Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 13, 2011 13:44:33 GMT -5
;D Hilarious...except I noticed Magneto sitting around like an old bum the first time I saw the movie.  Than God First Class got made and redeemed the series. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Sept 13, 2011 16:45:41 GMT -5
CAM - I like the idea of Superman having to choose between saving Lois and saving the schoolbus during the earthquake. The theme stays the same - he chooses love -- but the outcome is decidedly more guilt-ridden in that scenario -- and that's a problem if they wanted the movie to have a nice, clean happy ending where he smiles at us and bids "farewell". It also makes him "imperfect" but god forbid we introduce that character wrinkle.
Come to think of it, I wonder if Selutron could edit the "bridge" scene from SIII and digitally replace the truck with the schoolbus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Sept 13, 2011 16:48:58 GMT -5
There is no Selutron.
|
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Sept 13, 2011 17:37:17 GMT -5
Only Zuul.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 13, 2011 23:32:02 GMT -5
I think the idea that the movies constantly have to have EVERYTHING be sunshine by the end of each film not only helps keep the Superman movies in the 'fantasy' realm, but bordering (and at times, crossing) the 'silly' realm.
I don't know if we need graphic violence, but if family audiences could handle (without being traumatized) "Independence Day" and "2012", I think that they could handle a Superman movie where Superman can save MOST, but NOT every innocent in major disasters.
To my own suprise in reading the Donner/Mank script, there are cars that fall into the river during the Metropolis battle. That would have awesome to have as a great contrast to the first part, where NOBODY died.... and upped the stakes tremendously, and have given some chills from the villains just by what we saw in STM where Supes ALWAYS saves the day. SII really would have been the "Empire Strikes Back" of the series under Donner. Ah well.... wonder how Snyder's version will play out in this regard...
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Sept 14, 2011 8:22:53 GMT -5
I think the idea that the movies constantly have to have EVERYTHING be sunshine by the end of each film not only helps keep the Superman movies in the 'fantasy' realm, but bordering (and at times, crossing) the 'silly' realm. I don't know if we need graphic violence, but if family audiences could handle (without being traumatized) "Independence Day" and "2012", I think that they could handle a Superman movie where Superman can save MOST, but NOT every innocent in major disasters. I don't know about silly - but it definitely makes it harder to be realistic. Let's also remember it was 1978. Different era. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Sept 14, 2011 10:38:05 GMT -5
Superman is supposed to be fantasy and feel-good.
You want downbeat & ambiguous then look elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 14, 2011 11:47:40 GMT -5
Uhh.... there's a LOT of Superman comics that are NOT 'feel-good'- or at least, not all stuck with a happy ending, even with many fantasy elements to them--- and not just talking about the 'Alan Moore-Frank Miller' time period, when almost ALL superhero comics got 'even darker'.
The great thing about comics is that it CAN be many things and still be the same character. Batman had many eras- campy, ultra-violent, soapy.... Superman also, to a degree.
So, I don't think one has to go far to see that Superman stories for many years isn't all about 'happy endings' in its comics--- so why it has to be JUST a happy ending for Superman movies or only have happiness to it- is limiting the character far more than the comics ever did.
Many decades of comics- if you want a depressing story - a couple of the best Superman stories are--- (ironically by Alan Moore)- "Whatever happened to the Man of Tommorrow?" and "For the Man who has everything". Sad and bittersweet- but great, because it touches on the things that are also human in Superman--- which is why I loved SR so much. It tried to take it to another human level, but (imo) still was Superman.
I've always said I'd never be against two kinds of Superman films out there to please everybody. Also, if SR was TOO dark, I wouldn't be crazy about it.... but it didn't feel like it crossed a line for me, but I know it did for others, which I get.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Sept 14, 2011 12:19:48 GMT -5
Well said, CAM. "For the Man Who Has Everything" is one of my fave Superman stories because it humanizes Superman.
That's the beauty of Superman, it can be so much more than just feel-good and fantasy. It is also romance, drama, Scifi, action. Superman is a very versatile character.
BTW, I've said it before, but the ending with Superman smiling at the camera in SII feels so artificial now to me; it just doesn't make sense in the context of the story, mainly with how things ended with his relationship with Lois.
|
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Sept 14, 2011 16:00:24 GMT -5
BTW, I've said it before, but the ending with Superman smiling at the camera in SII feels so artificial now to me; it just doesn't make sense in the context of the story, mainly with how things ended with his relationship with Lois. And THIS is just one reason why I chose to use the Paris bomb cliffhanger as my ending to my fan edit of S2. No need to re-hash the ending just because they didn't want to spend any more time or money coming up with an original idea for ending the film. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 15, 2011 1:45:06 GMT -5
A lot felt artificial to me after the horrific turn for farce during the Metropolis battle in SII. The campiness with the Villains gave me a few groans (especially with how they didn't really match with the more powerful serious Donner scenes), but as soon as the sight gags took over that sequence, I was shaking my head in disbelief and just looking for good moments by the end, but the movie's credibility was pretty much destroyed to me by that point- moreso than even the time reversal in STM--- at least that was PLAYED straight and serious... So as far as the 'smile to the camera' goes, the movie was damaged so long before then, that it didn't faze me all that much. On another note--- if ANYTHING of the 'outline' for Singer's SR 2 is to be believed--- with Jason or Richard being killed--- it would REALLY be weird if Singer continued to have the 'smiling flyby' at the end of the credits. I know that he felt the opening credits/music was like Star Wars' credits- they shouldn't be changed, but it's one of a miillion mysteries to me about SR 2, if he would have moved onto something new for the endings, or kept smiling Superman for sequels.  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Sept 15, 2011 7:59:22 GMT -5
I'm talking specifically about films. You can do what you like in comics and TV shows as they go on and on, with enough time to create depth. ~2 hour films are a different medium.
STM and S2 (and even S4) got it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 15, 2011 12:06:40 GMT -5
2 hour films shouldn't have depth? I could not disagree more. Comic book films and science fiction films generally don't get nominated for best picture because it's generally thought of as a genre for that very reason: It's looked at by Academy Award members as dumb action films that are followed by dumb people. (much like science fiction and fantasy for the longest time) Xmen tried to suggest more. Spiderman tried to have more. SR tried to suggest more.... and got punished for it.
Kids' films don't need depth, but SR was aiming to be more adult- ambiguity and moral complexity may have (and probably was) too much for many Superman fans to feel comfortable. I get it. It wasn't a family friendly film, and many associate Superman films with family friendly material.
Again--- I would have been fine with two types of Superman films out there- but SR was a film that was going to be risky because Singer had a passion to tell this story in his head for a sequel.... that wasn't going to be the typical comic book movie.
I think he should have gotten a ton of credit, but instead, he'll be raked over the coals forever for not taking a typical action movie formula and putting it into his Superman movie.
The subject matter was definitely dicey--- having a protagonist that is sad and coming to grips with things for most of a film can feel like too much of a downer for people (I know folks who feel that this is also what made "Star Trek Generations" suffer).... but this has been a formula for "Rocky" and that was successful for many sequels- the thing that was really missing (imo) was the giant superhero battle stuff / great villain to overshadow the hero. Leaving it for part two was a BIG mistake imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by lois on Sept 15, 2011 12:45:50 GMT -5
Is there anything in the film as ridiculous as Super willpower?  Funny you should mention it, but I found out there was a deleted scene from Donner's version of Superman 2...  Good one! I have three versions of Superman II. I actually like all three.  |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Sept 15, 2011 13:02:45 GMT -5
SR was a film that was going to be risky because Singer had a passion to tell this story in his head for a sequel.... that wasn't going to be the typical comic book movie. I think he should have gotten a ton of credit, but instead, he'll be raked over the coals forever for not taking a typical action movie formula and putting it into his Superman movie. Rule #1 of moviemaking: If you're making a movie that only works when it has a sequel, make damn sure that it doesn't flop. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Sept 15, 2011 15:45:03 GMT -5
There was no real set up for a sequel except the Richard/Jason story, which was hardly brilliant to start with. I don't want a teaser to a new Superman film to revolve around a fucking sit-com plot!
Singer had a passion for a sequel? Seemed to me he couldn't wait to move on!
A bit like the audience!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 15, 2011 15:57:26 GMT -5
There was no real set up for a sequel except the Richard/Jason story, which was hardly brilliant to start with. I don't want a teaser to a new Superman film to revolve around a fucking sit-com plot!
It seemed to me that someone was setup to have a tragic death in the sequel. and for that person to be significant enough to matter, by setting them up in part one. If not Jason (whose death I'm suspicious of), then Richard, since you can't kill off Lois/Jimmy/Perry...
Yeah, they didn't finish a screenplay--- but there's the interview where Kryptonians WERE planned for sure for the sequel. Why didn't it get finished sooner? Maybe screenwriters don't move forward until it gets a greenlight for this/that, who knows? I know that it DOES seem odd that STAR TREK's sequel script isn't even finished, and it's two years later!
Also, Singer's screenwriter was right in that the first one needed a superhero mano-a-mano instead of waiting for part two.
WIth the Raimi/Sony/Spiderman situation--- I wish SOMEONE knew for sure what the heck went on, in detail, behind the scenes at WB for SR 2. I'm not ruling out that Singer may have had a hand in no SR 2, but who knows for sure.
I will say though, I wish he had said 'no' to Valkyrie and just stuck with SR 2. Oh well....
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Sept 15, 2011 16:12:33 GMT -5
How did you get to that conclusion?
If there was a tragic death planned then I'm glad it never happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Sept 15, 2011 16:13:53 GMT -5
Something could have been done with the "New Krypton" thing. They cut out that reference in the movie, but I bet if Singer was REALLY planning on doing the sequel, he would have kept that reference, and launched the sequel stuff from there.
Just think....that thing could have kept growing to become nearly planet-sized, attracting any residual Kryptonians...Brainiac, whatever.
All moot now though. ;D
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 15, 2011 16:23:12 GMT -5
Seems like Singer had designs to do something with Krypton from the start. Wanting to use Zod, new Krypton. Saying he wanted to go "Wrath of Khan" with his second Superman movie. Whatever that means. Interesting since he did the same thing with X2 and you can see the Star Trek influences there. Jimbo's right New Krypton was still out there (and unlike Lois *& Clark there wasn't a shitload of Kryptonians we'd never heard of before living on it ;D). Kind a glad he didn't use Zod though. Damn that Singer for making us sit through a rehash of what we saw 30 years ago as it was. Surely no one would be stupid enough to do THAT again instead of going with a new villain or a new story?  Surely? Yeah them Marvel boys are barking up the wrong tree giving us a new concept like Avengers the movie. That'll never work. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Sept 15, 2011 16:31:13 GMT -5
The Salkinds screwed up Superman after three movies. WB screwed up Batman after three, as well.
In a bold movie, Singer single-handedly screwed up X-Men after two movies and Superman with one movie. ;D
He deserves some sort of props for that. Not even Joel Schumacher or Paul W.S. Anderson can claim that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Sept 15, 2011 16:34:51 GMT -5
It's like some stoned nitwit decided to post a whole bunch of "deep, I'm so hilarious and smart" observations about an old movie on a blog. The entire tone is that of a smarmy college freshmen home for Thanksgiving dinner lecturing his parents about the military industrial complex. i. love. you. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 15, 2011 16:41:59 GMT -5
The Salkinds screwed up Superman after three movies. WB screwed up Batman after three, as well. In a bold movie, Singer single-handedly screwed up X-Men after two movies and Superman with one movie. ;D He deserves some sort of props for that. Not even Joel Schumacher or Paul W.S. Anderson can claim that. Shumacher screwed up and promptly turned around the genre at the same time because of the fear of what he'd spawned. THAT my friend is something. ;D It always was funny how Singer and Raturd basically "swapped dance partners" so to speak. As bad as SR was in patches looking at Ratners X-men I'd hate to think about how his Superman would have turned out. Anderson gets credit for being one of the most reviled yet envied men in Hollywood for getting to bang Milla. he also gets special mention for fucking up AVP, which I thought was idiot proof |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Sept 15, 2011 19:32:22 GMT -5
I don't blame Schumaker for ruining the old Batman film franchise. I blame the parents that complained to McDonalds about their "Batman Returns" happy meal tie-in. They didn't want their kids playing with toys based off of a "dark gothic movie". So McDonalds caved in. Then WB, then Joel. From what I can gather in interviews, it sounds like Tim Burton would've been more than happy to do at least one more film in that gothic style with Keaton, and probably Pfeiffer as well. And I'm pretty sure there's interviews where Schumaker said he wanted to continue Burton's universe/storyline. Alas, the only good thing we got from Batman Forever was "kiss from a rose". Must've listened to that song on mtv/vh1 a thousand times. "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" was a pretty good song too.
So yeah, no hate towards Joel. As for "Batman and Robin"? I love Arnold, and puns are his specialty. Plus my friends and I love watching bad/good movies. We enjoy movies like Troll 2, Toxic Avenger, Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky, Kung Pow: Enter The Fist, Punisher: War Zone, and so on.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 15, 2011 19:44:57 GMT -5
As "entertaining" as B&R can be (I did download the rifftrax for it) I don't think many people wanted to follow the trend. ;D Most of my blame goes to Warner Bros (AKA The new Fox) and then Joel. He's made some good movies but B&R is what happens when these kinds of movies go fully corporate on every level. I'll just say with Toxic Avenger Troma KNEW they were making cheap R rated schlock and made no bones about it. With B&R? Its a different kind of bad.  |
|
