|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 1, 2011 14:42:02 GMT -5
That's why I thought Donner's vision was so interesting-- that it contained so many different specific tones, yet was able to come together with a great balance. The Mankiewicz script is pretty dark and suggestive of violence, but without being graphic (ie. the cars falling off of the Brooklyn Bridge during the fight).
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 24, 2011 18:01:10 GMT -5
Putting the Donner cut aside, because it's really a curiosity than anything else. Anyway, Donner would have reshot and made the film bigger, he said so in one cinefantisque interview.
I've studied a lot of Lester films (currently writing something for capedwonder about Lester) and the guy is a fucking genius. He was making monty python before monty python. For someone who shoots fast he has a great eye for detail.
Clearly he wasn't interested in making a Donner Superman film and nor should he have. I don't blame Lester at all, he doesn't revere heroes like Donner does, he subverts them in a social realistic manner. He's an artist, he has a voice, why he should conform to Donner's framework? If the Salkinds wanted someone to conform, then they could have got someone else and the film wouldn't have been much good. Lester kept that film together and captured some great moments.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 24, 2011 18:25:05 GMT -5
As in Superman III?  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 24, 2011 19:28:51 GMT -5
Like Ye5man suggested, that doesn't explain Richard Lester's Superman III....
With all due respect Dharmesh....On the latter part of that statement..... WRONG. 1000% wrong.
If a famous painter started a painting, then another one was chosen to complete the painting, the painter could: (a) have respect for that first artist and use his talents to try to complete it as the original artist intended, or (b) have such a big ego that he paints whatever the heck he wants over the original painting, as a way to make his own comeback on the back of the original artist's work.
I disagree wholeheartedly. If you took out all the Donner footage and had it reshot by Lester, you'd have a much cheaper looking film with far less artistry.
I've always said that Lester had a couple of brilliant films in his canon, (Three/Four Musketeers and the Beatles film), but stack that up to the number of creative successes next to Donner's and Lester (imo) doesn't have a chance.
With all due respect.. BIG DEAL!!!! How hard is it with all the great footage (and cast) that Donner was responsible for?
If you had the amount of incredible footage that Donner shot, plus a good editor (not Thau), it would have been far better for the Salkinds to have chosen someone who would have stuck to Donner's vision.
If Lester had reshot everything from the ground up, I might feel differently- but except for one brief 'shirt rip' everything great about that film comes from Donner/Baird's contribution (including casting, music) and the Salkind's money.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 24, 2011 20:32:47 GMT -5
Overall sadly Donner turned out as a WB hack making safe studio manufactured films. Lester at least was an innovator
I can't blame Lester for doing his thing, that's how he works. Blame the money men for not settling the situation
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 24, 2011 21:23:23 GMT -5
Donner's aesthetics are similar to Spielberg's--- (And Ron Howard's to a degree)- they WANT to make family friendly fare (for the most part). I wouldn't call "Lethal Weapon 1-3" hackwork. Nor "Inside Moves", nor "Ladyhawke" studio hackwork neither.
His later stuff disappointed, (he does NOT have the best 'story ending' sense), but there's a specific style that he has, and I find a good chunk of his work very enjoyable and rewatchable. (Whereas with Michael Bay- who I do consider a studio hack, I can only watch "the Rock" over and over again in his repetoire)
Still.... You make a good point that ultimately the Salkinds could have settled the situation (or at the very least) made sure that Lester stuck to Donner's vision. They could have well told him: "do whatever you want with what's there"--- but still....
Personally, I think Lester broke an unspoken code - as they were peers at the time. Singer asked for Donner's blessing before proceeding on SR- he didn't have to, but it's an honorable thing to do, if you're building almost directly upon passionate artistic choices and hard work that someone else started on. (If Donner didn't give a damn that might be different)
If Lester gave Donner a call, it would at least have let Donner keep some of his dignity at being fired.
At the end of the day--- Superman III is purely Lester.
And most of the scenes that folks like in Superman II seem to come from Donner directed scenes, over Lester.
Even if the budget was cheaper for Superman II, if Donner stayed, the tone would not have been nearly as farcical as it became under Lester for some of the key scenes and there would have been more of an attempt to TRY to make things look grand as opposed to the fast and quick Lester style of shooting.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 24, 2011 21:47:27 GMT -5
To me what is interesting is that the guy who caused all the friction is the one with the least amount of grudges, decades later. Donner is still bitter and Lester is simply completely M.I.A. Imagine if it were the other way around. Imagine if Donner AND Lester were able to come to a mutual agreement, and instead of having 2 inferior versions of one movie, we'd have one ULTIMATE movie that 2 directors, while different in style, could meet somewhere in the middle. Now THAT would be super. Of all the people involved behind the camera Salkind got the most of what he wanted. Donner got shown the door and Lesters basically a recluse when it comes to the industry. Salkind still got his name on the product as well as some of the praise since he was one of the people in charge. And he made some coin. Not surprised that he's not as bitter. The dark (the good stuff) was with Donner, for the most part. I disagree about the comedy- There's wayyy too much in 2- (East Houston & the Metro battle are the worst offenders imo) but I guess it's a matter of what feels right.... but I guess if you thought it wasn't that much comedy in S2, I can see why you would feel that SR was TOOO serious/dark. All a matter of different tastes.....  Theres not a ton of comedy spread through Superman II but what there is such potent bullsh*t it sticks in your mind. Can anybody tell me Clark getting hit by that cab in BROAD DAYLIGHT wasn't f*cking stupid? I never found that funny. I always wondered why nobody thought it was strange that this guys freaking front end was completely obliterated by hitting a man. Just some silly gag without a lick of sense. Compared to the Donner cut Non was much more of a comedy relief character in Lesters SII but it wasn't TOO over the top. Why assume that Donner's S2 would have been better than Lester's? We aren't living pre-2006 anymore and the blinkers are off. Donner probably would have gone for something more epic, more iconic. The Donner cut isn't a perfect representation of what he WOULD have done if he had stayed on. Plus I highly doubt he would have used turning back time for the ending of his original SII. Superman II's ending is kind of shit no matter which version it is. The Donner cuts is just more shit. At least with Donner we would have probably had a John Williams score. That alone makes up for a lot. And maybe we wouldn't have some a hole doing a bad Gene Hackman impersonation. Personally, I prefer Donner's shooting script by far to the Lester version, however even that is deeply flawed. In other words, Superman II was ALWAYS doomed to be a shitty sequel, no matter what. In trying to save money and cut corners (something that we seem to only accuse modern studio execs of doing) they were going to push a not fully-realized/developed/properly vetted and re-written script into production. Superman II...ANY version of Superman II is only objectively "good" based on a few performances, some great special effects (some of which still hold up), and that's it. Everything else is either nostalgia factor or simply "because it's Superman". It's not a very good movie, especially when you judge it against other big-budget fantasy movies of its time like STM, Star Wars, ESB, or Raiders, NONE of which cop-out the way any version of SII does. Neither version had a satisfactory ending (in fact, both are quite fucking stupid). Lois jumping out the window is roughly as retarded as the extra powers and slapstick at the end of TLC, etc. Don't get me wrong, I will always enjoy SII, whichever version I'm watching (although, to be honest, I tend to reach for The Donner Cut more often, despite it just being, essentially, a bonus disc). It's an important part of my life. But, I no longer delude myself that it's actually any good. In fact, I remember a few years before the Donner Cut was released, I was watching the Lester version with a couple of friends, and by the time we got to Niagara Falls, there was that heavy, uncomfortable feeling in the room...we all realized "This movie sucks". The script is barely realized and juvenile, the re-shoots are painfully obvious, and it just meanders along until the final act, when things finally improve. It's better than the next three, but if that isn't "damning with faint praise", then I don't know what is. Supeman II is a decent film. I wouldn't say its terrible. Its just such a pain when we know what might have been. the potential is/was there. Thats the worst part. The ending with the memory erasing kiss AND the turning back time are god awful though. And in any case Supes can be put in a bad light because of it. He did it for Lois's own good by kissing her and erase her memories but is that even right? She didn't even have a choice. If you think about the Donner cut he does that to the entire PLANET...but at least there the excuse of he fixes the destruction around the country (world?) in the process. Honestly I'd rather have the kiss. At least the kiss doesn't turn back time and leave a shitload of plotholes. Its like choosing between the lesser of two evils. Turning back time means there's no risk of anything being unfixable. That and imagine all the babies born retarded by wreaking havoc with the planet. Thanks Superman. Lois Jumping out the window was as stupid as anything Lester did. Love Donner and Mank but they did a lot to justify how the changes were better when in some cases they weren't. I honestly think its a solid entry to the series (Lester/theatrical). Good plot, good execution. There is no way I can label it as "shitty". Its not a boring film either. Its a lot of fun. A lot of emotion. Its not shit. Just deeply flawed. Even if Donner returned, Salkind would not have cut a check to Brando to make him happy and keep his footage usable. Donner would have needed to work around that, too. And with an even tighter schedule. Not to mention the script itself (and later the Donner cut) had Superman turning the world around at the end, and THEN going back to fight the bully. What a shitty way to end a movie, Superman effectively picking on a guy who would have beaten him up. Continuity errors abound. Not to mention the fact that turning back time negates the entire damn point of destroying the Fortress of Solitude. The very concept of turning back time is terrible. But its mind numbingly stupid in The Donner Cut. Just terrible. Like I said it would have been "better" if they had kept the kiss. I agree. Time has actually been kinder to S3 than it has to S2. In fact, I now think S3 is better -- something I would NEVER have said as a child. S3 feels more "solid" somehow. It's more consistent throughout, and the effects are still excellent. Reeve looked the most like Superman in S3 as well. Since when did Superman have shitty brown streaked wig? last time I checked his hair was black ;D SII is like an ok house built on a dodgy mud foundation. The outside is nice but it has some structural weaknesses. Its only sinking lower with time...but its still got some great parts to it. Nice windows. Nice carpet. SIII is a shack built by a retard. made of wood a bear pissed on. The hallway shrinks when you walk down it and the floor is dirt. Theres also no toilet just a shittin hole in the dirt floor. At least it was put on firm ground though. Thats why it seems better. Like you said its consistent. Clearly he wasn't interested in making a Donner Superman film and nor should he have. I don't blame Lester at all, he doesn't revere heroes like Donner does, he subverts them in a social realistic manner. Theres SOME truth to that for sure. Lester treated Robin Hood as more of a flawed person, a man, more than arguably anybody before did. He's some perfect myth figure in that movie. Not always after the truest purest ideals. But after that? Superman III? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Dec 25, 2011 0:16:15 GMT -5
I can honestly say that since I began seeing the fan cuts of S2 when they first started coming out (The Hybrid Cut was *I believe* the first fan-cut, back in 2007. Or at least the first I saw), I have NEVER watched EITHER version in their entirety since. I tried re-watching the RIC cut once, but found myself only watching the parts that aren't in either official version.
After 5 years since the Donner Cut, and about 9 years since finding out about the behind the scenes debacle involving S2 (as well as about 15 years since re-buying it on vhs and realizing scenes were missing from the version I grew up with), I can honestly say that after Booshman releases his version, I am done with this film. Even if he makes choices that I don't agree with (be it whichever scenes directed by which director, lines of dialogue, music cues, etc...) I am going to make peace with this film. His version will be my official "go-to" version. And the version I tell my friends about. Way I see it, even if I don't agree with all his choices, it's better than either version you can buy in the store. And will be my personal favorite out of all the other fan edits, including my own.
At this point I'd say my biggest "what if?" in regards to movies isn't even Superman 2 anymore. It's the Travolta/Cage film "Face-Off". Originally it was written for Stallone and Shwarzenegger, but the 2 of them couldn't agree on who would get top billing (action stars and their egos right?) so they both passed and the rest is history. I don't know how many of you here are action movie fans, but all I know is, when Expendables 2 comes out next August I will be at the midnight showing, and will probably see it about 5 times. Arnold and Stallone finally in a film together is something that makes the 6 year old in me giddy as a schoolgirl. Sure it sucks that they're doing this a good 25 years after their prime, but it's better than never, I say.
Happy Holidays everyone!!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 25, 2011 0:47:32 GMT -5
Still a long shot, but hoping that with the release of MOS, that WB does something new with SII as a tie in to promote MOS. (If they suprised us with the RTK sequence for SR..... I'd be suprised if they don't do SOMETHING fresh to promote MOS with the previous films...)
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 25, 2011 5:44:14 GMT -5
I don't want to get suckered into another Donner and Lester discussion ;D Oh well. Superman III is a well directed film, but the script is fucking LOUSY! The Newmans were not good screenwriters. The film is a bunch of ideas, and Lester is not really a screenwriter and probably didn't really fight for something better. There are great moments in Superman III, but man, some of it's awful. Some moments in Superman II are not good, either, but Lester was a great innovator up till Superman. Lester's only weakness is that he needed great material, he needed a capable writer, and on Superman he didn't get that. Also, I don't think he was interested in the material because he had to conform to blockbuster guideline. Don't judge Lester on Superman, watch his 60s stuff. This particular film bombed, but I think it was ahead of its time. It's very Monty Python: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX3ltFkrngYIt's original and visually interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Dec 25, 2011 10:11:27 GMT -5
Gandy, I make the same defense for Joel Shumacker. He is a good director. But he will always be remembered as the guy who ruined the Batman franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 25, 2011 12:56:36 GMT -5
Assuming the jump somewhere was Puzo's idea (Does ANYONE have a copy of that script to put on the net yet??? Geez...)--- but the thing that I liked about Donner/Mank's take on it was that it was an attempt (Thau over- and under editing and lack of shots notwithstanding--- I say that with confidence from seeing how Donner did two 'from a high building jumps' in "Inside Moves" and "Lethal Weapon" afterwards--- they were dazzling sequences with the stunt persons jumping from a high buildings in each case) to make it GRAND like everything else. The jump into the water may be a little more realistic, but it wasn't shot in a way to feel spectacular by Lester.
Agreed. I doubt he would have kept the same ending twice as well. I think he would have gone for the memory kiss, but shot/edited in a grander (and more visually interesting) way. Verisimilitude I think came up with a beautiful solution editing in a 'Lois POV' of all the memories being erased to give that scene more power.
If STM had the original 'cliffhanger' ending, and the original ending stayed stuck at the back of SII I imagine it would have been shot (had Donner stayed on) to show more clearly the motivation (places around the world having been destroyed) behind Supes making such a move. As edited in the RDC, Supes just does it--- no closeups, no voiceovers by previous fathers, he just does it. If it was 'plan a', perhaps we would have had Pa Kent and Jorel's voice coaxing Supes to do it. Since the RDC was reusing an old ending anyways, Thau might as well have put Pa Kent and Jorel's voice back in, with Reeve's closeups, to more clearly show a struggle for Supes to make the choice to turn back time (again).
In a way, it was a no-win scenario for the ending.....but since they did choose to reuse the ending, I just wish it was edited better with all the footage (and outtakes) at Thau's disposal....
((Also ,blame Puzo's script for the time reversal..... it was mentioned in a spoiler summary way back when in a movie magazine "Mediascene Prevue" as the ending to the two films.))
Salkind had the money and was the big boss..... always easier to be the person firing than the person being fired....
Agreed. The basic story is interesting enough in its different forms, and it had a good cast and money behind it. The filmmaking by Donner just made it better than what was on the page.
Plus.... again, half of Superman II's footage is Donner/Baird's to begin with. It'd take a really bad editor/director to muck it up COMPLETELY.
It's a fast and cheap looking film- I think it pushed the lightness of the Superman material TOO light to a point where it wasn't funny nor all that interesting either. Donner had some silliness and lightness in STM and SII- but it was balanced with scenes that had dramatic weight as well.
Reeve and DC comics I think also had script approval at that point--- so, very few are blameless for the awful script. Just as I would have loved to have had a Sydney Furie commentary for SIV, similarly I would have loved a commentary by Lester for SII and SIII to at least hear his side of the story.
It's interesting that Tyler brought up Schumacher as ruining the Batman franchise: I'll always give Schumacher giant props for the commentary on B&R, acknowledging the reception and his own intents for the film and accepting responsibility for it... would love the same someday by Lester. (although not holding my breath)
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 25, 2011 17:16:50 GMT -5
Lester was a fast director; he knew what he wanted and was a joy for producers. Superman 3 certainly doesn't look cheap to me, but the script is not good.
I wrote this:
Clearly he wasn't interested in making a Donner Superman film and nor should he have.
CAM wrote this:
Uh, it's not about being right or wrong, and this where fans fall over. ART is, in this case, about the opinion of the material, it's not about being right or wrong. Lester said that he's not into the David Lean style of film-making, so why would he even attempt to conform to Donner's style? It would seriously lack heart if Lester just copied the Mank script. It'd be a lot worse than the theatrical cut.
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 25, 2011 17:21:25 GMT -5
Gandy, I make the same defense for Joel Shumacker. He is a good director. But he will always be remembered as the guy who ruined the Batman franchise. I actually like the fun aspect of those movies. They are ridiculous, but they are fun to look at. He shouldn't have to apologize for making it because that's what he wanted to make, but the scripts are awful for both of his entries. Isn't that different from Batman 1966, and a lot of people love those! |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Dec 25, 2011 20:44:26 GMT -5
I actually like the fun aspect of those movies. They are ridiculous, but they are fun to look at. He shouldn't have to apologize for making it because that's what he wanted to make, but the scripts are awful for both of his entries. Isn't that different from Batman 1966, and a lot of people love those! I like my bad/good movies as well. However, I think you're wrong about Joel wanting to make the films like that. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Joel had every intention of continuing the "Burton universe". It was WB that pushed him to make it family friendly. And because Batman Forever actually did well in theaters (believe it or not, there was a time when it was well received, before B&R came out, sucked, and was lumped together) they turned the cheese dial up to 11 for B&R. Same thing with Spider-Man 3. Peter Jackson hated Venom, but they forced him to lump in that character. Iron Man 2, Favre didn't want to rush a sequel. And I hate to break it it to those of you who don't know it already, but MOS is being pushed to get out into theaters quickly before the rights are lost. So, I hate to say this but, it looks like sometime in the future, MOS is gonna be called POS. In a way, you can say Superman 2 set the template for pushing the film's release resulting in a lesser quality picture than what the director originally intended. Imagine if Fox had just waited until Singer was done with SR so he could finish the X-men trilogy, instead of giving it to Ratner because they HAD to get it released in 2006. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 25, 2011 20:52:52 GMT -5
Gandy, I make the same defense for Joel Shumacker. He is a good director. But he will always be remembered as the guy who ruined the Batman franchise. I actually like the fun aspect of those movies. They are ridiculous, but they are fun to look at. He shouldn't have to apologize for making it because that's what he wanted to make, but the scripts are awful for both of his entries. Isn't that different from Batman 1966, and a lot of people love those! Batman 66 has some clever writing and satire. Schumachers Batman films...really didn't. On the surface there are superficial similarities but the makers of The 60's Batman series/movie were going for something that worked on more levels. Really tapped into the culture of the time in a way Schumacher's Batman never did for the 90's. Thats why it was so insanely popular for a brief period. Take Lorenzo Semples first Riddler episodes. So much more tightly written than Akiva Goldsman and co's Batman Forever and their take on The Riddler specifically. Carrey seemed to be aping Gorshin a lot of the time but he wasn't nearly as good if you ask me. Gorshin had more layers of intelligence in his performance. Batman 66 is adventure for kids but a satire/send up for adults. It works equally on two different levels. And its heavy on the pop culture of the day. The show probably had more in common with Rowan and Martins Laugh In than Schumachers Batman films. Somebody like Dean Martin or Sammy Davis Jr popping their head out of a window for a gag on Batman wasn't going to be as funny to children as it was for adults. I don't think Schumacher was going for that level of satire. Just some adult jokes and visuals. But they were so blatant and crude I'd hardly call them clever. Schumacher may have intentionally been going for his take on the 60's show on a surface level but a lot of stuff under the surface isn't there. I can appreciate the 60's Batman series on an entirely different level as an adult. Schumacher's films play exactly the same after nearly 15 years. Its targeted primarily at kids but adults can have a good time. Neither the series or the Schumacher movies took themselves too seriously but the tv series had more going for it than that. I actually like the fun aspect of those movies. They are ridiculous, but they are fun to look at. He shouldn't have to apologize for making it because that's what he wanted to make, but the scripts are awful for both of his entries. Isn't that different from Batman 1966, and a lot of people love those! I like my bad/good movies as well. However, I think you're wrong about Joel wanting to make the films like that. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Joel had every intention of continuing the "Burton universe". It was WB that pushed him to make it family friendly. And because Batman Forever actually did well in theaters (believe it or not, there was a time when it was well received, before B&R came out, sucked, and was lumped together) they turned the cheese dial up to 11 for B&R. Same thing with Spider-Man 3. Peter Jackson hated Venom, but they forced him to lump in that character. Iron Man 2, Favre didn't want to rush a sequel. And I hate to break it it to those of you who don't know it already, but MOS is being pushed to get out into theaters quickly before the rights are lost. So, I hate to say this but, it looks like sometime in the future, MOS is gonna be called POS. In a way, you can say Superman 2 set the template for pushing the film's release resulting in a lesser quality picture than what the director originally intended. Imagine if Fox had just waited until Singer was done with SR so he could finish the X-men trilogy, instead of giving it to Ratner because they HAD to get it released in 2006. You mean Sam Raimi instead of Peter Jackson? Anyway you're right. Especially about Batman Forever. I lay some of the blame on Schumacher but he was really given his marching orders by WB. They specifically wanted something in the opposite direction from Batman Returns after complaints that that film was too dark and how that may have affected box office and some merchandise sales. They wanted something that had even more kid appeal and something that could be more easily exploited for merchandise. Schumacher specifically talked about having to show concept designs to the toy companies very early on so they could meet a certain release date. They even worked with the toy companies going back and forth on designs. Schumachers biggest fault was just being a gun for hire and not challenging the studio on some ideas. He seemed to have his own vision but that was heavily influenced by studio demands. Thats probably one thing that hurt Batman & Robin. WB went too far in that other direction as well as rushed the film out. 2 years instead of 3. Couldn't have helped the quality on any level. Iron Man 2 had some of those same issues to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Dec 25, 2011 22:31:44 GMT -5
I don't think Schumacher was going for that level of satire. Just some adult jokes and visuals. But they were so blatant and crude I'd hardly call them clever. Schumacher may have intentionally been going for his take on the 60's show on a surface level but a lot of stuff under the surface isn't there. I can appreciate the 60's Batman series on an entirely different level as an adult. Schumacher's films play exactly the same after nearly 15 years. Its targeted primarily at kids but adults can have a good time.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Schumacher's films are cynical at best, DUMB at worst. That first season of Batman is far more clever and subtle than anything in those awful Batflicks. I'm not one of those people who howls because their fictional vigilante isn't being taken seriously enough, but funny send-up is one thing, and bright/dumb/toy commercial is something else entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 26, 2011 4:18:40 GMT -5
Apologies for the strength of my response, but the way you phrased the comment on how Lester should not have tried to complete it in Donner's style pushed a lot of buttons.
You're right.... it's not about being right or wrong. It's about being respectful to a work of art. It's about being respectful to a fellow artist and an artist's attempt to make a masterpiece, which Donner attempted to do--- Lester did not.
Should he have? I think he SHOULD have- but that's a matter of opinion. If the reverse was true--- if Lester was the original director, made the first one a giant success, had shot half of the sequel with an intent to complete it in a certain way--- and Donner railroaded Lester's version, I'd feel the same way against Donner (if he chose to do so).
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 26, 2011 6:45:40 GMT -5
Apologies for the strength of my response, but the way you phrased the comment on how Lester should not have tried to complete it in Donner's style pushed a lot of buttons. I've been carrying these arguments in my head for fifteen years, and at first I was angry that Lester didn't just finish it off, but over the years I mellowed and learned to think rationally and not become too emotional about this stuff. I think I'm more disappointed now than angry. I hope someone remakes Superman 2 and Superman 3.
This stuff is all in the eye of the beholder. I don't think you can expect an artist to take over another artist and attempt to finish off the work. It rings fake to me. Only Donner can be Donner. Only Lester can be Lester. Lester wanted to make a good film, he certainly achieved that. According to Ilya, they used all the best scenes from the Donner version sans Brando. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 26, 2011 13:29:34 GMT -5
Except for Thau, I think anyone with half a brain could have completed SII and made it a good film. Look at SIII that's totally Lester.... he had no Donner footage to call his own, and nobody is head over heels with that film. As far as artists' taking over others' work/vision... Spielberg does great work finishing off Lucas's work (if not better, the last Indy notwithstanding) and they're best of buddies. I wouldn't be suprised if one of the reasons that Lester is in seclusion is a feeling that I'm not the ONLY one who feels Lester did Donner wrong, even if legally (and technically) he did nothing wrong. (Just as it's not wrong for someone to spit on the floor if someone offers a handshake, but it's not very cool at the same time)--- Perhaps Lester might have chosen to be more verbal about why the film is good- and that it had more to do with the 50% (or whatever the number is) of good Donner footage that he didn't mention much about. The more time goes on, the more I realize that Lester tried to take advantage of the situation (perhaps out of desperation for a comeback), but that it backfired when SIII came out. There's got to be a good reason offers didn't come rolling in head over heels for Lester after that. The blame maybe should be put on the Salkinds for letting Lester ruin the film- but then again, it was the Salkind's money to begin with... so... Regardless, it's just sad of what could have been. Always will be. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Dec 26, 2011 16:02:47 GMT -5
Except for Thau, I think anyone with half a brain could have completed SII and made it a good film. I think Mr Thau gets way too much blame and not enough credit. Sure, the Donner Cut wasn't what we wanted, but given the time constraints and budget constraints, it was unrealistic to expect it to be a "completed" and "good film." Remember, Mr Thau had to get hold of all the raw footage, find what he needed, sort it all out, and then assemble it into something presentable, filling in the gaps as best he could. Even ONE of those tasks would have been enormous. It's just not feasible to deliver what we all expected in just the few months he had. People have been working on fan cuts of S2 for YEARS now. They've had the luxury of time, no pressure from studios, no interfering from directors and writers, and the ability to reuse footage from other films with impunity. Yet even with all these advantages, none of these fan cuts are perfect. So how could one man with a small team achieve anything more with just a few months? |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Dec 26, 2011 16:40:28 GMT -5
People have been working on fan cuts of S2 for YEARS now. They've had the luxury of time, no pressure from studios, no interfering from directors and writers, and the ability to reuse footage from other films with impunity. Yet even with all these advantages, none of these fan cuts are perfect. So how could one man with a small team achieve anything more with just a few months? Even the worst Superman 2 fan cut is better than the Donner Cut. Thau went out of his way to use alternate takes to give us a different movie. Which is never what we wanted. If he had simply remastered the RIC, re-instated the Brando scenes, and given the rest of Donner's scenes as a supplemental bonus feature, it would've been done PERFECT in only a few months time. Thau is a hack. But FWIW, I blame WB for only giving him a few months to get it done. We've been writing to WB about this for years. And once they started working on SR, they knew they were gonna release TDC. So instead of only a few months, they had a few years to get it done right. They didn't. |
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 26, 2011 17:27:31 GMT -5
Thau's cut was signed off by Donner. If Donner had a problem, why didn't he make Michael fix it? Donner was in the editing room, he saw it all. There was no way a hybrid could be created, because Donner doesn't like Lester. So these dreams about RIC etc -- it couldn't have happened.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Dec 26, 2011 17:36:54 GMT -5
People have been working on fan cuts of S2 for YEARS now. They've had the luxury of time, no pressure from studios, no interfering from directors and writers, and the ability to reuse footage from other films with impunity. Yet even with all these advantages, none of these fan cuts are perfect. So how could one man with a small team achieve anything more with just a few months? Even the worst Superman 2 fan cut is better than the Donner Cut. Thau went out of his way to use alternate takes to give us a different movie. Which is never what we wanted. If he had simply remastered the RIC, re-instated the Brando scenes, and given the rest of Donner's scenes as a supplemental bonus feature, it would've been done PERFECT in only a few months time. Thau is a hack. But FWIW, I blame WB for only giving him a few months to get it done. We've been writing to WB about this for years. And once they started working on SR, they knew they were gonna release TDC. So instead of only a few months, they had a few years to get it done right. They didn't. Yes, the blame is with WB. If they wanted a proper movie, they should have given Mr Thau more time, a much bigger team and a bigger budget. Honestly, when time and budget constraints start to squeeze, it doesn't matter how talented or able the people are. STM was brilliant for most of the movie. But the ending is retarded, and for that I blame the time constraints and the rush to get it finished. It doesn't mean Donner was no good as a director, simply that the ending was a rush job and it shows. S4 sucked because the budget was disgraceful. It had all the same actors as STM, yet it was a piece of crap because there was no budget. The Donner Cut of S2 suffered from not one, but BOTH of these problems. In the same position, with the same budget and the same limited time, I doubt that even Donner could have made a good film. |
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Dec 26, 2011 17:39:39 GMT -5
Trust me. It's not easy doing this stuff, it just looks easy. But yeah, Superman 3 is not a good film, but I think Lester wasn't interested in making a Superman film in the first place. But I stand by Lester has one of best directors of the 20th century.
Yeah, but that's a different relationship. They have been friends for 40 years.
It would have been nice if Lester called Dick. Absolutely agree there.
Lester makes unfriendly box office films, and Superman did give him a chance to play around knowing that a wide audience would see it no matter what. I don't know why he took the job on, he's way better than the material allowed him to be. I don't think the Newmans really helped the situation.
|
|
