ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 10, 2012 8:12:28 GMT -5
Compared to Superman Returns it's a gem! Fixed. |
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Mar 10, 2012 10:23:41 GMT -5
I think Lester was very interested in the Superman films - he just didn't see Superman the way Donner did. I'm glad that as an artist he was able to direct Superman 3 the way he wanted. The last thing anyone wants is a director being forced to mimic an alien style. A lot of great directors have succumbed to poor scripts - making a film is hard. No one sets out to make a bad film, but there are so many rogue variables that enter the mix. Let's not forget that DC and WB signed off on the script. Warners wanted Pryor. Everyone had a fucking say.
Lester and the writers didn't figure out that Pryor was a terrific dramatic actor.
If Lester comes out and tells his side of the story, I don't think I'd be interested in hearing it. I have got to the point where none of this stuff is that important anymore. It's just a movie -- people get upset, staff get fired, it happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 10, 2012 12:05:01 GMT -5
Even then.... if, say that you're correct (I have no idea whether he really did or didn't care- only he knows--- thus, why a commentary would be of interest to me)--- then the question I'd have is to how/why some of the sequences and the quality look fairly cheap, given what he had at hand. I've mentioned it before, but I have to give major props to Joel Schumacher for- after the debacle of "Batman and Robin"--- doing a commentary for that film, and saying what was going through his head at the time. He does take the blame for ruining/destroying the franchise at the time- but what was onscreen was 100% what he was going for, so in that vein, I can look at that film more as a curiosity (I still don't ENJOY it, but it does give me a chance to step back at it) that has to be considered a real vision realized (even if it seems horrible in others eyes- I still think it's INCREDIBLY hard to watch even then) than simply dismissing it outright as someone drugged out behind the scenes or apathy. Would like to be able to view SIII with the same benefit of the directors' view. Commentaries way past the time a movie is made can shed light on different things. It won't necessarily change one's initial reaction to it--- but as you mentioned, yes, of course, a lot goes into making a film--- but that's why hearing about variables that went 'right' and didn't in the director's eyes is interesting to me--- Did he just leave most of the action stuff to the second unit? Did he even notice Superman's hair was half-brown in the film? What in the film was a compromise, or was everything perfect to him? If anything, it's a pity we really didn't get a better commentary talking about more specifics of what Donner/Mank would have done for SII--- but then again, we didn't get the RDC until a few years ago.... He doesn't HAVE to talk about it, neither does Sydney Furie.....but who wouldn't want to hear what a director has to say about it, if they have good recollection or have insights or stories about factors that we hadn't heard before?  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 10, 2012 12:37:11 GMT -5
Once the Donner cut came out, I was done with it. Its more of a "background" interest to me now.
I'd certainly be interested in Lester's side of the story.
I blame Salkinds/WB/Newmans more for SIII failures than Lester.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 10, 2012 22:12:49 GMT -5
I WANTED to be done with it.... I thought that the RDC would be so satisfying and complete enough, that I wouldn't have kept wondering 'what if'. But, as it's been discussed endlessly here---- for many, the RDC was lacking and didn't give the resolution wanted. Also, seeing the IRC version probably spoiled 'what could have been' with better editing. When MOS comes out on dvd, if nothing else comes out with SII at all--- I have this bad feeling that really WILL be it as far any more 'new' footage. John August (screenwriter for many of Tim Burton's films) recently did a podcast talking about how the industry currently is hurting from such a drop in dvd sales overall, that it makes me wonder if WB thinks there's any more value in releasing any more new SII stuff. Guess we'll find out soon enough.... |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 12, 2012 11:29:04 GMT -5
We need to beseige WB with emails telling they must restore the metro club scenes.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 12, 2012 13:53:39 GMT -5
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. That kind of farce made me not take the danger in SIII seriously. At all. It wasn't much better than operating in the physics of a Looney tunes world. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 12, 2012 20:20:51 GMT -5
In looking back, I think that's what Lester tried to do--- but if that's the case- if they tried to make it an energetic, fast, funny- "anything goes" type of wacky Bollywood-like film, it might have been overall more effective (or interesting) if they TOTALLY 'went for it' then- (with more imaginative Superman bits if they were going for the 'anything goes' light touch). Instead, it tries to play it a 'little' safe with the filmmaking and go both ways- it feels like a compromise: on one hand, they wanted to keep SOME of the elements the same and familiar with the first two Superman films (costume, general look, Williams' theme)--- but try to go for tongue-in-cheek silliness at the same time with stuff that you wouldn't necessarily see in a Superman film (the opening credits of SIII/ the slapstick in the Metro fight in SII) and play off the fact that it DIDN'T really fit expectations. Result? A movie that doesn't really work that great in the drama department, (too superficial and trying too hard to be funny for the Lana/Clark romance to be effective as it---- Lois/Clark worked because eventually it does get deeper/more serious with the SII events of depowering/etc.--- Lana/Supes romance just gets creepy/unpleasant) but at the same time, it's not off-the-wall enough consistently in an interesting way to be fun in that direction either, if they wanted to make a film that made fun of itself (like Hard Days' Night in some ways). Donner did different films in one, but it's overall incredibly satisfying to me. Lester may have tried the same approach, but it felt inadequate in either direction. The Pryor stuff I didn't find very funny, the attempt at a crazy comedy with the lotto winning family didn't make me laugh (or the exploding machine at the end), and the drama with the evil Superman was probably the most interesting--- but even then, only a thin shadow of where they could have taken it. And..... I can't get past the brown hair, either.  |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDurden389 on Mar 12, 2012 21:36:38 GMT -5
I blame Salkinds/WB/Newmans more for SIII failures than Lester. Agreed. Guy just came along for the ride in the background (behind the scenes) to get what he was owed years earlier. Poor guy ends up cleaning up the Salkinds mess AGAIN (finishing S2), then told he's gonna helm the 3rd one on his own. Even though he was completely unfamiliar with the source material, nor the kind of director suited for this type of film. As for Batman and Robin, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't blame Schumaker. I blame Warner Brothers for caving in to the complaints of the angry parents that felt the Burton films were too "gothic/dark". Funny thing is, they did the same thing with Ninja Turtles 2. Parents complained the first film was too dark, so the sequel was made more "kid friendly". The first Ninja turtles movie was the first movie I can remember seeing as a child that lived up to my expectations PERFECTLY. There were quiet a few movies I anxiously awaited seeing as a child, and left the theater feeling rather "ho-hum" about them (Little Mermaid, Terminator 2). But Ninja Turtles did it for me, and I still enjoy the film to this day. Must've watched it over 100 times. The sequel? Probably only watched it about 10 times in the 20 years since it came out. So yeah, censorship sucks. The Expendables 2 being rated PG-13 is an atrocity. Wait, what were we talking about again? lol. |
|
verisimilitude
New Member
Superman II: The Verisimilitude Cut...You'll Still Believe
Posts: 768
|
Post by verisimilitude on Mar 16, 2012 22:39:10 GMT -5
I must admit, that no matter how many things SIII got wrong, it features one of my favorite Superman moments, and I know many of you agree...the Junkyard Comeback of Superman. The music, the shirt-rip... gives me the shivers every time. One of the most iconic Superman moments, IMO. Lester had his moments. That and the alley-way transformation from SII showed me that Lester had some sentimentality and affection for the character. I just wish that he didn't favor campiness, as much as he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 17, 2012 10:26:20 GMT -5
I agree- Lester had a few moments, but his heart was in oddball comedy & slapstick. Oddly, I didn't mind the opening credits nearly as much (one because I'd read the script beforehand, so it wasn't totally unexpected)- because it at least involved Supes. The main thing that bugged me was that there was so LITTLE Supes in a Supes film. What a waste of resources.
|
|
