Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2012 18:42:18 GMT -5
I've seen it twice in theaters. Both with SupesUF, I think, actually, funny enough. Once in Orlando, when the special edition deal happened, or soon thereafter, and then in Los Angeles with Richard Donner in the audience.
That DID happen, I'm pretty sure. The second one. The first one, I know happened, but for some reason I'm not 100% about the second one. A lot of my time in LA is a stupid, shitty blur, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 15, 2012 21:44:59 GMT -5
yeah Otis and his silly music definitely bring the film down a bit for me, it's just too campy for my tastes now as an adult. Another part I absolutely hate is the way Lex, miss T and Otis trick the soldiers in order to work on the missiles. Those soldiers are so stupid. They also never explained how Lex realized the green rock could hurt Superman. He just knew. Pretty big plot hole. Turning back time. Yeah, dumb. I still tolerate it because of the emotional way Supes reacts trying to save the woman he loves, even though they haven't even kissed.. I prefer the way Superman reacts in Superman Returns when he decides that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
I think the Krypton and Smallville parts are my fave overall, so epic and compelling.
|
|
Rod
New Member
Believe it or not
Posts: 498 
|
Post by Rod on Mar 16, 2012 1:55:49 GMT -5
i guess people's expectations were much lower at the time so that it was possible occasionally to have an experience that exceeded expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2012 4:12:20 GMT -5
Well.... I can share this-
They were different at that time in many ways:
#1: Prior to STM, NO superhero film (that I'm aware of) EVER got such a huge budget to play with-
#2: Remember- special effects-wise, the flying with the cape was considered next to impossible at that period of time. If it wasn't one problem, it was another. "Star Wars" had opened up only a few years earlier and blew people's minds with the effects there, so fx technology was not all that advanced.
#3: The story of Superman had never been tackled in such a way before on television nor film storywise at that point.
People weren't sure WHAT to expect- I remember standing in line each time (two hour plus waits), having chats with people who were all giddy with anticipation of something brand new that never been seen before. You could feel it in the air, when everyone was chatting away and laughing at sold-out theatres, then SO quiet once the movie started, you could hear a pin drop. And- yep, everyone laughed at the right times. (though there were a few groans at some of Luthor's lines and a big 'wtf' reaction during the spinning back of time)
Cut to:
2006 with Superman Returns- first day, where the marketing was so bad, people who were in line were excited Superman fans, but it definitely wasn't the same kind of energy as in 1979. Too many superhero films and fantasy films had come before SR by that point to be THAT blown away. Flying was not that big of a special effect anymore. With STM, it was the showstopper at the time when he first flies.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 16, 2012 8:15:29 GMT -5
I also think that Supes was a little passe in 06 light of the latest Batman flick. Supes just belongs back in the era it was in
I still feel that way, but will give MOS a chance
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2012 10:21:26 GMT -5
I will, too- but I know that I don't have the same level of enthusiasm going in, because with SR- knowing that it was Bryan Singer and (2) from the advance preview at Comicon- knowing that they were trying to give Routh the same look and feel as Reeve's version got me excited that they could update and revive the Donnerverse.
Also--- the origin of Superman has been done WELL on the big screen. Batman's origin was ...ok.... but the Joker being the one who killed Batman's parents never sat well with me, so seeing that bit corrected was something that I looked forward to - plus the removal of Burton's campiness as well for an update.
With MOS- I want to see it, but it's hard to imagine being blown away by it. I hope so, but....
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 16, 2012 11:06:45 GMT -5
What was campy about Burton's Batman? It was incredibly dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 16, 2012 11:38:05 GMT -5
plus the removal of Burton's campiness as well for an update. Are you feeling ok?  Campy:  Not campy:  Campy:  Not campy:  |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 16, 2012 11:57:55 GMT -5
The difference between Adam West Batstuff and Tim Burton Batstuff is that the Adam West series was INTENTIONALLY funny.
The screenplay of Batman 89? Unintentionally funny.
ALL of Batman Returns? Unintentionally funny.
Batman 66 > (Burton Batman x 100)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 16, 2012 12:07:21 GMT -5
I disagree about B'89. It was fun when it wanted to be, and serious when it wanted it to be. Only a few times for me did B'89 fall flat, such as Joker's fall. Batman Returns?.....eh, I'll keep my mouth shut on that one. I still really enjoy it though.
Batman '89 > STM. Yeah, bring it! ;D The movie gets better near the end, which no one could say about STM.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 16, 2012 12:16:27 GMT -5
I think Superman is a fantastic character when written well, BUT as much as it hurts me to say it, I don't think he's that popular. He IS well-known and iconic, but his appeal is not as big right now in these cynical times as it used to be. People like darker heroes/antiheroes, and Superman is nothing like that. In order to make him more popular and appealing to the masses, especially to the younger audiences, they might need to try to change his essense and make him more like Batman. That's what others tried to do, no?
Don't get me wrong, I think the character can be 3-dimensional and very compelling with good writing, but it seems the hardcore fans just expect him to be perfect all the time and kicking butt. A character without any type of inner conflict is downright boring. And no, all the badass action couldn't make me love a film about him.
oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2012 12:25:42 GMT -5
The movie is incredibly schizophrenic- While I enjoy more of it now, now that there's an (imo) "official" Batman origin film out there with BB--- but at the time, I never felt that the Batman side of the film worked as well as it was supposed to- I felt that while Burton seemed to enjoy the Joker parts, you never really felt like the danger level was so high that he HAD to be stopped (unlike TDK).
Burton himself said that it was difficult for him to see Bruce as this happy-go-lucky guy.....which is weird, because it should have been obvious to Burton that- as shown in the comics and BB- that the 'extrovert' was just a mask. Thus, we have a somewhat broody Keaton/Bruce.
Keaton worked far better than I would have thought, but Burton was off the mark from the comics imo. I find his 'dark fairy tale' version of Batman fun to a degree, and I actually like his costume of Batman better than Nolan's version--- but I'm thrilled that Nolan got the story and character 'right' otherwise on all cylinders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 16, 2012 12:26:34 GMT -5
I disagree about B'89. It was fun when it wanted to be, and serious when it wanted it to be. Only a few times for me did B'89 fall flat, such as Joker's fall. Batman Returns?.....eh, I'll keep my mouth shut on that one. I still really enjoy it though. Batman '89 > STM. Yeah, bring it! ;D The movie gets better near the end, which no one could say about STM. Well, I'm not saying I don't enjoy Bats89 (but the odds of me ever sitting through Batman Returns ever again are roughly zero), but it's not very good. There are some great performances, a great score, the best Batmobile ever, all of which are let down by a screenplay that was edited with a hatchet and one of the more incomprehensibly stupid villain plans I've ever seen. You're telling me that The Joker Parade/fake money/HORRIBLE PRINCE DANCE PARTY is somehow smarter, more tonally consistent, and less out-of-character for a villain than ANYTHING perpetrated by Lex & Co? Sorry dude. Same war crime. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2012 12:32:46 GMT -5
I think it's more the age group. I have a 7-year old relative that has NO problem with 'pure' characters and loves the silver age stuff. His favorite comic issues? The ones in the silver age with superheroed pets and the humorous ones.... definitely different attitude than the middle school kids I teach, who need things with more of an 'edge'. But then- peer pressure also plays into it, too. If the rest of the kids think a pure character is not cool, and needs it 'dark', then the rest will feel that way, too.  |
|
verisimilitude
New Member
Superman II: The Verisimilitude Cut...You'll Still Believe
Posts: 768
|
Post by verisimilitude on Mar 16, 2012 13:25:08 GMT -5
I have to agree with the idea of Superman being best suited for a particular era. I understand it's completely subjective, but it seems to me that Superman is inextricably woven with certain ideals and a certain innocence that belongs to a bygone era.
Please understand that I'm talking about Superman on screen. I fully realize that Superman has grown and developed with the times, when it comes to the comic books, but as far as trying to create another feel-good, makes-your-heart soar, Donneresque epic, I believe in my gut that you have to place Superman in a world similar to that of STM. In the jaded, pessimistic, amoral world we live in today, the kind of Superman film that could really soar, would come across as merely quaint at best, and archaeic at worst.
So, we're left with trying to do a "modern"-feeling, culturally-relevant Superman, and those two things are mutually exclusive, IMO. So, the best we can hope for, is a well-made, well-acted film that delivers a good time, and perhaps an occasional magic moment or two.
In the hands of the right director, that could happen.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 19, 2012 7:08:07 GMT -5
I disagree about B'89. It was fun when it wanted to be, and serious when it wanted it to be. Only a few times for me did B'89 fall flat, such as Joker's fall. Batman Returns?.....eh, I'll keep my mouth shut on that one. I still really enjoy it though. Batman '89 > STM. Yeah, bring it! ;D The movie gets better near the end, which no one could say about STM. Well, I'm not saying I don't enjoy Bats89 (but the odds of me ever sitting through Batman Returns ever again are roughly zero), but it's not very good. There are some great performances, a great score, the best Batmobile ever, all of which are let down by a screenplay that was edited with a hatchet and one of the more incomprehensibly stupid villain plans I've ever seen. You're telling me that The Joker Parade/fake money/HORRIBLE PRINCE DANCE PARTY is somehow smarter, more tonally consistent, and less out-of-character for a villain than ANYTHING perpetrated by Lex & Co? Sorry dude. Same war crime. I detest Batman Returns too mate. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 19, 2012 11:13:43 GMT -5
That's why I thought SR was so underrated (and still is imo)- it let the origin story STAY in that 'more innocent time' but let Superman return to, well, today and would have moved forward with a proper sequel.
Now?
MOS has the challenge of being so good that it justifies all of the changes and updates to please everyone....
|
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Mar 20, 2012 8:52:08 GMT -5
I've seen it twice in theaters. Both with SupesUF, I think, actually, funny enough. Once in Orlando, when the special edition deal happened, or soon thereafter, and then in Los Angeles with Richard Donner in the audience. That DID happen, I'm pretty sure. The second one. The first one, I know happened, but for some reason I'm not 100% about the second one. A lot of my time in LA is a stupid, shitty blur, unfortunately. Yes, both times happened. Donner did the Q&A afterwards. Remember he said that he and Mank smoked some weed and were running around the yard in a Supes outfit? HAHA. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 28, 2012 17:58:08 GMT -5
I disagree about B'89. It was fun when it wanted to be, and serious when it wanted it to be. Only a few times for me did B'89 fall flat, such as Joker's fall. Batman Returns?.....eh, I'll keep my mouth shut on that one. I still really enjoy it though. Batman '89 > STM. Yeah, bring it! ;D The movie gets better near the end, which no one could say about STM. I've got a love hate relationship with Batman Returns. Parts I like and parts I dislike. Overall I enjoy it though. I think Keaton is just as good if not better in Returns but I don't think the story is as strong. Penguins good but not as good as Joker and Pfieffer is a better female lead than Basinger. The enclosed soundstage look just isn't as impressive. It was so much better when they shot in England. The violence or darkness didn't bother me but the production design on those stages is a little too Burton. The film looks "slicker" but it all looks like a warped theater/stage play reality. Its more of a Tim Burton film than a Batman film. The difference between Adam West Batstuff and Tim Burton Batstuff is that the Adam West series was INTENTIONALLY funny. The screenplay of Batman 89? Unintentionally funny. ALL of Batman Returns? Unintentionally funny. Batman 66 > (Burton Batman x 100) Keatons plugs in Batman 89: unintentionally funny Batman 89 was mostly style and not as much substance Batman 05 was more substance but not enough style Batman 66 had both. |
|
|
|
Post by Olly H 82 on Mar 28, 2012 18:00:06 GMT -5
I will probably do one of my retrospective / reviews on Superman the movie at one point. Just discussing its impact and how much more respect it should be shown. Probably wont discuss the production because everyone has heard it all before!. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 28, 2012 18:44:20 GMT -5
Overall, I actually think it's stronger than Batman '89.... My problem with Batman '89 the script was rewritten constantly- and, based on the original draft I saw--- it FEELS that way, imo.
Batman Returns is a bit fractured, but Burton had more control and it feels more like it was Burton allowed to go as far as he wanted to go, versus Batman '89 which felt like Burton was a bit restrained. (Much like his Planet of the Apes).
Returns also gets the Batman/Catwoman love/hate relationship spot-on tonewise imo.... not necessarily an easy feat. A lot of good stuff in Returns, but with a Burton filter imo.
Though.... can't wait to see how Nolan tackles it. A little worried that there's too many elements packed into one film with Talia Al Ghul AND Catwoman in the same film...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 28, 2012 18:58:30 GMT -5
They're both flawed films that didn't really get it quite "right." Burtons films had the atmosphere and the visuals but from a story perspective they're both missing something.
I thought the fact that Burton was more "restrained" in Batman 89 was a good thing. Both films take place in a sort of fantasy world but The first film looks a little more livable. Much more of a "Batman" film than a Burton one.
Nolans films are great but sometimes even I have to admit they are a little dry. Especially TDK....even though its brilliant in so many ways.
STM is more definitive a Superman film than any Batman film is for Batman. Makes me wonder what Donner would have done with a Batman film that skewed a little more real world than Burtons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Mar 28, 2012 20:22:30 GMT -5
Does anyone else think that the shot of Superman flying over the two hicks painting a fence when he's chasing the rocket seem like something Lester would have done?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 28, 2012 20:34:06 GMT -5
If Lester had done it they would have been even bigger hick stereotypes.
There probably would have been some kind of a gag like one of em dropping a moonshine jug on his foot as Superman flew over. Real Hee Haw stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 28, 2012 20:48:35 GMT -5
They're both flawed films that didn't really get it quite "right." Burtons films had the atmosphere and the visuals but from a story perspective they're both missing something.
I thought the fact that Burton was more "restrained" in Batman 89 was a good thing. Both films take place in a sort of fantasy world but The first film looks a little more livable. Much more of a "Batman" film than a Burton one.
Nolans films are great but sometimes even I have to admit they are a little dry. Especially TDK....even though its brilliant in so many ways.
Great post- I more/less agree. The main issue I had with Batman '89 iwere the half-hazard rewrites (the original one written by Sam Hamm was fine and much better imo--- closer to TDK in tone than what resulted) and Burton's admitted inability to grasp Bruce Wayne's character properly (something Nolan nailed to a 't') from the comics.
I'm sad to see Nolan's version of Bats end--- as I think with BB he was 'almost there', but nailed the tone perfectly with TDK.... and could have played out Batman for a few more films imo. (though, it's still a question mark if his latest Batman film will satisfy or disappoint).
|
|
