunkiness from Kidder--like when she shoves Loueen("the big one is just as strong as Superman!") out of the way in the Metropolis battle-- when it was needed--but he also managed to pull out those moments of contemplation(as when Lois is staring at the globe showing Australia-wondering if Supes will make it back ).
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 18, 2015 0:38:22 GMT -5
@atp
Cheers man--it's nice that you see it the same way -but you would be surprised by how many people don't consciously acknowledge it.
You are absolutely right about the reaction/dialogue by Supes to the victim-all those examples are top notch.
The smile that Reeve gives to Ricky after he says "that 's me!"-it's top drawer stuff--worth more than a thousand CGI cities being blown to bits!.
You have to have some affinity with the victim---no matter how peripheral they are to the overall story in order for "the save"(when it comes) to resonate.
That affinity is usually built up subtly and slowly(without the audience realising it).
Take the kids on the school bus(hardly central characters!) in STM-the editing never loses sight of the fact that they are in danger-we are introduced to them on the swaying bridge--you then have the collision and their perilous predicament as the Bus stays perched on the precipice.
In Man Of Steel I actually forgot that Lois(a central character!) was hanging on to the edge of the lowered bay door as Faoura threatens Melloni and his troops on the C130 cargo plane.
The camera (and the editing) are too concerned with showing how cool it is to see a Krpytonian bash the f**k out of everything at super speed-- you forget that Lois is in danger--it was only when she falls off after the C130 cargo plane crashes into the World Engine that you realize that she had been hanging all the while in the first place!
Dunno maybe I am being harsh but that is the way I see it.
Let me know what you think.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 17, 2015 12:55:56 GMT -5
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 17, 2015 12:25:48 GMT -5
In looking back at the first Avengers movie, it did bother me a bit that they didn't integrate the stuff with the bystanders a bit better in the final act. One of the better deleted scenes had Captain America try to save a family in a car that was being attacked by the aliens that was pretty intense and was a nice shortcut to give a feeling of what was at stake (and a much better scene I think than the one in the film that had Cap save the wall street people & the waitress). In thinking of how Man of Steel could have avoided all the criticisms regarding collateral damage, there seemed to be such easy fixes that it's annoying that would not have cost anything. In SII- it's almost a constant concern that is shown by Reeve's Superman. Just a look here or there was all that it could have taken. During the rooftop confrontation in SII, there's a second where Zod is about to throw the construction slab, and automatically, Reeve looks down (though to terribly shot footage of mildly uninterested bystanders) to see what affect might happen to the people of the street if he engages..... and, of course, there's the infamous, "NNNNNooooo.... the people!". Will be interesting to see the 'fixes' in the sequel...
If you look closely at the Reeve films(that includes SIV) you will notice that each saving "incident" has an almost rhythmic, poetic expression.
It starts with the victim(s) and their predicament-this build up can take minutes-It usually starts with slow editing:
Lois and the chopper arriving in STM.
The boy on the ledge of Niagra falls in SII.
Ricky and the Combine Harvesters in SIII.
You then have the "Incident":
The chopper getting tangled in STM.
The Boy falling off the ledge in SII.
Ricky being knocked unconscious in SIII(albeit off camera).
If the scene requires it-there is a substantial crowd reaction:
The people on 42nd st in STM
The people at Niagra who rush to the rails to watch the falling boy in SII.
Then there is the Clark to Superman change which usually involves a reaction for Clark to the predicament/situation at hand--don't underestimate the value of that quick look at a phone booth!---it is part of the rich tapestry of dramatic storytelling.:
Shirt rips open in STM.
Clark turning and running in the opposite direction to the crowd (who run to the rails) in SII.
Clark running and changing behind the wooden fence to save Ricky in SIII.
And then there is the "save".
Afterwards there is the reaction of not only the victim(to being saved) but the crowd's reaction too.
These are elements that are missing from most modern Super-hero flicks.
In Man Of Steel there is no build up at all to the oil riggers being trapped-Supes simply rips open the door to reveal the trapped riggers!
If you look closely at that Avengers climactic battle sequence there is not one direct scene of a Chitari threatening a civilian. It is simply an endless procession of stylistically executed set piece/fight scenes between the Chitari and the Avengers.
The one that you mention of Cap saving the waitress is not dissimilar to Supes saving the riggers-you only see the victims when the hero shows up!
IMHO this is one of the reasons why these flicks don't resonate-even if they impress stylistically.
On edit I think there is a brief clip of the waitress and her customers taking shelter when the Chitari 1st appear.
I think this topic is something that requires closer examination.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 17, 2015 11:18:04 GMT -5
Just got home from work and watched both trailers(Star Wars and Dawn Of Justice)
You are right-releasing them on the same day is a weird move!
Regarding DOJ:
It is difficult to tell given the lack of quality of the footage(taken from some-one's phone I assume)
Looks dark!!
My personal problem with modern fantasy flicks is that there is no real sense of size. Man Of Steel felt like a couple of actors in front of a green screen-ditto for Star Trek-Into Darkness.
This trailer is giving me that same feeling(the Force Awakens trailer did too)of what I like to call "false epic size" .
Basically- the grander the scale(think Lord Of The Rings CGI armies of 1000s) - the smaller the components(50- 100 extras in front of blue/green screen) needed to make it!
Remember when Donner shut down half of 42nd street just to film peoples reaction to a trapped chopper! It gave that scene a sense of epic realism.
Nowadays it would be filmed with a few extras against a green screen--the extras would then be duplicated many times over(via CGI) to give the impression of a larger crowd(digital or CG people would then be added too) - and voila!-that is how it is done these days-
Just watched Divergent for the first time a few weeks ago and you could tell that the crowds were CG duplicates or just CG!
I will take the old school style of film making any day of the week.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 15, 2015 7:15:28 GMT -5
Woulda been funny if Zod bursted in the office Kool-Aid man style. Clark and Lois just stare at him blankly and Zod slowly backs away in shame. Also did anyone assume that the DP magic kiss scene occurred at night time? I still see the scene today and picture it at night even thought Clark mentions it's 9AM. Probably because so many of the previous scenes were at night and we don't get an establishing day shot. It's funny how a child's mind works though. When I first saw the SIII slapstick intro I thought it was awesome that I was seeing the streets of Metropolis after the Zod battle and had assumed that the road marker guy was fixing the street that was damaged after the battle. Interesting how you conflated SIII's intro with SII's climax--I think you were doing a fan cut before there were fan cuts-lol
I think it is only the fact that Clark mentions it is 9am that sells that scene as taking place in the morning-otherwise it could be mistaken for having taken place at night.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 15, 2015 7:07:40 GMT -5
The Lester final DP exchange between Clark and Lois is a combination of the Donner "just outside the fortress of solitude" + "the balcony" + "the DP after the world has been turned back" scenes.
I think Lester synthesised all the best elements of those 3 Donner scenes and condensed it down into a more emotionally resonant scene(albeit with a cheaper looking set).
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 14, 2015 13:59:31 GMT -5
I never thought about this before, but Lesters two scenes in Lois' office really mirror each other in a very clever way. In the first scene (orange squeezing), Lois in in control. In the second scene (break up), Clark is in control. In the first scene, Lois consoles Clark by saying he has so much going for him. In the second, Clark consoles Lois by saying that some day she will meet someone. In the first scene, Lois tells Clark she cares. In the second, Clark tells Lois he likes worrying about her. In the first scene, Lois friendzones Clark. In the second, he friendzones her. In the first scene, Lois accuses Clark of being jealous. In the second, she admits she is jealous.
Wow- I never noticed this "mirroring" in 34 long years of this movie-very well spotted-I wonder whether it was intentionally scripted that way or if it is an unintended side product(of the script).
I always regarded that final DP scene in Lester's SII as a sort of release valve to deflate the audience for the preceding 2 hours of dramatic tension.
I said in a previous post that when I saw STM and SII back to back - that I did not want SII to end- that DP scene sticks in my mind in the sense that during that first viewing-I was expecting Zod to burst back through the DP walls and disrupt Lois's and Clarks discreet moment together--lol---hey- I was 7 years old-I did not quite get the concept that the movie really was coming to an end.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 14, 2015 6:59:05 GMT -5
@crazy_asian_man
You make good points about Kidder's performance as Lois although I find that under Lester, it is calibrated to fit with the narrative as told in theatrical SII-remember by this point in the story it is implied that Clark and Lois have known each other for a while(maybe a couple of years)-In STM she seemed quite dismissive of Clark which suited that particular narrative of having just met--hence her more "balsy" attitude to Clark(as told by Kidder herself) -by SII(according to Lester)on the other hand she seems to accept Clark for what he is (whilst still dishing out some advice(as in the squeezing Orange scene at the DP) but ultimately warming up to him--- "what are friends for"--- I thought this was quite touching.
|
|