Superman Returns

[Metallo]

High Noon cost UNDER $ 1 million in the 50s and made over twelve times that back at the box office. Even a much bigger film like The Searchers cost under $4 million. That's how you make GOOD westerns that can also turn a profit.

Shit like Lone Ranger and Jonah Hex show the worst possible ways to go about it.

[EnriqueH]

The Western has been dying out, but if you make a good one, the audience will come. True Grit and Django prove that.

As an 80s kid, I can remember my friends and I talking about Young Guns, which was pretty entertaining and had sincere, solid performances by an able young cast.

Shit, that Red Dead Redemption video game was a success if I recall.

[Deleted]

Wasn't that Hatfield and McCoys special very watched and well reviewed?

The Western will never die. Just when it seems like it's gone and done, something comes along and brings it back. Open Range ruled! Right? Is that that one? With Costner and Duvall?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[Metallo]

Well for one thing that was a well known American feud. Even if people knew nothing about it it had name recognition. The tv format helped that too. It's been much easier to make Westerns must watch tv. Look at Lonesome Dove. Huge hit even though Westerns were dying off in the 80s. People are more willing to sit at home a few nights and watch something like that than to go out to the theater. That requires more incentive especially with the BS and the costs one has to go through sometimes.

Aug 2, 2013 13:05:46 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

The Western has been dying out, but if you make a good one, the audience will come. True Grit and Django prove that.

As an 80s kid, I can remember my friends and I talking about Young Guns, which was pretty entertaining and had sincere, solid performances by an able young cast.

Shit, that Red Dead Redemption video game was a success if I recall.

Tarantinos name immediately sold Django. Then he made a film good enough that people came back. Not all westerns have a built in audience like that. True Grit once again had the Coens name value. Not to mention it was the second crack at a book that had already been adapted as one of The Dukes most well know and successful works. True Grit wasn't a totally unknown property. Even the re adaptation was made modestly compared to most Hollywood movies.

Westerns can be hits but they depend on a mix of quality and conservative spending. They aren't going to have as much mainstream appeal as most other Hollywood output. Even some the greatest westerns of all time weren't blockbusters as we think of them today. But they had long term appeal.

When Hollywood tried to turn westerns into mainstream schlock THEN they've fucked up from the word go and dig themselves into a deeper financial hole.

[Jor-L5150]

Aug 2, 2013 13:28:38 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

Wasn't that Hatfield and McCoys special very watched and well reviewed?

The Western will never die. Just when it seems like it's gone and done, something comes along and brings it back. Open Range ruled! Right? Is that that one? With Costner and Duvall?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

hatfields vs mccoys is EXCELLENT. highest possible recommendation.

Open Range was mixed, its a duvall vehicle, and he is superb, but costner was directing AND acting in a support- he was very flat and wooden, sometimes awkward. worth watching though.

[Metallo]

Costners often flat and boring! Sometime it works and sometimes it doesn't. Hatfield's and McCoy's had a great overall cast and a strong universal story to play with.

Duvall also did the Broken Trail miniseries.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2013 13:28:38 GMT -5 @ucfkevin said:

Wasn't that Hatfield and McCoys special very watched and well reviewed?

The Western will never die. Just when it seems like it's gone and done, something comes along and brings it back. Open Range ruled! Right? Is that that one? With Costner and Duvall?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

"Open Range" and "3:10 to Yuma" and "True Grit" were the best Westerns of the 2000s ... not that there were a hundred made during the decade or anything. But they're damn good cowboy movies. I love a good cowboy movie.

[Jimbo]

I've heard great things about Open Range. I've seen the other two, and enjoy them.

There's been what, a dozen good Westerns since 1980?

[Metallo]

On the big screen? A dozen really fantastic ones maybe. If that. 3:10 was another remake. The Glen Ford original was already a classic. There have been quite a few that were alright but not what I'd call excellent films.

I think the quality of the western as a genre may have peaked in the 60s but I guess that's debatable.

For one thing I think there are fewer mans man types around now compared to then. Many of the ones that are still around now are getting older. I don't look out there and see a heck of a lot of Lee Marvin's or Lee Van Cleefs or Gary Coopers. There aren't many Newmans or Ladds or Brynners. The kinds of actors closest to that that are around now and in their prime are almost all foreign actors.

[Deleted]

I could see Bryan Cranston making a fantastic, gritty, gunfighter of a cowboy.

[Metallo]

I'd also like to see Bryan Cranston as the next Jim Gordon. I've been planning on watching the Batman Year One Animated film again just for his work in it.

[Jor-L5150]

Aug 2, 2013 15:25:03 GMT -5 Metallo said:

On the big screen? A dozen really fantastic ones maybe. If that. 3:10 was another remake. The Glen Ford original was already a classic. There have been quite a few that were alright but not what I'd call excellent films.

I think the quality of the western as a genre may have peaked in the 60s but I guess that's debatable.

For one thing I think there are fewer mans man types around now compared to then. Many of the ones that are still around now are getting older. I don't look out there and see a heck of a lot of Lee Marvin's or Lee Van Cleefs or Gary Coopers. There aren't many Newmans or Ladds or Brynners. The kinds of actors closest to that that are around now and in their prime are almost all foreign actors.

yeah. the sex symbol now are twerps like the vampire in twatlight. no ones buying that as a cowbboy hero.

Aug 2, 2013 16:12:23 GMT -5 @bamabrad said:

I could see Bryan Cranston making a fantastic, gritty, gunfighter of a cowboy.

oh yeah. he could do that with cred to spare.

Aug 2, 2013 14:49:47 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

I've heard great things about Open Range. I've seen the other two, and enjoy them.

There's been what, a dozen good Westerns since 1980?

open range is good. duvall is perfect (as usual) but costner is weak.

did you see "hatfields and mccoys" ?

[EnriqueH]

I recently saw Open Range for the first time and LOVED it.

I saw it because of Duvall, and he is perfect as usual, but you know what's funny? I actually loved Costner in the film as well, and I haven't always said that about Costner. In fact, part of the reason I softened up on his casting in MOS was because I had just seen Open Range.

[Metallo]

I think Costners blandness works for him in some roles. Especially in period films like Westerns. That's why I thought he was a good pick to play a simple salt of the earth man like Pa Kent. I didn't remember being to impressed with him in Wyatt Earp though. Maybe I need to give that a rewatch.

For some reason he works for me in Waterworld too. Maybe because the Mariner is supposed to be this odd stoic loner. He's not my favorite Robin Hood but he sure isn't the worst either.

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, I'm hit and cold on his films.

Liked him in:

Untouchables
Dances With Wolves
The Bodyguard
Perfect World
Open Range
The Postman (believe it or not)
Bull Durham
The New Daughter (he was fine; movie sucked big time)
MOS (his death was mishandled IMO)

Indifferent:

Revenge
Wyatt Earp
Waterworld (film itself was entertaining as I recall)
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (film itself was entertaining)
JFK (film was good)
No Way Out
Field of Dreams (film was entertaining)
3000 Miles to Graceland (enjoyed the film)

Lately, though, I feel like I've finally warmed up to him after years of ragging on the guy.

[crazy_asian_man]

Costner in the beginning I think was as smart as Swarzennegar, Ford, and Cruise in picking his films.

Only later on, did I feel he was taking on more than he could handle (Postman/ Waterworld)--- and then saw his career kind of stumble.

Hasn't aged the worst, but not the best, either, sadly...

[Metallo]

I think for a while he did to go for things that were beyond him in the action hero arena. He worked as Ness in Untouchables because it was DePalmas stylized world and he was playing a white hat family man kind of guy. Connery was the savvy street smart experienced mentor. They played well off each other. Costner was no Robert Stack but he fit what DePalma was doing.

I think Robin Hood Prince of Thieves wasnt quite his thing either but the whole movie was so entertaining that his miscasting wasnt as noticable and he did well enough. He had a top cast supporting him and helping carry the slack.

Some of the movies he's in actually elevate him instead of it being the other way around.

[crazy_asian_man]

I think for a while he did to go for things that were beyond him in the action hero arena. He worked as Ness in Untouchables because it was DePalmas stylized world and he was playing a white hat family man kind of guy. Connery was the savvy street smart experienced mentor. They played well off each other. Costner was no Robert Stack but he fit what DePalma was doing.

I think Robin Hood Prince of Thieves wasnt quite his thing either but the whole movie was so entertaining that his miscasting wasnt as noticable and he did well enough. He had a top cast supporting him and helping carry the slack.

Some of the movies he's in actually elevate him instead of it being the other way around.

That's definitely possible. I think the smart actor knows his 'niche' and chooses roles that play up to it... which is what I think Costner did initially. Love or hate Cruise, I give that guy credit for choosing roles that fit him best- for the most part. (If he didn't, I don't think he'd still be around.)

Costner is no DeNiro, he's no chameleon. But he has this particular set of gifts that he brings to the screen.
Snyder may have made some mistakes in MOS, but casting Costner ended up being a smart move.

I just wish he would have had Costner take over as director. The more time passes, the more I realize what an amazing film "Dances with Wolves" is. (I thought it highly overrated when it first came out).

[Deleted]

Costner can do romantic-comedy sports movies well. I love "Tin Cup."

[crazy_asian_man]

Costner can do romantic-comedy sports movies well. I love "Tin Cup."

"Tin Cup" was amazing. I never thought I'd be into a movie about golf!
(Though, on another note, I wished at the time they had kept the original casting of Costner/Dennis Quaid)

[Metallo]

Aug 5, 2013 22:28:10 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I think for a while he did to go for things that were beyond him in the action hero arena. He worked as Ness in Untouchables because it was DePalmas stylized world and he was playing a white hat family man kind of guy. Connery was the savvy street smart experienced mentor. They played well off each other. Costner was no Robert Stack but he fit what DePalma was doing.

I think Robin Hood Prince of Thieves wasnt quite his thing either but the whole movie was so entertaining that his miscasting wasnt as noticable and he did well enough. He had a top cast supporting him and helping carry the slack.

Some of the movies he's in actually elevate him instead of it being the other way around.

That's definitely possible. I think the smart actor knows his 'niche' and chooses roles that play up to it... which is what I think Costner did initially. Love or hate Cruise, I give that guy credit for choosing roles that fit him best- for the most part. (If he didn't, I don't think he'd still be around.)

Costner is no DeNiro, he's no chameleon. But he has this particular set of gifts that he brings to the screen.
Snyder may have made some mistakes in MOS, but casting Costner ended up being a smart move.

I just wish he would have had Costner take over as director. The more time passes, the more I realize what an amazing film "Dances with Wolves" is. (I thought it highly overrated when it first came out).

My issue with him was never that he wasn't a chameleon. He's just kind of flat as an actor. Somebody mentioned JFK and that's another one where they presented his Jim Garrison as the good hearted family man. I have no idea if the real Garrison was so noble but they were trying to make it something that would fit Stones fictional world and Costner. I think the movie could have been even better with a stronger lead anchoring it. Costners got his own particular appeal and sometimes it works. I also thought he was great in A Perfect World.

[atp]

In hindsight, would you have preferred to have MoS or SR2?

I kind of wish someone would raise the money and make SR2 with Routh. A kind of rival movie, like NSNA.

[Metallo]

The only way that would have happen is if another party had a big enough piece of the film rights to make a rival movie. Maybe if the Siegel heirs had gotten what they wanted in court. Rouths best bet to get back into the role ASAP in some form is animation. Of course if Arrow isn't part of WBs DC shared film universe it would be cool if the Arrow producers got Routh to do a cameo as Superman or Kent. Maybe he could lead the Arrow version of the Justice League. I'd rather they did that than cast yet another Superman.

As for the choice? I'd rather have seen a SR2. What we got with MOS was a bunch of past ideas mashed together. IF Singer had used Brainiac he would have been forced to bring something new to the cinematic Superman table. In hindsight they should have taken a risk. They might be farther ahead than they are now. Star Trek II corrected the issues with TMP and that meant going back and doing hard work instead of starting from scratch. But it worked. Plus Singers already shown he can make a superior superhero sequel so I wouldn't have counted him out yet. Lots of things led to MOS. Some of them were Singers fault on choices he made even after SR was released. Other things were beyond his control. Like Dark Knight making over a billion dollars. Id imagine WB looked at Nolan then back at Superman after he and Goyer made their pitch and had immediate dollar signs in their eyes.

[Deleted]

I'd like to see SR2. Besides changing the Lois/Clark dynamic, what new ground did MoS break? Dropping the trunks? Minor detail. No stupid curl? Please. Yeah, I wanted a new take on Superman, but we got more of the same in a lot of ways. I'm hoping it was due to a case of origin-itis.

[crazy_asian_man]

I'd like to see SR2. Besides changing the Lois/Clark dynamic, what new ground did MoS break? Dropping the trunks? Minor detail. No stupid curl? Please. Yeah, I wanted a new take on Superman, but we got more of the same in a lot of ways. I'm hoping it was due to a case of origin-itis.

I think they did break new ground- but in ways that were LESS interesting, overall, from a story point of view. It's far less of a fairy tale, it's more cynical and dark.

I give it credit for feeling like a new experience- some of the visual choices that Zack Snyder made I actually agree with- but character-wise, we now have a Superman that grows up more distrustful than naive- he bends more towards Wolverine than Christ in this version.

The Lois/Clark dynamic isn't just different (it's closer to Smallville's take on it, but with less joy), it's flat. Lois may have been a bit of a sitcom character in the comics of the past/Donner's version--- (carried over to Lois&Clakr and Smallville), but designing her as this slightly wacko but fun zealous reporter
made her balance out Clark/Supes' rather quiet 'good guy' personality.

Like Kevin said, Clark/Supes doesn't quip. I'd go further and say Clark/Supes also goes out of his way to blend into the background, and, thus, maybe seem boring. Clark/Supes is not the all-star sports jock (something I think was a flat out dumb choice by the Smallville tv show), he's had to sit on the sidelines and keep a lot of who he is/was under wraps ever since he knew he was different, not calling too much attention to himself.

The cosmetic stuff (no trunks, no curl) turned out to be minor. I think Cavill works fine if we can't have Routh, but it's the character changes that irritated.

Now, if you had to go with the 'mankind isn't ready yet' route--- then, it MIGHT have felt stronger (or justifiable) if there was actually a personal journey that we could really see.

As far as characterization goes- It was also thin in STM, to be fair, but there was enough to suggest why he turned out the way he did.
A few scenes did a great job of compression-

#1- Clark being humiliated in high school by Brad, Lana interested in Clark
#2- Joy of racing the train, exploring his powers and abilities on his own
#3- Opening up to his dad about his troubles, and a hint of what that whole relationship has been like, over a lifetime
#4- 'All those Powers and I couldn't even save him' scene
#5- Leaving home

There's pain and angst, but there's also warmth to these scenes as well, making Clark very relatable

Compared to MOS:

#1- Clark hearing too much at once
#2- Clark saving the bus/Jonathan saying maybe he should have let them die
#3- Clark being bullied at school
#4- Clark saying, 'you're not my father'/
#5- Jonathan Kent being pulled away by the tornado.


With STM- you empathized with Clark's character--- and really saw how Jonathan and Martha were at the core of Clark's goodness and insistence that he was here to find out how he could help contribute/ be part of the world.

With MOS- Clark's beaten up far worse all of his life worse than the physical beating he got in SR!

The parents seem overprotective, but Smallville seems like such a heckhole that he might as well have landed in a jungle!
The scene with Clark hearing too much at once and being comforted by his mom wasn't bad, but the tone that one gets overall from watching Clark's life feels more like: 'why SHOULD he help humanity?' rather than seeing factors
that you can see point Clark in that direction in STM.

There's a hint of a counterbalance with Pete Ross offering his hand (presumably a start of a friendship), but, sadly, the opportunity to use this element of the story isn't played up at all.
If it had, perhaps we would also have gotten to see how Clark saw the good aspects of humanity, as well.... but- if you look at the giant body of Goyer's work, those kinds of scenes are something that's constantly lacking in his scripts.

SR had a lot of heart, but was a downer for a segment of fans.

MOS, the more I think on it, really does fall in line with Goyer's other works.... and Snyder's as well.
Some great ideas, but the weaknesses of both Goyer and Snyder made things worse rather than better.

It's too bad. I really do put this in line with SIV--- I think there was promise, and I will rewatch bits I like, but it's not a character I really recognize anymore. Maybe MOS 2/Batman 8 will resolve a lot of it.... maybe an extended fixes the things I have issues with , just have to wait until these come out....