Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2012 19:14:20 GMT -5
I think Howard is way overrated as Rhodes. He has two good moments, when he gets drunk and "Next time, baby."
I'm very happy with how Cheadle did, after he becomes War Machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 29, 2012 19:17:01 GMT -5
I think it's EXTREMELY rare to find a director that doesn't second-guess himself after the fact. Ridley Scott caved into an audience preview of "Blade Runner" and then AGREED to a voiceover by Harrison Ford (although he ended up not being in charge of the voiceover, to his dread); look at the multiple cuts by Oliver Stone on "Alexander"; and numerous times on commentaries by different directors,you'll hear about a particular sequence being in, then decided out, over and over again. And.... Singer in that interview I think you're referencing DOES say that he's proud of what he did in SR; just that if he had to do it over again, he might have done it differently- but that doesn't necessarily mean that he regretted doing the film a particular way, but that maybe he had different approaches he could have taken, and given the reaction to it, maybe the other approach would have been just as good, but different. Mav, in your words, EXACTLY. Could not agree more, and shame on Marvel on for getting greedy and screwing up their own product. Well said, eccentricbeing. The first time I saw STM, loved the overall experience- especially with the crowd excitement, but always hated the bumps in the film, even from the getgo. (Time reversal, Luthor/Otis silliness) Over time, the bumps were ok, and focused on the scenes I loved even more. Same with SII.... SR not as many bumps, but still a few imo. SIII and SIV were actually easier to deal with, because I had more/less given up hope that these were going to be good films five minutes into both of them.  Metallo, Agree, but I don't blame Rourke necessarily-Rourke talks pretty openly about how they shot some great character stuff for his villain, but blames Favreau for not having the balls to stand up to Marvel studios for cutting the extra character stuff out, particularly dialogue to Stark at the end. (Wonder why the deleted bits weren't on the bluray) Pity. I love the film until slightly after Mickey Rourke gets captured. Then, I think they really go off-target. (Why exactly did we need the Black Widow in this film??? And why did Scarlet look great but sound so terrible as BW?) Agreed.... I think someone also mentioned the poor situation with the Robocop series as well- I didn't think the second one was too violent, just a bad script that didn't focus enough on the human aspects of Robo and too much on the satire/horror elements. (At the time, I thought it odd that Frank Miller could do a bad script, based on his comics' work at the time.... until the Spirit film, that is) Tyler, the Lethal Weapon series I think shows how well Donner would have done a movie series.... although #4 admittedly was slapped together fast to fit into Mel's schedule.....(*although just seeing Mel and Glover do their schtick together is still a lot of fun, and it allows Mel to show off his charm when he was young and not so insane) and I kinda doubt Mel will ever be asked to do Lethal Weapon #5 at this stage of his career....*sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Apr 29, 2012 19:25:44 GMT -5
Tyler, the Lethal Weapon series I think shows how well Donner would have done a movie series.. Ya know it's funny. On this Sylvestor Stallone message board I frequent, there's always talk about who should direct Sly's movies if Sly isn't in the director's chair. In the case for the new Expendables movie coming out this summer, we have Simon West directing. Simon West directed "Con Air". A decent 90's action film IMO. When we discuss what other director's would be good for Expendables 3 (and believe me when I say there WILL be a 3rd) everyone is always quick to say John McTiernan (Predator and Die Hard), Paul Veerhoven (Robocop and Total Recall), or of course, James Cameron. However, I always make a point to tell those guys to go re-watch the first 3 Lethal Weapon movies. Donner knows how to direct an action movie. And after watching Lethal Weapon 3 last night, I'm more sure of it now than ever. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,050
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 29, 2012 20:26:57 GMT -5
Metallo, Agree, but I don't blame Rourke necessarily-Rourke talks pretty openly about how they shot some great character stuff for his villain, but blames Favreau for not having the balls to stand up to Marvel studios for cutting the extra character stuff out, particularly dialogue to Stark at the end. (Wonder why the deleted bits weren't on the bluray) Pity. I love the film until slightly after Mickey Rourke gets captured. Then, I think they really go off-target. (Why exactly did we need the Black Widow in this film??? And why did Scarlet look great but sound so terrible as BW?) Nah I don't blame Rourke at all. He was fine. It was the damn movie they put him in. Its so obvious they rushed it and didn't have much of a script. Marvel had their priorities and they weren't willing to give Favreau the time and control he needed to make the movie the way he wanted too. As for Black Widow I think one of the early choices, Emily Blunt, might have been better. Scarlet isn't terrible but she doesn't impress the heck out of me either. At least she looks hotter in The Avengers. I think its the new hairstyle. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 30, 2012 0:03:30 GMT -5
On Emily Blunt: DEFINITELY. Soon as I found out that she was the first choice, I checked out a movie she was in at the theatres (it was one with Tom Hanks' son- forgot the title) at the time mainly out of curiosity as to who was first choice--- and as soon as I saw her onscreen, physically, she looked EXACTLY as I pictured the Black Widow to look like--- and then in finding out how many different types of pictures she'd been in, she's a FAR better actress than Scarlett.
Scarlett I don't mind.... in other films, but she's almost exactly the same in every film- I was willing to give her a chance (she did look good as Black Widow in Iron Man 2, but that's it), but Black Widow in the early comix had her as a mysterious Russian woman who you didn't want to mess with....and Scarlett doesn't give off that vibe, she seems more like a pretty gal that you might run into somewhere, but not a mysterious enigma with multiple layers. Emily Blunt can carry off accents, but it seemed like Scarlett didn't even try (or else it turned out sounding like Halle Berry in Xmen 1) or dumped the accent.
Such a pity. Black Widow is one of the great female heroines in the Marvel Universe, and while it's not quite as bad as Jessica Alba in Fantastic Four- (who didn't even look the part), but everytime the character spoke, I just heard Scarlett Johansen's voice, not the Black Widow's. Oh well....
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 2, 2012 11:49:53 GMT -5
^I haven't seen Iron Man 2 or Avengers, but Scarlett really sticks out like a sort thumb in this role. Or so it seems to me. She's like too cute, girly and fragile. Now back on the SR topic....   |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on May 2, 2012 16:59:14 GMT -5
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on May 2, 2012 19:09:50 GMT -5
Ya know it's funny. On this Sylvestor Stallone message board I frequent, there's always talk about who should direct Sly's movies if Sly isn't in the director's chair.... What happened to Donner's Assassins? Dreadful, dreadful script. Where TF was Mank when Donner needed him? |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on May 2, 2012 19:11:46 GMT -5
So true ;D
|
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on May 2, 2012 20:09:19 GMT -5
^I haven't seen Iron Man 2 or Avengers, but Scarlett really sticks out like a sort thumb in this role. Or so it seems to me. She's like too cute, girly and fragile. Now back on the SR topic.... I don't have facts to back this up, but The Avengers is going to be terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 2, 2012 20:26:03 GMT -5
I think it's the quantity of responses and language sometimes used in your posts that make it sound like there's an agenda, when there's something positive posted about SR in this particular thread... but as I've said in another post, the internet is totally open to miscommunication, I know I've misread intents (or read things too quickly) and had knee-jerk responses that I've retracted or taken back, so everything at this point I take a bit slower before reacting.
I know by now that you didn't hate the film- and that you did view it numerous times, but the posts that detailed more specifically why you disliked were more interesting to me than the short quips & I appreciated the more detailed reasons why.
I think it's that the story was not FINISHED that SR fans (at least I am) super-sensitive to criticisms about the film- moreso the intent when it's dismissed as 'just a ripoff' (not that you have, you said that you thought its heart was in the right place, but misguided) or that Singer was lazy..... I thought (and still do) that a reboot is far easier than trying to adopt and integrate what was there 30 years ago.
Anyhow.... that's my two cents, and why I think (personally) SR fans like myself get touchy on the subject of SR and feel it underappreciated--- and probably even more bothered that fan reaction might have been the tipping point for it not to get a sequel...
(Although, admittedly, it's really hard to know for SURE what went on behind closed doors at WB.... we probably never will hear beyond the polite 'official' statements by Singer and WB as to why one day there's a report there's a greenlight, then another day, it's called a disappointment and no greenlight. We can speculate (and have) forever, but we'll probably never really know the real truth until nobody's career is at stake or still active until decades from now, I bet--- much like we didn't get a lot of the points of view of Donner's firing until years and years later. *sigh*).
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 2, 2012 20:31:10 GMT -5
Agreed.... the worst part being the ending, though! I've said it before--- if you look at the bulk of Donner's films, oftentimes he'll put on a happy ending at the end that oftentimes compromises everything that came before it.... "Maverick", "Radio Flyer", and yeah....even STM....
(*It doesn't necessarily destroy those films mentioned, of course, but compromise what it could have been? - definitely.)
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 30, 2012 9:05:47 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts related to SR came up after seeing the Dark Knight Returns:
#1: Oddly, almost EVERYTHING that fans complained about (except for the hero having a son and the lead actress being too young) Superman Returns, I thought was mainly wrong with TDKR-
(1) that the hero was depressed/passive for almost the whole film-
(2) that there was very little of the hero onscreen being powerful-
Anyhow, first thoughts coming from the theatre was thinking about all the complaints lodged against SR- and how I thought it funny how I agreed.....for TDKR, but in SR's case, I thought it still worked ok because of how it all came together.
And....
Given how much I was 'certain' that Nolan and company wouldn't disappoint with a sequel---- now I retract what I said in posts earlier that there's no way that a Singer sequel to SR would only be fantastic-
If Nolan & company can disappoint, then I guess ANYONE can disappoint. Pity.
And, yeah, I can kinda feel what the SR fans were feeling in TDKR about the hero being depressed over a girl the whole movie. But I just thought the story was different enough that it fit- but, still, I think I now get the disappointment of seeing a hero for two hours plus being melancholy when you want him out there kicking butt. I get it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 10:00:13 GMT -5
DKR wasn't the first time we had seen Batman on the silver screen for almost two decades. Superman Returns wasn't the pay off to a true actual trilogy. The problems you listed with SR work in DKR. I think, anyhow.
I watched SR the other week. I really like it. A LOT. There are so many problems with it but the good outweighs the bad.
The problem with SR is, ENTIRELY, Kate Bosworth. If the movie had a better, stronger female lead, it would've changed the dynamic of the movie completely. She is a miserable cunt in this movie through out. I'm sure she was directed to be that, maybe, but godDAMN. She grinds this film to a halt. She's terrible. Absolutely terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Jul 30, 2012 10:03:24 GMT -5
Cam,
Nonsense. Bruce mentions Rachel's name ONCE in DKR. That's it. The rest of the time, he's either being overconfident (and hence, getting his ass-kicked) or he's fighting his way back. And in between, we get the destruction/overthrow of an entire city, and two costumed villains.
There is ZERO ground for comparison between Bruce's portrayal in DKR and Clark's constant longing/gazing/spying at Lois in SR, which eclipses the roughly ten minutes of actual Superman action in the film.
I mean, if you don't like DKR, that's totally understandable. But the SR comparison is bogus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 10:14:10 GMT -5
Read some guys break down of SR the other day and when you see it laid out its alarming how much they copied the structure of STM. That was all part of the problem, and partly why I'm actually quite thrilled MOS will be going in its own direction without any prior films attached to it
anyway this was it
-Farm
-Superman lands
-Lois aircraft rescue
-Introduced to the world(with rescue)
-Lex Schemes with corny henchmen
-Lois and Superman fly around night sky(accept in STM superman conveys emotion)
...
skip to end where Superman finally meets the villain(really dumb way to do things(especailly in a remake ugh)).
-Lex explains plan to confident superman
-Kryptonite disables superman
-toss in water
-all hope lost
-Lex's hench woman has a change of heart
-Superman saved by woman in water(role reversal)
-Super feet against overwhelming inanimate objects.(of course stm added more exciting elements such as rescues and time reversal).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,050
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 30, 2012 10:20:32 GMT -5
One problem with SR is it made for a better "ending" than a "new beginning." In that sense it makes for a pretty good mirror/double feature with TDKR but it doesn't work the way a restart should.
TDKR works better though because it has more action. SR has humor but I think TDKR has more humor or at least less awkward humor.
Rachel's presence is felt at various points of the film but it never gets TOO heavy and a lot of the time its not even about her at all. If anyone is the burden everyone carries its Harvey Dent not Rachel Dawes.
Its too bad Singer didn't do HIS STM/SII first THEN cap it off with SR. They didn't even have to be origins if he wanted to keep the "vague history" of the Donner films just stories still set early in Superman's career.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Jul 30, 2012 10:37:27 GMT -5
Yeah, this is pretty much it.
You don't wait 20 years for a Superman movie to get Superman Returns.
TDKR, flawed as it was (IMO), was a consistent end to an already dark story.
Not a rip off of part 1 of the series
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,050
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 30, 2012 10:58:33 GMT -5
Yeah, this is pretty much it. You don't wait 20 years for a Superman movie to get Superman Returns. TDKR, flawed as it was (IMO), was a consistent end to an already dark story. Not a rip off of part 1 of the seriesMOS will be covering some of that. And a part II thrown in. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 30, 2012 11:20:19 GMT -5
The mirroring is 'rough'- not all that precise between SR/TDKR- but when I thought over and over when some fans complain about Supes' passitivity/helplessness in SR- I wasn't bugged by it in SR, but was REALLY bugged by it in TDKR... the mischaracterization I don't think is JUST with Rachel- but the idea that Batman lounged around decaying for 8 years (primarily from) the loss of Rachel was bad enough, to imply that it also was because all organized crime got wiped out (how unbelievable is that?) was even worse imo. Also the degree of overconfidence and letting himself pull the same mistakes as Apollo Creed in Rocky 4 felt wrong to me--- It didn't feel right for the character imo- (not to mention a lot of other things that felt WAY off to me that I don't feel Bruce/Bats would do), and took away from the feeling of realism Nolan infused TDK with.
The other half of Batman's underwhelming action in TDKR for me was the 'doctor visit'--- I didn't mind Batman getting his arse handed to him by Bane- but it would have had FAR more impact if Bane kicked his butt with Batman/Bruce still being at the top of his game. While Rachel might not have been TOTALLY at the center of Batman's 'I'm in retirement and destroying my own riches' mood--- the idea of Batman/Bruce being an empty sheck spiritually for years took a LOT of energy out of the film for me. And I felt like it was one of MANY bad choices Nolan made for it.... but, again, I only compare it roughly to SR because of the complaints I'd heard about SR's energy felt applicable here in TDKR.
It's a rough comparison- it's not exact--- And it's just something that occupied my mind... primarily the energy levels and forming criticisms about the movie that I suddenly thought, "Hey, that's almost EXACTLY what people were pissed about in SR".
(And why I posted that thought here, versus a TDKR thread...).
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 30, 2012 11:34:58 GMT -5
I could see that....but, on the other hand, I could see how it built up supporting characters that COULD be killed off for sequels and it would have an impact (Perry's nephew/ Supes' son/ maybe even Hubbard was a candidate to be a Star Trek 'red shirt' character for part II...)
We usually see eye to eye, but here I disagree.... SR I thought primarilly was a unique bittersweet love story/character story that I felt knit together tight enough. TDKR I thought got the main character making choices that I thought totally went against the character as I saw him.... and I admired the ideas of the whole, but thought SR was far more polished in execution (But then again, Spiderman 3 and Superman 3 I thought were more polished in execution, so that's not that big of a compliment)...
I don't mind heavy, but I do mind if it makes the character do something I think is just 'off' from the characters. ( I thought the argument over the burned letter between Alfred and Bruce was just dead wrong- it gave far too much weight to Bruce's feelings for Rachel- and the idea that there's more Bruce than Batman--- in Batman Begins, I thought it correct when Rachel says that Bruce is the mask, not Batman- here it was a bit of a reversal--- I might be able to more believe Bruce letting himself rot over Catwoman's death, as she's been presented as the odd 'love of his life', but Rachel Dawes? Not so much..)
In retrospect, I very much agree! Oh well.....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,050
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 30, 2012 11:37:42 GMT -5
Knowles review was awful though. he paid no attention to the film. Rachel's death demoralized Wayne but it was one of MANY reasons why the Batman disappeared and certainly not THE main one.
1. He was suffering from the physical wear and tear that came with being Batman and specifically dealing with some debilitating injuries from the end of The Dark Knight.
2. Batman took the fall for Dent and because of that he had so much "heat" on him that he'd never be able to operate as Batman at a significant level. The police would be after him so doggedly that he'd never get anything done.
3. The Dent act cleaned up Gotham City's crime problem to the point that Batman was unnecessary. Organized crime in Gotham was CRIPPLED. THAT is what was rotting the city at the core and something the few good cops and officials had a harder time fixing. The sheer amount of corruption ran through the veins of city government like bad blood.
After the Dent act there was little more than petty street crime and the cops could easily deal with that.
Once Batman was needed again Rachel's death didn't stop him. If anything it was Rachel that gave him a reason to want a normal life AFTER Batman. Now he didn't see any reason to hang up the cape and cowl.
I agree with some of what you're saying CAM but Knowles was WAAAAY off. And while SR and TDKR mirror each other (in ways I like actually) the execution for one was better than it was for the other. There was a better balance of somber introspection and action.
You can also do these kinds of stories more naturally with Batman than you can with Superman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,050
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 30, 2012 12:03:38 GMT -5
I don't mind heavy, but I do mind if it makes the character do something I think is just 'off' from the characters. ( I thought the argument over the burned letter between Alfred and Bruce was just dead wrong- it gave far too much weight to Bruce's feelings for Rachel- and the idea that there's more Bruce than Batman--- in Batman Begins, I thought it correct when Rachel says that Bruce is the mask, not Batman- here it was a bit of a reversal--- I might be able to more believe Bruce letting himself rot over Catwoman's death, as she's been presented as the odd 'love of his life', but Rachel Dawes? Not so much..) This is more of a question of personal preference than an error. Even though Rachel said that it refers more to the public face of Wayne when you look at the movies as a whole. There is a REAL Bruce Wayne behind the Batman. There's a man even when you do away with the mask. If anything Nolan took an approach to the Bruce Wayne/Batman dynamic that was similar to what Singer did with Superman's dual identities. What Nolan has shown is that Batman IS that young angry Bruce Wayne who was first seeking vengeance then justice. The mask is Bruce Waynes PUBLIC face; his eccentric billionaire playboy facade to hide his true focus. But Nolan's films show that its not as simple as "Bruce Wayne is the mask" the same way Singer didn't boil it down to something as simple minded as "Superman is what I can do." Personally neither of those ever sat right with me. We ALL have different roles to play in life around different people in different situations in different environments. How many of us are so boring and one note in our personalities that we are one thing ALL the time? We are all multifaced layered individuals shaped by the sum of our experiences. There's Bruce Wayne the orphaned heir who loved his parents, Bruce Wayne the angry aimless wanderer, Bruce Wayne the eccentric carefree rich boy, and finally Batman. He's all those things. Even Batman Forever looked at it honestly and realistically like that. Singer approached Superman the same way. He wasn't two separate but distinct sides but three or four personas that were all part of a whole. Both directors tried to present the question as one with a complex answer. Superman III blurred the line as well. As for Rachel its a different world from the comics. Like I said before he DIDN'T retire primarily because of Rachel but you can't always apply rules about how Wayne would and wouldn't feel/react when new elements were introduced in the films that changed the rules and the game. Rachel doesn't exist in the comics. In the Nolanverse she grew up with Bruce Wayne. They're childhood friends. That automatically changes how he would feel about Rachel vs how he would feel about Catwoman. A lot of the stuff in the movie is STILL perfectly in keeping with the comic book Batmans personality because there have been stories where he and others did the same thing. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Jul 30, 2012 12:40:52 GMT -5
-Super feet against overwhelming inanimate objects.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 30, 2012 13:50:29 GMT -5
I got that those were the reasons for it- but --- just as you mentioned- it's personal preference as to what one wants to feel could be bent more towards realism and what should be faithful to the comics--- and how much to swing one way or the other.
Given that they chose to do that for the first half--- I was pissed that the ultra-realism of his condition felt like it went out the window for the second half. He does some pushups and in three weeks is back to beating up Bane? I don't mind the idea of the 'Rocky comeback', but I thought the 'Rocky' series--- even when it fluctuated from realism to comic book- made his comebacks more plausible, I thought... and more emotional.
I definitely want to watch it one more time to see if I feel differently, but I loved SR, TDK, BB on first viewing..... maybe I'll notice more/feel differently with a second one....
|
|
