A fan cut that combines STM and S2

[atp]

Make that 4.

[crazy_asian_man]

I don't know why that kid was chosen. I admit he looks more like a young Clark than I do (or an old Clark for that matter) .... but he doesn't even have lines, so it seemed like the only requirement you had to have was to be able to run, be pulled on wires, and look like Routh. Nit-picking, but for a film that was first class in a number of departments, the choice seemed pretty odd....

[TylerDurden389]

I only saw SR once so my memory is muddy. Was the kid's hair even black? I remember it being dark brown.

[booshman]

[TylerDurden389]

Yep, definitely looks brown to me. Actually, he looks like a teen Eric Bana now that I think about it lol.

[atp]

That kid should not have been cast in that scene.

Come to think of it, that scene shouldn't even have been in the movie.

Fuck, now that I REALLY come to think of it, that movie shouldn't have even been in the movie.

[Rod]

;D

[crazy_asian_man]

That kid should not have been cast in that scene.

Come to think of it, that scene shouldn't even have been in the movie.

Fuck, now that I REALLY come to think of it, that movie shouldn't have even been in the movie.

That crystal scene never appeared in the movie- what movie were you seeing?


And I say, looking at it....yup, it looks like a young Bryan Singer.

[matt]

That whole Smallville flash back sequence was just pointless. I wonder how much money was wasted on that? They could have used that money to hire better actors.

[atp]

Jan 8, 2012 12:34:29 GMT -5 matt said:

That whole Smallville flash back sequence was just pointless. I wonder how much money was wasted on that? They could have used that money to hire better actors.

Or better yet, they could have spent that money on the Donner Cut.

[crazy_asian_man]

That whole Smallville flash back sequence was just pointless. I wonder how much money was wasted on that?

At first, I thought it was pointless, too---
But in following viewings, I realized that it served a couple of purposes:

#1: $-wise, since they had the scenes with the Kent farm, (some deleted, though) they got more juice out of all the time/money spent there.

#2: creatively- even though we assume that everyone we know, knows about "Smallville" the tv show and the Reeve films/etc.--- not everyone does. There's a good chunk of folks to where- even if they were just familiar with the image of the character.... that's where it ends. It may have helped to familiarize those who weren't that familiar with it. (Though that's where the quasi-sequel choice was a bit odd approach to begin with)

#3: it pays off to make clearer how Jason's powers emerged---no longer needing his inhaler as a mirror to Clark's no longer needing the glasses. Rather than saying, "I now have powers that have just emerged"- they wanted to explain it in a quieter way.

That's how I see it, anyways...

[TylerDurden389]

Jan 8, 2012 12:55:39 GMT -5 atp said:

Or better yet, they could have spent that money on the Donner Cut.

[crazy_asian_man]

Or better yet, they could have spent that money on the Donner Cut.

Would LOVE to know how much/what they actually spent on the Donner cut.... versus the budgets for other restoration/recuts on dvd-

For sure:
#1: Restoration (to a degree)
#2: Rights paid to the Brando estate to use Brando in the film
#3: Not quite special effects budget
#4: Thau's fee
#5: Reshoot budget for certain shots w/doubles
(sidenote: I'm not quite sure that the bit with the depowering/repowering is with Reeve doubles.....if the President was purposely obscured for a surprise until the end, when he reveals himself- similarly- wouldn't the surprise to NOT having clear closeups be part of the creative choice when Supes enters/leaves the chamber, so that it be part of the misdirect later?)
#6: Marketing the Donner cut
#7: Dvd cover art

What's again odd is just how they can figure out the actual sales, based on the fact that the dvd sold in the big box set as well..... (For my two cents, I'm not sure at all that they really did have a good estimate because of that fact...)

[Deleted]

Cam....are you saying the flashback scene is good because some people don't know about Superman growing up? Is...is that REALLY necessary? I know people are stupid but c'mon...

I have to admit I think you're grasping at straws with this one. Especially when he doesn't do anything about the glasses in the actual movie, just the deleted scene.

The Donner Cut DVD cover cost probably nothing. They got it from an old Playgirl cover.

[crazy_asian_man]

Cam....are you saying the flashback scene is good because some people don't know about Superman growing up? Is...is that REALLY necessary? I know people are stupid but c'mon...

No, I thought the flashback was not necessary myself, (I would have much rather that they put in the RTK scene) but just speculating on WHY the writers/Singer/studio might have thought it needed to be there.

The bit about young Clark looking at the glasses and hinting that he no longer needed them, though, I thought was an nice touch because that part directly mirrored Jason's no longer needing the inhaler... a subtle way to show that both may have just undergone a physical change (or have just been aware of them) - as opposed to 'glowing' or whatnot.

[matt]

If Kate Bosworth were to play Lois Lane today she would be 14 years old.

[Deleted]

I like to pretend the inhaler was diluted kryptonite to keep his powers in check.

[Jimbo]

I like to pretend that Superman Returns was better received critically and made more money than Green Lantern, so the suits at WB would have greenlit a sequel.

Oh wait...

[Metallo]

;D

If Green Lantern gets a sequel while Superman Returns didn't the suits at WB have coke snorted their brains into oblivion. It was a worse film on every level.

[crazy_asian_man]

I like to pretend that Superman Returns was better received critically and made more money than Green Lantern, so the suits at WB would have greenlit a sequel.
Oh wait...

;D ;D ;D

I think the WB should be grateful to Sony for screwing up their Spiderman franchise w/Raimi, so that they don't look like the only major arses in the superhero film development department.

Half of me wishes that new Spiderman reboot tanks badly, with the hopes that Sony would bring Raimi back & stay out of his way....but, just like MOS--- if MOS tanks, it's not going to be like they're going to backtrack and beg Singer to take over again. (Though I think they should).

It just kills me in both Singer and Raimi's cases, that they made money for their studios--- and it wasn't enough for them to have creative freedom to do what they wanted for the sequels.

[TylerDurden389]

Ya know, it's funny. When you watch Spider-man 3 compared to the first 2, and see the downgrade in overall quality, it's almost like the 3rd film was done by a completely different studio, production crew, director, actors, etc... Yet there they all are. Not to change the subject but, I have a fan edit that completely eliminates the Sandman from the story. Sure it makes the film much shorter (about 95 minutes long with credits), but the narrative is much more focused on the central characters, and thus much better. It's called "The No Sandman Edition" (there's quite a few Spider-man 3 fan edits out there). The sequence of scenes are moved around a bit to fix any plot holes, and with the exception of Spider-Man suddenly being covered in sand with a damaged suit at the end, there are no plot holes whatsoever. obviously it's my "official version" now, and always offer to show it to friends if the subject of Spider-man 3 ever comes up.

As for the new film coming out, I think because it's sandwiched between Avengers and Over-rated 3/fanboy penises rises (Dark Knight Rises), poor spidey won't even be on anyone's radar. IMO, Marvel should stop trying to reboot franchises a mere 5 years later after the last film (Punisher, Hulk, and now Spider-Man). WB should count their blessings rebooting worked for them with Batman only 8 years after Batman and Robin.

[Jimbo]

Spidey 3's plot and script problems aside, the other two have aged very poorly compared to others around that time period like X-Men/X2. It really clashes with the more 'serious' flicks like X-Men, Batman and Superman that came in the decade.

[TylerDurden389]

Lol, well, I'm sure I've said this here on the site before but I'll say it again. The reason I could never get into Spidey 2 was because it just seemed like a remake of the original Superman 2, with the titular hero replaced with our web slinging hero. the scene in Peter's mind when he's talking to Uncle Ben, may as well have been Supes talking to his dad. Even though TDC wasn't out yet, I knew the scene in the script.

[crazy_asian_man]

Ya know, it's funny. When you watch Spider-man 3 compared to the first 2, and see the downgrade in overall quality, it's almost like the 3rd film was done by a completely different studio, production crew, director, actors, etc... Yet there they all are. Not to change the subject but, I have a fan edit that completely eliminates the Sandman from the story.

The story about how it got to be a giant mess is a perfect storm (sorta/kinda), and some of it even is detailed (though they don't call it a mess, it's still easy to read between the lines & see the result on how things developed) in the pr. "Making of Spiderman 3" book.

In broad strokes:
#1: A too-rushed release date, and having to commit to certain fx sequences before the whole script was even formed yet.

#2: Venom forced down Raimi's throat. The second villain was supposed to be the Vulture (played by Ben Kingsley). The vulture I can't see taking nearly as much story/screentime as Venom, had they kept to Raimi's idea.

#3: Spiderman #3's script was so long, it was supposed to be TWO movies. Instead, it got crammed into one.

#4: Mary Jane Watson was supposed to leave in the middle of the movie--- so it was supposed to be Gwen Stacey at the end, but when Bryce Howard turned out to be pregnant, they rewrote it and what resulted in MJ in what felt like repetitive "MJ's in trouble again" scenes from the first two films, whereas it was supposed to be Stacey (Makes more sense why Venom would kidnap Stacey over MJ, too).

Factoring all those in..... no wonder it's a mess, especially racing against the clock with a half-finished script. ;p

If Spiderman 4 had been left to ONLY Raimi, even Raimi talks about disappointment to now about he Spiderman film he wants/wanted to make, but hadn't hit the mark (in his opinion)- I thought the first & even more the second was great.

Even if it's a similar plot, the character situations themselves I thought varied it enough from SII.

[TylerDurden389]

MJ was gonna leave halfway through and Peter was gonna end up with Gwen? Wow. I gotta find this book you're talking about CAM. All that stuff sounds really interesting. Was MJ gonna die? Or just leave Peter while he had the symbiote and became "evil" (with quotes because in the comics the symbiote made you do things that were evil. Not walk like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever and do jazz dancing ). Personally, I think having MJ leave Peter midway through the film, just to have Peter find a new girlfriend would've been one heck of a ret-con since it took poor Peter 2 whole films to get her. Or would MJ have returned in part 4 and the two of them live happily ever after? Maybe after Gwen died for whatever reason?

God I love finding out behind-the-scenes stuff like this lol.