ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 8, 2012 6:56:05 GMT -5
The "man drowning in car" is retarded. Nobody thought to smash a window? Superman could have gone over as Clark Kent and done it with his shoe!
Superman III = schizo film.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 7:00:30 GMT -5
The "man drowning in car" is retarded. Nobody thought to smash a window? Superman could have gone over as Clark Kent and done it with his shoe! Superman III = schizo film. Guess so, the police alone could have probably handled the bank robbery in STM too. More fun if Superman does it though. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2012 8:28:55 GMT -5
Gus Gorman was us - a regular guy, smart but lazy, looking for the quick buck. So he stole money ... so what? He was just a complete and utter moron about it, taking it all in one lump check. But how many people have cushioned expense accounts or stayed clocked in during lunch break? We all do it in some little way, just a bit here and there. Was he hurting anyone? Not really.! I don't see how this can be justified at all, if you embezzle from your employers you can expect a hefty jail term, its a very serious offence. He's just lucky his boss was a megalomaniacal nutcase. Well, Richard Pryor had his fair share of real life controversies, I'm not sure if he could be described as one of the good guys of life - but he was a damn funny comedian...and that's where he belonged, in comedies, not in Superman movies. You must be a serious Gus Gorman fan to justify those crimes. I guess since Gus was stealing from a crook who wanted to rule the world Superman looked the other way. I think its one of those cases where one follow the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. But Gus was pretty actively involved in a lot of illegal stuff so it does look a bit odd even though he never meant any of it to hurt anyone. I have a little bit of a soft spot for the title sequence. It's fun, and it almost works, but some of the slap stick is just too forced. Like the businessman with a bucket on his head, who is just one step away from saying "Whoa! Who turned the lights out!?". Nonetheless, the film should have had a proper 'space titles' credit sequence like the first two. It's a complete disaster, you have mimes, rubber faced men falling down holes, blind men with road-line-painting equipment, farcical bank robbers...then the very terrifying sight of a man nearly drowning in his own car. How can you go from laughter to horrification in a matter of seconds? the car bit should have remained, to get a Superfeat in the film early, the photo booth moment too is also cute, but the rest can do - seriously. Thats Lester for you! SII had the same problems in the big Metropolis fight. One thing the Donner cut did right was to cut that hokey sh*t out. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 8, 2012 8:57:53 GMT -5
When Superman 3 was serious, it was very, very good. The scene where he comes onto Lana is fantastic.
Its a confused film. As Gandy says, the script is more to blame than anything. Lester was collecting a pay check, but had the script been better then he'd have delivered better.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2012 9:14:02 GMT -5
Thats my big issue with Lester. He didn't take the story of films (not necessarily the production) seriously enough to fight for something stronger. Like you said he was a gun for hire. He didn't feel as strongly about it as Donner. Never had an issue with him doing it HIS way but his parts of SII and SIII became farces.
The metropolis battle in SII having a couples wigs get blown off or ice cream flying in someones face always took me out of the moment even as a kid. It never seemed quite right.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 10:08:03 GMT -5
I agree... SIII is 'all' Lester as much as STM is all Donner. SIII has more in common with Lester's 4 Musketeers--- which felt a bit sloppy, (even though shot back to back w/3 Musketeers).
Donner had a weak script to start, but he didn't let that stop him. The idea that a director is a victim to a weak script dosn't say much for that director's ability to take charge.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 10:14:24 GMT -5
Problem is that guys of our sort of generation grew up with Lester's version of SII and hadn't a clue about what happened with Donner, we didn't care who made the film, just what happened in the film, its only as I've got older that I hate so many parts of Lester's contribution to the series.
So, all the comedy moments in SII, I never imagined it wouldn't have been there if things worked out differently. Its why I'm having such a hard time accepting the DC because its just not what I'm used to, even the alternate takes Donner used of his own work. I'm used to the line delivery in the Donner takes Lester presented - Zod's dialogue at the Fortress a case in point. I'm thankful to the DC for giving me Brando, which I've ripped out and put in the Hurst Cut.
Superman III just gave Lester carte blanche to do what he wanted, Superman II would've been just as bad if Lester had directed from the start...and I shudder to think what would have happened if Lester got any of his ideas into the original film too, he was hanging around on set was he not?
As for Gus...I love it when Superman denounced 'the four of them' and Gus tried to seperate himself from the other three 'I'm not with them' 'Coulda fooled me mister' Spot on Supes.
And Russ - The bit when Supes comes onto Lana is FANTASTIC, what a total sleaze he becomes, sumptuous acting from Reeve.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 10:22:31 GMT -5
Exactly. I've ALWAYS given credit to Lester for his fantastic film "Three Musketeers", so he knows how to direct, but his choices imo just plain wrong if you wanted to keep the camp a minimum for a Superman film. (Oddly enough, they're well balanced in '3 Musketeers')
The screenwriters even mentioned in an interview on SII (It might have been Starlog) that Lester told them that he had been approached for SIII and that if he was on, that he wanted them with him.
Lester's ego essentially is what killed the Superman films. If he was there before Donner, then there wouldn't be the sense of ruining 'what could have been' or a giant standard to live up to.
SIII is a drag, but it's not a heartbreaker. One gets the sense that the filmmakers got (basically) what they wanted. Whereas, with SII- it does feel like a heartbreaker, as it divides people up because of the (Still ongoing) argument that one filmmaker got screwed by another filmmaker's choices, and the vision as well.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2012 10:25:31 GMT -5
I've always knew something was "off" with Superman II but as a kid I just didn't have the insight to figure out what. The switch in footage was always jarring to me but I didn't know why it kept happening.
I always looked past that because I found SII so action packed.
My appreciation of STM has grown, for SII its dropped, for SIII its remained about the same, and for SIV its dropped (only not as much as SII because it wasn't as high to begin with).
If anything I'm more impressed than ever with SIII as a technical achievement and more disappointed with SII as an overall execution misstep. Over the the years those feelings only get stronger. SIII is a script failure but it wasn't as big of a missed opportunity as SII in my mind so it doesn't sting as much.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 8, 2012 10:30:23 GMT -5
Wow, you really believe that? That's so wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 10:33:39 GMT -5
All else aside.... you must really have really tough shoes!  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 10:39:29 GMT -5
All joking aside- yes, I REALLY do.
My perspective:
I do think Lester's "Three Musketeers" is genius, as well as "Hard Day's Night". When I read in the newspapers that Lester was finishing Donner's film, at the time, I thought 'perfect choice'.... that it would be treated seriously enough, with a sense of humor at the right times-
So, imagine my gigantic disappointment in the movie theatre seeing it for the first time. The first time, the stuff with the Phantom Zone criminals was disappointing, even as a kid- it felt wrong- but by the time it got to the Metro battle sight gags, I felt like throwing things at the movie screen.
On the flip side, I have six year olds that LOVE the sight gags in the Metro battle (but they also thrill at being scared at the cheesy old Monster movies, so they're not EXTREMELY delicate). There are little children who love Jar Jar Binks (for real) and the prequels as well--- so, it's really what age you're at, and the expectation levels you have when seeing these films.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2012 10:40:47 GMT -5
Wow, you really believe that? That's so wrong! If anything it was the Salkinds ego and Cannons penny pinching and incompetence. Although I've gained a little sympathy for the Salkinds because I can see a little bit of their side they still should have kept Donner on after STM was a hit. I'd call some of Lesters creative decisions more apathetic than ego driven. |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 10:57:29 GMT -5
I've always knew something was "off" with Superman II but as a kid I just didn't have the insight to figure out what. The switch in footage was always jarring to me but I didn't know why it kept happening. I always looked past that because I found SII so action packed. My appreciation of STM has grown, for SII its dropped, for SIII its remained about the same, and for SIV its dropped (only not as much as SII because it wasn't as high to begin with). If anything I'm more impressed than ever with SIII as a technical achievement and more disappointed with SII as an overall execution misstep. Over the the years those feelings only get stronger. SIII is a script failure but it wasn't as big of a missed opportunity as SII in my mind so it doesn't sting as much. Yes, when I was a kid, something didn't feel right and I know exactly what it was - Clark mysteriously regaining his powers, as a child I just did not get it, his mother tells that it can't be reversed and without explanation, it gets reversed. That bugged me for years and years, until I looked up Superman Cinema for the first time in 2000, so thats about 14 years of wondering. I totally agree with you about STM, as I've gotten older I love it even more, as a Super-hero movie goes, its practically flawless, as a stand-alone piece of film-making, it doesn't have too many equals, the direction is brimming over with finesse, the acting is magnficent (and those reviewers who called Brando's performance 'lazy' - hang your heads!!) the action is perfectly placed, but fully restrained with the knowledge of a greenlit sequel and the plotline perfect for Supes inaugural outing...add to that arguably the greatest score and opening credit crawl ever committed to film. I cannot praise it enough. Superman II is still enjoyable to me just for Terence Stamp alone but I've lost some of the love for it since finding out the true story of events. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 11:26:42 GMT -5
As a kid, I loathed the Salkinds once I saw the finished SII for firing Donner- but older, I can see how both sides would be pissed. Without the Salkinds, NO Superman movie would have been made bigbudget. Look at how WB has managed Superman into movie paralysis for decades....  Without Donner, the quality choices wouldn't have been made in the first place to get a giant blockbuster to begin with- (The Salkinds' follow up to Superman: "Santa Claus the Movie" has yet to garner great websites and forums celebrating it) Still--- The Salkinds should have gotten someone from WB (who was vastly interested by then) to step in and be the 'go between'--- and kept Donner, even if they had to scale down the costs. It just got TOO personal by that point. If someone from WB told Donner that the budget had to be trimmed, and not Spengler or the Salkinds, he probably would have worked with them--- again, just too personal it seems by then. Either way, it was pissing on STM and Donner artistically.... A novice (maybe a second unit director like John Glen- who was 2nd unit on Bond and Supes, then got promoted to director on the Bond film after that) might have been more respectful to Donner's tone--- but who knows? Hard to say... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 11:39:57 GMT -5
Yeah, as a kid, even with the first viewing, things felt 'off' too.... the Niagara part didn't feel grand enough (the Mank version is a bit edgier) and the Houston criminal stuff made me feel robbed of how cool powerful the villains seemed as a character from the trial (and the moon) sequences. On another note, wonder if we'll get ANYTHING more (rehearsals? Were there any?) from SII (alternate flying shots? Table reads?) related to Donner or if this is the end of the line- my main hope is that, if nothing else, that MOS leads to something more....  |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 11:41:24 GMT -5
For me - All I want is the metro club scenes from SIV - I'll pay the music rights myself if needs me!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 11:49:18 GMT -5
I'd want to see that- it's mainly what keeps SIV (at this point) from being a complete story, if you add in the deleted scenes.... though the gravesight scenes from SIV would be nice, too.
If we're talking short "wishlists"--- alternate takes from SII from the Brando and DP jump scenes (the part with Clark speeding through is too elaborate for them to have just done one take), Phantom Zone criminals' alternate flying bluescreen takes, the rough trailer they were going to prep that was GOING to be made for part II under Donner (presumably they got that far for a rough assembly), and- if nothing else- table readings by Stamp and company for the missing edgier Houston and Washington Monument scenes. (the full speech by Zod rather that what was in the theatrical)
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 12:00:33 GMT -5
Absolutely. Would love to know why the heck it wasn't included!! Is there anyway we can appeal that it is restored?
Where's the evidence that any of this exists? There's MORE Brando out there?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2012 12:05:15 GMT -5
I want to see the grave scene from SIV. There can't be much to it. Its just Reeve acting.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 12:09:41 GMT -5
I want to see the grave scene from SIV. There can't be much to it. Its just Reeve acting. My only guess is that it simply wasn't on the workprint that Warners discovered. Because unless they was an inappropriate Ultravox soundtrack in the background, why the heck not just include it. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 12:37:52 GMT -5
On the other hand, we just see photos of him kneeling. Perhaps in the actual scene, he stands up and screams, "FATTTHAAAA!!! MUTTTHHHAAA!!!" No matter what, I want to see, it, too. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 12:45:33 GMT -5
There's guesswork only that there MIGHT have been a table read--- or a rehearsal. (We know that Donner rehearsed with Kidder and Reeve on the Lois apt. set- it's on the making of)
I used to think rehearsals were standard for professional movies, long before I got into director interviews- (and then later dvd commentaries).... was suprised when Spielberg said he did none, but liked the 'raw' emotions of filming the actors on set- then later found out there were other directors that also did no rehearsals....
If there IS/WAS taped rehearsals or table reads (or alternate takes) of Stamp as Zod or any of the Donner stuff, hey, I'd love it.....but, the only thing we know is that Ilya Salkind talked about Donner always doing multiple takes (one of the things that irked the producers I would guess)- I'm assuming that there's still a lot of stuff out there....
(Aside: Thau talked about some damaged takes and using alternates. Would you have preferred a slightly damaged take that's the best for the RDC, or the alternative? But then again....without seeing which takes we're considering, perhaps that's a difficult (or impossible) question to ponder....)
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2012 12:55:25 GMT -5
All of maybe five minutes of Superman 3 were serious, and I have a differing opinion on how good they actually were. That sequence showed a touch of what Reeve and O'Toole were capable of, and their talents were hardly pushed at all in the film, when they could have.
The writers (under Lester) I think tried to mirror the light touch of the Lois/Clark dynamic, with comedy schtick to give Lana, but I don't think it was the right choice. (Smallville the tv show, on the other hand, went too far in the other direction, but that's a whole other thread) The best of the Superman movies balanced humor and drama, but most of SIII was just pratfalls and schtick.
Pity--- they had great resources and talent.
|
|
Knight
New Member
@Knighty80
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Knight on Mar 10, 2012 7:33:46 GMT -5
I watched it again last night and I totally enjoyed it,slapstick aside am fine with it now. I don't grimace through it like I used to.
Compared to films of today it's a gem!
|
|
