Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 13:36:13 GMT -5
It's how you look at it- In STM - there was Supes falling in love - In SR- it's about paying for the consequences of mistakes made- (like SII)... There's a ton of heart in it- but STM/SII are mostly joyful, whereas with SR it's about mourning the loss of things. Definitely a more adult approach....but not necessarily a summer fun film approach, like STM and (to a degree) SII had. There's total heart- but it's about a broken one in SR, and healing from it. You're right. But a lack of super feats and a depressing tone was always going to make for an underwhelming and ultimately disappointing film. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 15:35:46 GMT -5
It's how you look at it- In STM - there was Supes falling in love - In SR- it's about paying for the consequences of mistakes made- (like SII)... There's a ton of heart in it- but STM/SII are mostly joyful, whereas with SR it's about mourning the loss of things. Definitely a more adult approach....but not necessarily a summer fun film approach, like STM and (to a degree) SII had. There's total heart- but it's about a broken one in SR, and healing from it. Any kid who is a child of divorce or is adopted can identify with some of the themes in SR. As an adopted child himself Singer clearly had something to say about Superman's own family history in the films past and present. That last speech from Superman to Jason resonates in a lot of ways. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 15:50:35 GMT -5
If that speech was not in STM, Routh would never had said it, so it all rings false. Just another "nod"
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 16:53:25 GMT -5
Its not just another "nod" It was the USAGE of the speech which you seem to be missing the point of. The context is different and there are more layers added to it. SUPERMAN is in the father role. It doesn't just bring things full circle but its also a universal message about the relationships of fathers and sons. But THIS time its a little bit more complicated.
The fact that that Superman is in a situation where he is trying NOT to break up a happy family for his own selfish desires isn't just a "nod." That dynamic was NEVER a part of Superman childhood in the films. Its a real dilemma real people can be faced with.
Unlike Superman Jason's biological father IS alive and despite the complexity of the situation he'll always be there for him. Not just some ghost projected from the past but as a flesh and blood person even if he can't "officially" be Jason's father as part of a traditional family. Thats more than a "nod" and it works within the context of the story they are trying to tell.
Singer was adopted and raised by another father himself so yeah he had personal insight to share on the subject. You've got a situation that REAL fathers deal with ever day in this world. I doubt he just fulled the feelings out of thin air. When he probably felt the same things I doubt it rang false to him. Its more than just another "nod" going on there even if some people refuse to admit it.
A "nod" is Smallvilles constant use of the Williams theme even though it had sh** to do with the films continuity wise and had nothing of depth to offer. Nothing but cheap pandering. But then that was par for the course for that piece of sh**. That whole show rang false.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 19:00:00 GMT -5
Nope, if Brando never said it, they wouldn't have used it
Look at the level of the original dialogue in the movie. Soap opera stuff, both construction and scope. Compare Brando's goodbye monologue to baby Kal-el to anything in SR for example. Compare any piece of random dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 20, 2012 19:09:58 GMT -5
I'm with Metallo on this. That speech is probably the BEST example of something they appropriated from STM and used in a new way. I was really touched by it when I saw it in the theater. I totally had a "I can't believe they're doing this, it's brilliant!" moment when it happened. It's one of the reasons that SR feels like the END of a franchise, rather than the start of a new one. He's basically GIVING the kid to Lois and Richard there. They're Jonathan and Martha Kent now. Two good people (now, for the purpose of this argument, I'll ignore the fact that the Lois in SR is an irritating, selfish bitch, and probably doesn't qualify as a "good person", but that's something else entirely).
Maybe if that were the only homage to STM in the film, I think ye5man might feel differently?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 20, 2012 19:13:29 GMT -5
I'm OK with most of the STM references, but "still the safest way to travel" was too much.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 20, 2012 19:29:15 GMT -5
Nope, if Brando never said it, they wouldn't have used it Look at the level of the original dialogue in the movie. Soap opera stuff, both construction and scope. Compare Brando's goodbye monologue to baby Kal-el to anything in SR for example. Compare any piece of random dialogue. Uhhh...YEP. The fact that the speech is connected in a meaningful and important way to the overall story running through the film means its more than just some worthless fanwank. You still miss the point. Its irrelevant whether or not Brando said it. it still serves an important story purpose that means its more than just some shoutout. When you think of 'soap opera" you must be confusing it with Smallville. Or Lois & Clark. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 20, 2012 19:49:08 GMT -5
Interesting take on John/Martha Kent Val. Its a downer way to end the franchise to me. Superman lonely in the World with feelings for Lois; Luthor at large; Lois moved on; (Perry White lost his personality; Hubbard might be screwing his old dear; Jimmy Olsen still looks 18 somehow)
Anyway, that scene, I admit I found it a bad idea in the cinema; from my POV I couldn't believe they had the cheek to rip it off word for word.
Maybe in a more upbeat film I might have bought it.
I wonder if they bought the kid in solely for that scene? You could re-write the film without the kid and not much would change. Probably meant as sequel stuff, now rewritten in fans minds cos sequel never happened
Writing a sequel to SR: I would not want to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 21, 2012 0:45:12 GMT -5
I agree with Val and Mentallo.... Lois and Richard seem to be following in Jon/Martha Kent's footsteps- adoptive parents to the 'new hope' if anything ever happened to Supes for good.
SR really does try to take the core 'Greek mythology' concept of STM and 'complete the circle' so to speak by having Superman take on the only real significant role left to him in the development of his character:
We've seen Supes in movie form as a child, teen, adult, hero- and the world's guardian.... but that's where there really was only one last significant role he could have had- the marriage of Supes in the comics was kind of a joke (considering they just rebooted it, the idea had so little payoff)---
But...
Being a father was a truly fresh way to expand the character without compromising who that character really was.
I iiked the idea that Supes takes the higher road and sacrifice his own happiness just as Jorel did for himself by giving away his son to parents who would be able to give him the best kind of life that he himself would not have been able to.
Accidental comparisons? Doesn't feel like it to me. The twist of Supes having a kid that he cannot truly keep, but only be a 'spiritual father' to (Just like Jor-el) kind of completes a journey to a degree.... If there was a sequel, then I think either it would have been (as the studios wanted to for awhile) be 'the Death of Superman' with Jason as the future hope.... as a final swan song- (perhaps like TDKR might be) or the death of Richard White- in any case...
The kid added a LOT imo and gave the story fresh life. The downside to SR was lack of a great villain/subplot and superhero action. Those who wanted an upbeat Superman film I think are going to be disappointed for a LOONG time.... SR's tone was appropriate for the story chosen, I think, and I may be wrong, but it's hard to envision MOS as having an upbeat tone with those in charge of it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan D on Mar 21, 2012 7:54:04 GMT -5
Absolutely, there is a complete difference between quoting STM's dialogue at the end of the Helicopter Sequence and quoting Jor-El's farwell speech.
At the end of the airplane sequence, the verbatim Helicopter Sequence dialogue adds no new dimension to the scene or to their relationship. It's just a cute nod.
When the farewell speech is quoted (and adapted I might add) it highlights a change in Superman's position, his emotional state and his relationship with his son. It gives the scene a clear dramatic resonance by referencing a heritage that we all know - and heritage is a clear theme of SR.
If you insist on it being a hollow nod to STM, then you must feel the same way (logically) about SII: RDC referencing the speech: "The Kryptonian prophecy will be fulfilled. The son becomes the father and the father becomes the son." We didn't know it was a 'prophecy' before in STM, we didn't even really know what it means, but referencing it again sheds more light on the words of Jor-El and critically changes their meaning.
Sure, without the speech being in STM, they would not have been able to quote it, but that argument is about as obvious as saying 'without STM there wouldn't be a SR'.
There are plenty of other sections of speech that SR quotes from STM that add nothing new or no new dimension ("People need land and they'll pay through the nose to get it"), but the farewell speech is definitely not in that category.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 21, 2012 8:29:40 GMT -5
So many things I can say to that for so many reasons but a "no" will suffice.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 21, 2012 8:37:45 GMT -5
Thats because Tristan is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 21, 2012 10:28:31 GMT -5
Wow, the poll is damn close.
Some great thoughts here about Superman giving the child to Richard and Lois.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 21, 2012 10:54:36 GMT -5
Thats because Tristan is right. He's not, The RDC represents the original story as originally SCRIPTED in 1977, it was always supposed to be there, so how can it possibly be a homage? SR was a Donner love in, nice intentions, but way way too sycophantic. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 21, 2012 12:09:45 GMT -5
I'm OK with most of the STM references, but "still the safest way to travel" was too much. I see your point, but I just can't help it, I adore that STM reference in SR. I think Brandon's line delivery was perfect, I get massive goosebumps every time! Plus the score is all around great during the whole sequence, and a lot of it was original for the film. The music playing when Lois is first looking at him is simply magical. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwUhTlnOKh8 I think Superman repeated that line for Lois really. He was like trying to remind her (and us) of the first time they met. I too am ok with most of the STM references in SR because they had a clear purpose beyond just cheap gimmicks; it showed us of how much these characters have changed. The bones may be similar but the meat is not at all. Kate's facial expression at seeing Superman back was really well done too, IMO! Brandon/Superman's speech to Jason is so up there as one of the very best Superman scenes commited to film, IMO, and his delivery is very well done. I know some don't agree but I'm a mom and I totally bought it. Finally, those of us who enjoy the film will always have it, but those who don't it's obvious that nothing will change their minds. who cares?? I don't. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 21, 2012 12:09:47 GMT -5
Cheers Hurst, I couldn't be bothered to explain the obvious.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Mar 21, 2012 12:12:55 GMT -5
I agree. Shame the cue was from STM - from the 12 year tutelage, so not sure of the context. Maybe just Superman's first appearance in the movie.
Kind of how Indy 4 used the same cue from Raiders near the start.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 21, 2012 12:14:41 GMT -5
Uh no he IS right. The callback to Brandos speech in STM used in SR is a part of the story. It wasn't just a homage either. Just because the dialogue in SII was scripted in 1977 doesn't change anything. They're both sequels of some kind building on the same overarching story and themes. Just because some people can get past their blind bias to tear SR down and can't be objective doesn't change that. A hollow nod to STM would be something with no significant bearing or relation to the story at hand. To say that what is said in SR is a hollow nod is utter horsesh*t. Wow, the poll is damn close. Some great thoughts here about Superman giving the child to Richard and Lois. Close would be within a few percentage points. If this were an election SR would be winning with a comfortable margin for victory. Keeping in mind SIV has nostalgia from a bunch of 30 to 40 year olds who grew up on it in its favor its going about how I expected. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 21, 2012 12:51:14 GMT -5
Yeah.....I love SR to death, but I always thought the performance of the speech was 'off' (but I also think that of some of the early Reeve stuff put into the RDC)- like he didn't know the context of what he was saying, but the rest of it goes so well, it doesn't matter. The scene is still moving.
Sad as heck that the same creative team didn't do a part two. If only...
(Funny in a sad way how it parallels Donner's not being able to truly do a part two, as well...)
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 21, 2012 12:53:39 GMT -5
Well, it's interesting because "SIV vs SR" isn't titled: "which is a better film?"--- because people are saying clearly that SR is a better film without question- but preference for viewing/re-viewing is a whole other matter, based on different biases--- from the TYPE of film that each one is (even if SIV had a budget and was done well) to who starred in it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Mar 21, 2012 16:06:16 GMT -5
i want to say something about..."heart". there are some here saying that SIV is better because it has "heart". then it becomes a perverse contest of which disliked film is less of a failure because it has more..."heart". unbelievable. in fact, SOME have actually said that "heart" is more important than production value, even though some of these SAME people will say that SII-RDC is worthless because of the production value and lester's send up is superior because of...production value!  now, i will spare no criticism of SII-RDC for its faults. i am in a minority on this, but i feel that the CONTENT of SR-IIRDC is superior to the CONTENT of SII theatrical. i think "blank bullets" is a heck of a lot cooler than "pink bear". i think "Jor-el ressurects superman" is substantially more mythos-oriented than a vague staring at a green crystal with no segue. and then, i get sheckacked. it's all " ...oh Jor you f*ckatrd! can't you see that that's a screen test ! not a real scene!". suddenly, because CONTENT matters (to me) i'm a window licking knuckle dragging clod because i can see the INTENT of SIIRDC and think it more fulfilling than a perfectly executed shot of a bald disco skater being blown backwards by 20 minutes of superbreath. look, you like what you like. where's the consistency? you know what has "heart"? a pants shitting retard. they got a lot of heart. don't get me wrong- i care very much for the impaired. you show me a retard who shit his pants and i WON'T lose my cool. i can handle that. we take care of retards all the time at work. but DONT tell me a pants shitting retard will deliver a better film than a misguided professional director. macaroni art glued to a paper plate is no match for a "lesser-work" from davinci. neither film is perfect. there has never been a perfect superman movie. STM is the closest, and the rest have their moments. but S:IV is an absolute abomination. some say "i ts a good idea- poorly executed".i say: " you're half right". SIV isn't even a good IDEA! it is not. nothing about it is anything but ill-advised. "no nukes" ? fuck off. nukes are real and superman ISN'T. naked bizzaro one? nuclear man with luthors voice? lenny? fuck! lenny? give me TWO otis' and a gus gorman PLEASE! this was a chris reeve vanity project that got completely away from him, hackman phoned in a favor and everyone involved would rather forget. heck margot is batshit crazy and even she is lucid enough to know its shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan D on Mar 21, 2012 17:38:52 GMT -5
Thats because Tristan is right. He's not, The RDC represents the original story as originally SCRIPTED in 1977, it was always supposed to be there, so how can it possibly be a homage? SR was a Donner love in, nice intentions, but way way too sycophantic. My point was to illustrate that neither was simply an homage or nod. Not that they both are. The repeated reference to that first speech builds upon and reflects the character development in both instances. It is a deliberate point of reference from the writers. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan D on Mar 21, 2012 17:53:16 GMT -5
SIV isn't even a good IDEA! it is not. I disagree somewhat. There is a germ of a good idea in Superman IV: why doesn't Superman do more than he does for humanity? I know Jor-El sets some limits and tells him more to be a 'light to show the way', but I think the idea could be explored more deeply and could be a compelling story. Ultimately though SIV squandered that interesting idea though, and spoon feeds its audience a one-sided view (partly the result of Chris making it a movie with an agenda). It also makes the dreadful mistake of referencing real world politics (rather than fabricating a situation which could parallel the cold war), which dates the film more than Kidder's wardrobe ever could. Bizarro (or a deviant thereof) is also not a bad villain to have on screen. Though I have a feeling if they had depicted bizarro in a more traditional sense rather than reworking him into Nuclear Man, then it would have been a little too similar to the 'Evil Superman' thread of SIII. That was something they were possibly going to address in SR2 (if I believe what I read), but I'm not sure really whether they would have done it well enough either. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 21, 2012 18:50:29 GMT -5
I agree. SIV had a good idea but the execution was awful. That germ of a good idea also got lost in the shuffle of the cartoonish Nuclear man stuff and Luthors plan.
Superman: Peace on Earth had the same basic question as Superman IV: why DOESN'T Superman do more? That was a great story. It was well written.
IV DID try to make a good point that most people forget though. Superman even admits at the end that he CAN'T do it all. There is no magic bullet. He can't solve all our problems. We have to. Peace on Earth made the same point. In the end he didn't achieve his goal in either story.
But in SIV the execution was just crap by Cannon.
The idea that all the world leaders would just LET Superman disarm them was absurd. Its not like they could do anything to stop him but there were a lot of moral questions that were never even brought up concerning Superman's actions. We should have at least seen more controversy and some of the heads of state and news media criticizing Superman while others supported him.
|
|
