Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 7, 2018 18:32:24 GMT -5
That's a pretty fair assessment of Snyder's work. Full disclosure, I appreciate Superman Returns as well. There are some misfires that I wish were handled differently, but appreciate the core of the film. It's such a pity to me that SR didn't get the action packed sequel promised.... but the idea of having Superman having to end up killing Jason is pretty out there. (if that really was what they had in mind) While I admire and love how WB supported Nolan's PG-13 Dark Knight and its level of darkness (I wouldn't have disagreed if an 'R' rating would have ended up being mandatory)- It's really hard to envision how Singer might have pulled it off... but it's possible that he might not have been able to, after seeing how Apocalypse was so disappointing (even if you include the deleted scenes). WB should have done with SR what they’re doing with the dceu post justice league—hung in there. JL was a bigger cascading failure than SR was...in all levels...because they may have damaged several franchises at once. They should have learned from Star Trek TMP and so many other movies where the sequel(s) turned things around. They would have had the Batman problem either way so that doesn’t even matter in hindsight. With SR they felt they had the breathing room to start over completely. Now I don’t think they feel they can because they’re too far in and have too much at stake. They can’t admit defeat and call it a day because I think they think that would damage the dc brand for a long time...at least on the big screen. If they’d stuck with SR Aand just fixed its flaws they would have had the jump on marvel by a few years and would be getting compared to them. They needed their own Kevin fiege back then though but I’m not sure who that would have been. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 7, 2018 18:37:14 GMT -5
I'd love to see Tarsem Singh attempt a Superman film. He'd probably have all the complaints Snyder got and more, but the film sure would be a trip... Was Jude Law rumored to be Zod in Superman Returns or the follow up? And if in Returns, does anyone know in what scope? Like flashback/recreation of what we saw in Superman II, or full on "well, Superman went back in time, and Zod and co were released for the 3rd time"? Yeah he was rumored to be Zod but who is to say how true that was but he also confirmed he could have been Superman. Not only for Flyby but Batman vs Superman too. The Wolfgang Peterson one. I remember him Talking about trying on a Superman suit and getting spooked and decided not to do it. The funny thing is he basically is going to get to play a Superman like character in a lot of ways when he plays Mar-Vell in Captain Marvel. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 7, 2018 18:42:56 GMT -5
Snyder’s best when he’s following the plans of someone who is a better storyteller and adds his visual touch. He can make a pretty picture but when it comes to story and character he can easily get lost or wrapped up in excess. He needs someone to pull him back. Dawn of the Dead was before his bag of tricks and it was written by...James Gunn. They also had Romero’s blueprint to follow. The 300 comic isn’t exactly an all time masterpiece but again the movie had Millers blueprint to follow and the closer Snyder sticks to the source material the better the movie is. BvS borrowed from death of Superman and tdkr in one big mashup but didn’t really stick close to either one. He’s played it somewhat safe relying on the same things that made 300 a hit. He should try to stretch himself as a director. Sometimes when auteurs do that they can have their greatest success. Tim Burton did. If Snyder had a strong hands-on producer that had good story sense, I think he would be able to do some great films- I imagine that that's what WB might have thought was going to happen with Nolan putting his name on as producer of MOS, but.... oh well....  They were probably hoping Nolan would have stayed on in a more hands on capacity but once things got going and he had to work on his third Batman movie he left it to Snyder to mostly do his own thing. Making MOS a kickoff to a shared universe was almost an afterthought. You can tell since most of the Easter eggs and references are things that easily could have been put on in post. But Snyder still needed that strong producer. Bay had that early on from Bruckheimer. In fact he and Don Simpson were that for a few directors. They don’t have to be there day to day but they can be a guiding hand and keep them on track. I’m hoping Cameron is going to do that on Battle Angel. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on May 7, 2018 19:54:07 GMT -5
That's a pretty fair assessment of Snyder's work. Full disclosure, I appreciate Superman Returns as well. There are some misfires that I wish were handled differently, but appreciate the core of the film. But how can you appreciate something that played like sophomoric fan fiction? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 20:55:59 GMT -5
That's a pretty fair assessment of Snyder's work. Full disclosure, I appreciate Superman Returns as well. There are some misfires that I wish were handled differently, but appreciate the core of the film. But how can you appreciate something that played like sophomoric fan fiction? I can only answer your question if I understand or agree with the premise. I don't. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on May 8, 2018 1:19:40 GMT -5
But how can you appreciate something that played like sophomoric fan fiction? I can only answer your question if I understand or agree with the premise. I don't. The broad consensus is that, while SR had it's heart in the right place, it ended up being an amateurish love letter to STM. Like a couple of early 20-something kids with limited world experience and zero historical appreciation of the character outside of STM wrote it.... oh wait... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2018 3:00:04 GMT -5
That's a pretty fair assessment of Snyder's work. Full disclosure, I appreciate Superman Returns as well. There are some misfires that I wish were handled differently, but appreciate the core of the film. But how can you appreciate something that played like sophomoric fan fiction? Well, first... everyone's entitled to hate or love whatever they see. I know I'm in the minority of really enjoying it- I can share the reasons why it really hit some high notes for me, and share a context- but, it's probably not going to change anyone else's opinion, but maybe they could (if he/she wanted to) understand my view, even if he/she disagrees. (which is ok, would be a boring world if we all agreed). #1: I grew up with the silver age of comics- all the 'silly' stuff that didn't seem silly as a kid- bottled city of Kandor, Krypto, etc. etc. etc.- but then again, at the time, comics really were aimed at kids. So, the material was sophomoric and childish, but it was aimed for kids from the get go. #2: As I grew older and life got more serious- my tastes probably grew darker- but something like Superman the Movie- with its sense of innocence and fun and sentimentality (which we have to thank Donner not Lester for)- was like a trip down memory lane to being a kid reading those comics, only on the big screen, with millions and millions of dollars and hundreds of craftsmen at the top of their games to make childhood dreams come to life. It was a film not just for kids, but mainly for the 'inner kid' that probably was buried with all the life responsibilities/ etc. #3: Cut to decades later after the enjoyment of STM- I've gotten even older- and with newer responsibilities, it was shocking (but in a good way) to see a return to Superman the Movie- but with a new dimension of things I've been dealing with as an older person- the grays in life, of relationships that get complicated even if there are no bad guys involved in it, getting old and facing mortality and the scary idea that you could die anytime and the world would go on fine without you, and of new perspectives on yourself and life after having a kid. The comics - as (finger quotes) "adult" as they've gotten with comics that stated to become more violent and dark between the time of STM and SR- they haven't really evolved the character or the comics in the way that I felt that SR did. While some friends HATED what they felt were the 'soap opera' elements- I thought that the difference between something that's a soap opera and intelligent drama is primarily the acting and direction. To a majority, it ruined SR and made it "Twilight". To me, I saw SR as embracing the Reeve Donner films - intentionally trying to emulate the Reeve portrayal of Superman - and also adding on things in a challenging and fresh way that it has never been done in the comics- REALLY making an evolution with the Superman character and playing it straight to him not only facing a world that went on without him- (something that really struck a chord maybe because of personal things I was going through at the time with health), but not shying away but going head on to give Superman a new role (and vulnerability)- having a kid. The Luthor stuff was dull, admittedly, but anyhow--- I can't change what anyone else thinks or feels about the film--- and I remember specifically after the first viewing thinking, "I love a LOT of this film.... but I don't think many other people will." It definitely didn't play it 'safe' (which would have been a fresh reboot with no ties, if done well)- but took the more difficult route: being a sequel and having to introduce and care about characters that are recast from a movie decades old... AND move forward. It wasn't perfect from beginning to end, I'll be the first to admit that- but there was a lot that I really connected to personally. So, anyhow, for what it's worth- that's why I dug it. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2018 3:05:47 GMT -5
It's hard to believe that Singer was going to choose Jude Law. I really thought it was Wolfgang Petersen that wanted him for BvS back in the day. Huh. Well, at the same time- I've never been 100% on Singer's choices. He did choose Hugh Jackman for Wolverine, but I never thought that Famke Jansen nor Sophie Turner was a great fit for Phoenix. I also wasn't crazy for Bosworth as Lois Lane---but went with it. Also after seeing Amy Adams as Lois Lane- who I felt was REALLY miscast as Lois, I think I owe Bosworth an apology. I don't know if Singer was kidding, but when he talked about the possibility of reboot and choosing the young actor who played Hank in Xmen: First Class- I kind of did a 'whhhhhaaaat?' reaction. (Similar to how I felt when Donner talked about using Mel Gibson for Superman if he came back to the franchise.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 7:04:50 GMT -5
I can only answer your question if I understand or agree with the premise. I don't. The broad consensus is that, while SR had it's heart in the right place, it ended up being an amateurish love letter to STM. Like a couple of early 20-something kids with limited world experience and zero historical appreciation of the character outside of STM wrote it.... oh wait... Oh wait what? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 7:12:03 GMT -5
But how can you appreciate something that played like sophomoric fan fiction? Well, first... everyone's entitled to hate or love whatever they see. I know I'm in the minority of really enjoying it- I can share the reasons why it really hit some high notes for me, and share a context- but, it's probably not going to change anyone else's opinion, but maybe they could (if he/she wanted to) understand my view, even if he/she disagrees. (which is ok, would be a boring world if we all agreed). #1: I grew up with the silver age of comics- all the 'silly' stuff that didn't seem silly as a kid- bottled city of Kandor, Krypto, etc. etc. etc.- but then again, at the time, comics really were aimed at kids. So, the material was sophomoric and childish, but it was aimed for kids from the get go. #2: As I grew older and life got more serious- my tastes probably grew darker- but something like Superman the Movie- with its sense of innocence and fun and sentimentality (which we have to thank Donner not Lester for)- was like a trip down memory lane to being a kid reading those comics, only on the big screen, with millions and millions of dollars and hundreds of craftsmen at the top of their games to make childhood dreams come to life. It was a film not just for kids, but mainly for the 'inner kid' that probably was buried with all the life responsibilities/ etc. #3: Cut to decades later after the enjoyment of STM- I've gotten even older- and with newer responsibilities, it was shocking (but in a good way) to see a return to Superman the Movie- but with a new dimension of things I've been dealing with as an older person- the grays in life, of relationships that get complicated even if there are no bad guys involved in it, getting old and facing mortality and the scary idea that you could die anytime and the world would go on fine without you, and of new perspectives on yourself and life after having a kid. The comics - as (finger quotes) "adult" as they've gotten with comics that stated to become more violent and dark between the time of STM and SR- they haven't really evolved the character or the comics in the way that I felt that SR did. While some friends HATED what they felt were the 'soap opera' elements- I thought that the difference between something that's a soap opera and intelligent drama is primarily the acting and direction. To a majority, it ruined SR and made it "Twilight". To me, I saw SR as embracing the Reeve Donner films - intentionally trying to emulate the Reeve portrayal of Superman - and also adding on things in a challenging and fresh way that it has never been done in the comics- REALLY making an evolution with the Superman character and playing it straight to him not only facing a world that went on without him- (something that really struck a chord maybe because of personal things I was going through at the time with health), but not shying away but going head on to give Superman a new role (and vulnerability)- having a kid. The Luthor stuff was dull, admittedly, but anyhow--- I can't change what anyone else thinks or feels about the film--- and I remember specifically after the first viewing thinking, "I love a LOT of this film.... but I don't think many other people will." It definitely didn't play it 'safe' (which would have been a fresh reboot with no ties, if done well)- but took the more difficult route: being a sequel and having to introduce and care about characters that are recast from a movie decades old... AND move forward. It wasn't perfect from beginning to end, I'll be the first to admit that- but there was a lot that I really connected to personally. So, anyhow, for what it's worth- that's why I dug it. I pretty much agree with this. My background is a little different - I grew up on 1990s Superman, though scoured flea markets and the like and had a sizable collection of 1960s and 70s stories, and loved them. I could read about Lois Lane getting lost in Bizarro World, and switch back to mullet hair Superman without any issue. I appreciated seeing Superman return (heh) to a world that moved on without him. There was a meta element, as most people I talked to considered Superman a lame and outdated superhero. I'm getting lost on when something goes from being an "amateurish" love letter, vs just being a love letter. Crown, can you suggest an example of a film doing something similar but better? Or define what makes it amateurish? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 8, 2018 8:28:56 GMT -5
SR was pulling in a couple of directions that didn’t really mesh. It’s not amateurish but it is conflicting and not quite fleshed out enough. It asked some mature serious questions about the character that no adaptation before or since has dared to ask or venture into and that took some balls. Here we are over a decade later Lois and Clark DO have a son in the comics. It’s something SR really got to first.
SR wanted to be a callback to Donners films but it was mostly superficially. It’s also trying to tell a modern mature superhero story with real world issues. Rouths Superman has the internal struggles of Cavills but with some of the outside bits of Reeve. It’s basically the middle ground between STM and MOS tonally but without the action. It’s clear it was meant to be a transition from that classic era of Superman into the 21st century. A tribute and farewell to what came before but opening the doors to what would come later. What SR needed was a few more passes at the script to integrate all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2018 9:54:57 GMT -5
Well, first... everyone's entitled to hate or love whatever they see. I know I'm in the minority of really enjoying it- I can share the reasons why it really hit some high notes for me, and share a context- but, it's probably not going to change anyone else's opinion, but maybe they could (if he/she wanted to) understand my view, even if he/she disagrees. (which is ok, would be a boring world if we all agreed). #1: I grew up with the silver age of comics- all the 'silly' stuff that didn't seem silly as a kid- bottled city of Kandor, Krypto, etc. etc. etc.- but then again, at the time, comics really were aimed at kids. So, the material was sophomoric and childish, but it was aimed for kids from the get go. #2: As I grew older and life got more serious- my tastes probably grew darker- but something like Superman the Movie- with its sense of innocence and fun and sentimentality (which we have to thank Donner not Lester for)- was like a trip down memory lane to being a kid reading those comics, only on the big screen, with millions and millions of dollars and hundreds of craftsmen at the top of their games to make childhood dreams come to life. It was a film not just for kids, but mainly for the 'inner kid' that probably was buried with all the life responsibilities/ etc. #3: Cut to decades later after the enjoyment of STM- I've gotten even older- and with newer responsibilities, it was shocking (but in a good way) to see a return to Superman the Movie- but with a new dimension of things I've been dealing with as an older person- the grays in life, of relationships that get complicated even if there are no bad guys involved in it, getting old and facing mortality and the scary idea that you could die anytime and the world would go on fine without you, and of new perspectives on yourself and life after having a kid. The comics - as (finger quotes) "adult" as they've gotten with comics that stated to become more violent and dark between the time of STM and SR- they haven't really evolved the character or the comics in the way that I felt that SR did. While some friends HATED what they felt were the 'soap opera' elements- I thought that the difference between something that's a soap opera and intelligent drama is primarily the acting and direction. To a majority, it ruined SR and made it "Twilight". To me, I saw SR as embracing the Reeve Donner films - intentionally trying to emulate the Reeve portrayal of Superman - and also adding on things in a challenging and fresh way that it has never been done in the comics- REALLY making an evolution with the Superman character and playing it straight to him not only facing a world that went on without him- (something that really struck a chord maybe because of personal things I was going through at the time with health), but not shying away but going head on to give Superman a new role (and vulnerability)- having a kid. The Luthor stuff was dull, admittedly, but anyhow--- I can't change what anyone else thinks or feels about the film--- and I remember specifically after the first viewing thinking, "I love a LOT of this film.... but I don't think many other people will." It definitely didn't play it 'safe' (which would have been a fresh reboot with no ties, if done well)- but took the more difficult route: being a sequel and having to introduce and care about characters that are recast from a movie decades old... AND move forward. It wasn't perfect from beginning to end, I'll be the first to admit that- but there was a lot that I really connected to personally. So, anyhow, for what it's worth- that's why I dug it. I pretty much agree with this. My background is a little different - I grew up on 1990s Superman, though scoured flea markets and the like and had a sizable collection of 1960s and 70s stories, and loved them. I could read about Lois Lane getting lost in Bizarro World, and switch back to mullet hair Superman without any issue. I appreciated seeing Superman return (heh) to a world that moved on without him. There was a meta element, as most people I talked to considered Superman a lame and outdated superhero. I'm getting lost on when something goes from being an "amateurish" love letter, vs just being a love letter. Crown, can you suggest an example of a film doing something similar but better? Or define what makes it amateurish? Thanks for sharing your background on Superman- It's always fascinating to me what/ where people's connection came/comes from to the movie. The adult relationship elements in SR I know soured a lot of people- plus lack of action. I agree about the action, but was fascinated that WB let Singer go where he went with the character's personal journey.... and was dying to see where it would really have gone next. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2018 10:12:02 GMT -5
SR was pulling in a couple of directions that didn’t really mesh. It’s not amateurish but it is conflicting and not quite fleshed out enough. It asked some mature serious questions about the character that no adaptation before or since has dared to ask or venture into and that took some balls. Here we are over a decade later Lois and Clark DO have a son in the comics. It’s something SR really got to first. SR wanted to be a callback to Donners films but it was mostly superficially. It’s also trying to tell a modern mature superhero story with real world issues. Rouths Superman has the internal struggles of Cavills but with some of the outside bits of Reeve. It’s basically the middle ground between STM and MOS tonally but without the action. It’s clear it was meant to be a transition from that classic era of Superman into the 21st century. A tribute and farewell to what came before but opening the doors to what would come later. What SR needed was a few more passes at the script to integrate all this. For sure, I agree it was not a harmonious trip from beginning to end, like I feel some superhero films have achieved, imo (The Dark Knight and Black Panther come to mind)- it definitely was not a perfect mesh, but... With the ambitions and the challenge chosen so incredibly high in parts, I would cheer inside over some of the bars that they DID leap over- #1: Trying to emulate the look and feel of the Reeve/Donner Superman?  It wasn't perfect, but damn, I thought they came pretty close with Routh!!! (Moreso with Clark than Supes, but still- a task like that is shooting for the moon) #2: Continuing the story, explaining the foundation, AND making us care about the characters in general in one film? There are some hiccups if familiar with the original films- (Ok- so Supes DID wipe out her memory and got Lois pregnant? Or he got Lois pregnant but never revealed who he was?) that were a little annoying, but, there were a number of scenes that were just so original for the character (I'm one of the few that loved the idea of him needing to make sure that there weren't any other survivors of Krypton)- and the execution I thought so well, that I forgive the weak or flawed bits- but I don't deny for a second that there are flaws. - but, anyhow- I honestly was crossing fingers in the first few minutes - even with Singer's resume to that point- that it would overall work for me. And it did. I've seen other films that I thought were a 'slam-dunk' going in -(Irvin Kirshner on Robocop 2 with a Frank Miller script comes to mind) that were a complete disaster. If a sequel would have straightened out a couple of my questions in flashbacks/whatnot smoothly, I would have been happy.... but I also was always wondering how they would have resolved the Supes/Lois/White triangle satisfactorily in a sequel (I would have felt that White dies somehow protecting the son). I hear what you say about SR trying to be a transition film - and I agree. I think that the callback is a little deeper in that the character at least is still the same as the Donner Superman (versus the MOS one), and that the (somewhat self-inflicted) internal conflicts come from the price of leaving Earth and coming back. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 8, 2018 12:24:49 GMT -5
Some people took the vague history thing the wrong way. It’s not a true sequel to STM or SII so to me that gives the film some leeway. At the time I don’t think Singer know how to articulate what he meant. A version of history similar to STM and SII happened in SR but it’s not the same universe. I think it would have helped SR if he’d made that break more clear. Mad Max Fury Road did the same thing but did it better than SR. It’s also set in a “vague history” where some things match the original Gibson trilogy but other things contradict it. All the other stuff in SR that people complained about would have been given a pass if the movie had more action. I’m convinced of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 17:09:56 GMT -5
SR was pulling in a couple of directions that didn’t really mesh. It’s not amateurish but it is conflicting and not quite fleshed out enough. It asked some mature serious questions about the character that no adaptation before or since has dared to ask or venture into and that took some balls. Here we are over a decade later Lois and Clark DO have a son in the comics. It’s something SR really got to first. SR wanted to be a callback to Donners films but it was mostly superficially. It’s also trying to tell a modern mature superhero story with real world issues. Rouths Superman has the internal struggles of Cavills but with some of the outside bits of Reeve. It’s basically the middle ground between STM and MOS tonally but without the action. It’s clear it was meant to be a transition from that classic era of Superman into the 21st century. A tribute and farewell to what came before but opening the doors to what would come later. What SR needed was a few more passes at the script to integrate all this. Ah, what could have been. I can accept some creative choices that I don't care for, but after all these years, I'm still annoyed that it opened with the Lex Luthor/widow scene. Such an odd open for a Superman film. I wish they would have kept the Return to Krypton scene in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 17:15:31 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your background on Superman- It's always fascinating to me what/ where people's connection came/comes from to the movie. The adult relationship elements in SR I know soured a lot of people- plus lack of action. I agree about the action, but was fascinated that WB let Singer go where he went with the character's personal journey.... and was dying to see where it would really have gone next. Right on, I grew up on the Reeve films/George Reeve show/Max Fleischer shorts before I ever got into the comics - I was obsessed as a young child up until my early teens. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on May 8, 2018 19:46:48 GMT -5
Some people took the vague history thing the wrong way. It’s not a true sequel to STM or SII so to me that gives the film some leeway. At the time I don’t think Singer know how to articulate what he meant. A version of history similar to STM and SII happened in SR but it’s not the same universe. I think it would have helped SR if he’d made that break more clear. Mad Max Fury Road did the same thing but did it better than SR. It’s also set in a “vague history” where some things match the original Gibson trilogy but other things contradict it. All the other stuff in SR that people complained about would have been given a pass if the movie had more action. I’m convinced of that. THIS. You were NEVER supposed to watch STM, SII, and then go right into SR. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard about someone actually doing and does NOT work on any level whatsoever. Audience members were instead expected to have "vague" memories of STM and SII from having watched those old movies 20 years earlier and only remember certain main points. SR is a new continuity through and through and has really nothing to do with the Donner films. It was amateurish because those 20 year old children Harris and Doherty were such impressionable youths that they tried to make SR into their own personal love letter to STM.. sad fact is these kids didn't have the talent to even do that right. They just happened to be Singers twinks at the time and were thus given a shot at writing Superman.. something they were WOEFULLY unprepared for. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 9, 2018 11:02:29 GMT -5
Some people took the vague history thing the wrong way. It’s not a true sequel to STM or SII so to me that gives the film some leeway. At the time I don’t think Singer know how to articulate what he meant. A version of history similar to STM and SII happened in SR but it’s not the same universe. I think it would have helped SR if he’d made that break more clear. Mad Max Fury Road did the same thing but did it better than SR. It’s also set in a “vague history” where some things match the original Gibson trilogy but other things contradict it. All the other stuff in SR that people complained about would have been given a pass if the movie had more action. I’m convinced of that. I think the Incredible Hulk's vague history recapping parts of Ang Lee's Hulk movie did it better in making things clear. I think if Singer had kept the original 'comic book opening' recapping the history to Krypton & Jor-el- (of which we only got to see bits and pieces of on the documentary) then we might have gotten a clearer picture of SR and his version of the Superman movie history as you said. I remember trying to 'key in' on what elements I was supposed to stay with and not as having happened from SII- but it didn't make for smooth viewing (Example- Lex has been to the Fortress of Solitude before- so we accept that as being SII- but then, why would he be thrown that Jorel thinks he's talking to his son? Supes sleeps with Lois in SII- but he erased her memory? And that's how Jason was born? ). I think you articulated the situation much better than how Singer explained it. Also- you're 100 percent right. If SR had more action and not held off for the sequel for that didn't come for that- it would have gotten more of the action fans to either see it or come back to SR. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 9, 2018 11:09:25 GMT -5
Some people took the vague history thing the wrong way. It’s not a true sequel to STM or SII so to me that gives the film some leeway. At the time I don’t think Singer know how to articulate what he meant. A version of history similar to STM and SII happened in SR but it’s not the same universe. I think it would have helped SR if he’d made that break more clear. Mad Max Fury Road did the same thing but did it better than SR. It’s also set in a “vague history” where some things match the original Gibson trilogy but other things contradict it. All the other stuff in SR that people complained about would have been given a pass if the movie had more action. I’m convinced of that. THIS. You were NEVER supposed to watch STM, SII, and then go right into SR. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard about someone actually doing and does NOT work on any level whatsoever. Audience members were instead expected to have "vague" memories of STM and SII from having watched those old movies 20 years earlier and only remember certain main points. SR is a new continuity through and through and has really nothing to do with the Donner films. It was amateurish because those 20 year old children Harris and Doherty were such impressionable youths that they tried to make SR into their own personal love letter to STM.. sad fact is these kids didn't have the talent to even do that right. They just happened to be Singers twinks at the time and were thus given a shot at writing Superman.. something they were WOEFULLY unprepared for. There were scenes I thought were really well written. It's not perfect as I've said, but admire the ambition and thought they achieved it in parts. I can understand SR not wanting to acknowledge turning back time as one of Superman's abilities (though there's the wink to it in the dialogue) or his 'memory kiss' powers, but I did like the use of calling back to the Donner films (in a way) as a way for SR not having to go back and use screen time to redo the origin story when it was time for something new- though, unfortunately, that 'new' was another real estate plot by Luthor. Dougherty's idea of having a superhero battle in the middle of it I think would have helped a LOT (I presume that they would have had Lex learn how to recreate Doomsday from chatting with Jorel, but was nixed as overloading the movie with too many elements.) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 9, 2018 15:53:24 GMT -5
Some people took the vague history thing the wrong way. It’s not a true sequel to STM or SII so to me that gives the film some leeway. At the time I don’t think Singer know how to articulate what he meant. A version of history similar to STM and SII happened in SR but it’s not the same universe. I think it would have helped SR if he’d made that break more clear. Mad Max Fury Road did the same thing but did it better than SR. It’s also set in a “vague history” where some things match the original Gibson trilogy but other things contradict it. All the other stuff in SR that people complained about would have been given a pass if the movie had more action. I’m convinced of that. I think the Incredible Hulk's vague history recapping parts of Ang Lee's Hulk movie did it better in making things clear. I think if Singer had kept the original 'comic book opening' recapping the history to Krypton & Jor-el- (of which we only got to see bits and pieces of on the documentary) then we might have gotten a clearer picture of SR and his version of the Superman movie history as you said. I remember trying to 'key in' on what elements I was supposed to stay with and not as having happened from SII- but it didn't make for smooth viewing (Example- Lex has been to the Fortress of Solitude before- so we accept that as being SII- but then, why would he be thrown that Jorel thinks he's talking to his son? Supes sleeps with Lois in SII- but he erased her memory? And that's how Jason was born? ). I think you articulated the situation much better than how Singer explained it. Also- you're 100 percent right. If SR had more action and not held off for the sequel for that didn't come for that- it would have gotten more of the action fans to either see it or come back to SR. Think of SR the way the birds of prey tv show treated the Tim Burton Batman movies or the way the 2014 flash tv shows multiverse treats the 90s flash tv show. It takes some story ideas and even visual cues but it’s sort of like an alternate universe. Mark Hamill played the Shipp Flash’s Trickster and the Gustin Flash’s Trickster but they aren’t the same guy. That’s cause similar history happened in both universe but on different worlds and there are also differences. One could view stm and SII to get ready for SR but don’t take them as absolute gospel when an inconsistency arises. It’s so vague that it’s not even clear which version of II you could watch. Like when kitty asks Lex if he’d been in the fortress before he doesn’t answer because depending on which version of II you decide to watch that question could go any number of ways. The Incredible Hulk ended up the way it did because it started as a sequel to Ang Lee’s movie but morphed into a soft reboot. You’re right one could watch it the same way one watches STM SII and SR. I think one of the mcu writers or directors even said they view Hulk 03 as a sort of unofficial prequel and unofficial entry in the MCU. TIH has enough differences to show that it’s not in the same continuity as Hulk 03 but there are enough similarities that you could watch Hulk 03 and it would fill you in on the basics of the story so that you’ll understand what’s going on in The Incredible Hulk. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 9, 2018 21:13:46 GMT -5
I think the Incredible Hulk's vague history recapping parts of Ang Lee's Hulk movie did it better in making things clear. I think if Singer had kept the original 'comic book opening' recapping the history to Krypton & Jor-el- (of which we only got to see bits and pieces of on the documentary) then we might have gotten a clearer picture of SR and his version of the Superman movie history as you said. I remember trying to 'key in' on what elements I was supposed to stay with and not as having happened from SII- but it didn't make for smooth viewing (Example- Lex has been to the Fortress of Solitude before- so we accept that as being SII- but then, why would he be thrown that Jorel thinks he's talking to his son? Supes sleeps with Lois in SII- but he erased her memory? And that's how Jason was born? ). I think you articulated the situation much better than how Singer explained it. Also- you're 100 percent right. If SR had more action and not held off for the sequel for that didn't come for that- it would have gotten more of the action fans to either see it or come back to SR. Think of SR the way the birds of prey tv show treated the Tim Burton Batman movies or the way the 2014 flash tv shows multiverse treats the 90s flash tv show. It takes some story ideas and even visual cues but it’s sort of like an alternate universe. Mark Hamill played the Shipp Flash’s Trickster and the Gustin Flash’s Trickster but they aren’t the same guy. That’s cause similar history happened in both universe but on different worlds and there are also differences. One could view stm and SII to get ready for SR but don’t take them as absolute gospel when an inconsistency arises. It’s so vague that it’s not even clear which version of II you could watch. Like when kitty asks Lex if he’d been in the fortress before he doesn’t answer because depending on which version of II you decide to watch that question could go any number of ways. The Incredible Hulk ended up the way it did because it started as a sequel to Ang Lee’s movie but morphed into a soft reboot. You’re right one could watch it the same way one watches STM SII and SR. I think one of the mcu writers or directors even said they view Hulk 03 as a sort of unofficial prequel and unofficial entry in the MCU. TIH has enough differences to show that it’s not in the same continuity as Hulk 03 but there are enough similarities that you could watch Hulk 03 and it would fill you in on the basics of the story so that you’ll understand what’s going on in The Incredible Hulk. I always felt the compromises with story continuity and (to a degree) story logic were annoying because of the level of ambition Donner shared onscreen with STM- he really had it shot like it was going to be the greatest movie ever on planet earth with his perfectionism in many sequences- but (oddly) avoided pretention by showing it's giant heart, love, and humor with the characters at the core of it. (Contrast that to Snyder's MOS that had some great money shots but borders on being mean spirited and awkward). In a way, STM was always a bit handicapped from being a 'perfect' series storewise, even if Donner did stay, depending on how one feels about time reversal (or super memory erasure power). As everyone who stalks this forum knows, I of course always feel agony of the loss of Donner for SII back in the day- and wish we could have seen what would have come if he was the unofficial show runner for that movie series- but time reversal was always a big 'ug' even with the emotional beats of Supes seeing his 'dads' in the clouds as the trigger for that scene- and keep the stories in the Reeve universe less than perfect. Anyhow.... back to Enrique!  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 10, 2018 8:33:43 GMT -5
I always felt the compromises with story continuity and (to a degree) story logic were annoying because of the level of ambition Donner shared onscreen with STM- he really had it shot like it was going to be the greatest movie ever on planet earth with his perfectionism in many sequences- but (oddly) avoided pretention by showing it's giant heart, love, and humor with the characters at the core of it. (Contrast that to Snyder's MOS that had some great money shots but borders on being mean spirited and awkward). In a way, STM was always a bit handicapped from being a 'perfect' series storewise, even if Donner did stay, depending on how one feels about time reversal (or super memory erasure power). As everyone who stalks this forum knows, I of course always feel agony of the loss of Donner for SII back in the day- and wish we could have seen what would have come if he was the unofficial show runner for that movie series- but time reversal was always a big 'ug' even with the emotional beats of Supes seeing his 'dads' in the clouds as the trigger for that scene- and keep the stories in the Reeve universe less than perfect. Anyhow.... back to Enrique! Donner always understood that everything hinges on characters. He’s not the best director out there but as a workman he racked up enough experience on television alone to understand that characters drive everything. Look at his work on Twilight zone or Gilligans Island or the fugitive. He knew how to work with a lot of characters on a budget and on a schedule. Lethal weapon is so good because of the character interplay. Goonies is so good because of the character interplay. The Russo’s are more like Donner than Snyder ever was. They aren’t great visualizists but they know how to wrangle a lot of characters and get that great interplay. Like you said Snyder is more concerned about set pieces. That’s been their biggest mistake in trying to sell Superman in a modern age ever since Kevin Smith was pushing Superman Lives by talking about how great the flying were going to be. Singers a great dramatic director but it’s apparent he’s not very interested in the visual pop of things or the action scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 10, 2018 14:37:34 GMT -5
I always felt the compromises with story continuity and (to a degree) story logic were annoying because of the level of ambition Donner shared onscreen with STM- he really had it shot like it was going to be the greatest movie ever on planet earth with his perfectionism in many sequences- but (oddly) avoided pretention by showing it's giant heart, love, and humor with the characters at the core of it. (Contrast that to Snyder's MOS that had some great money shots but borders on being mean spirited and awkward). In a way, STM was always a bit handicapped from being a 'perfect' series storewise, even if Donner did stay, depending on how one feels about time reversal (or super memory erasure power). As everyone who stalks this forum knows, I of course always feel agony of the loss of Donner for SII back in the day- and wish we could have seen what would have come if he was the unofficial show runner for that movie series- but time reversal was always a big 'ug' even with the emotional beats of Supes seeing his 'dads' in the clouds as the trigger for that scene- and keep the stories in the Reeve universe less than perfect. Anyhow.... back to Enrique! Donner always understood that everything hinges on characters. He’s not the best director out there but as a workman he racked up enough experience on television alone to understand that characters drive everything. Look at his work on Twilight zone or Gilligans Island or the fugitive. He knew how to work with a lot of characters on a budget and on a schedule. Lethal weapon is so good because of the character interplay. Goonies is so good because of the character interplay. The Russo’s are more like Donner than Snyder ever was. They aren’t great visualizists but they know how to wrangle a lot of characters and get that great interplay. Like you said Snyder is more concerned about set pieces. That’s been their biggest mistake in trying to sell Superman in a modern age ever since Kevin Smith was pushing Superman Lives by talking about how great the flying were going to be. Singers a great dramatic director but it’s apparent he’s not very interested in the visual pop of things or the action scenes. Great point. His & Mank's comments that STM lived or died depending on the love story was interesting- I suppose that is true, as it's at the heart of STM- but then again, what worked in STM/SII was the love story between father(s) and sons as well- from Supes to Jorel, Pa Kent, and Perry White. (Though it's funny how Lee/Ditko/Raimi's Spiderman also worked on his adopted father surrogate to Jonah Jameson) The core of many of Donner's greatest hits were the main love story- wether it's two people or a family or surrogate family love story- I've heard James Cameron say the same on his- What is the Lethal Weapon series if it's not a bromance? |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2018 10:58:20 GMT -5
It’s true. You can have all the special effects in the world and all the visual pop but if people aren’t invested in the characters or the story people won’t care. It’s why marvels hammering dc right now. People like and care about the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2018 23:55:01 GMT -5
It’s true. You can have all the special effects in the world and all the visual pop but if people aren’t invested in the characters or the story people won’t care. It’s why marvels hammering dc right now. People like and care about the characters. I can only wonder what WB's conference room must sound like, now that their 'reverse strategy' of introducing everyone all at once & hoping that people would want to follow their solo movies seems to have backfired, outside of Wonder Woman. (Aquaman might be a good film, but I"d be shocked if WB is expecting a billion dollar gross at this point.) And... I totally agree about the characters vs. the special effects- That's why I was fine if SIV had horrible effects, if the rest of the story worked well. But when the editing butchered the story to a point of incomprehensibility- ugh. Still- I've said it before and still believe it: I enjoy SIV as kind of a Reeve fan film version of Superman. He definitely didn't phone it in and it's watchable because of that.... though I still scratch my head now and then as I try to figure out how Golan-Globus would have made Superman V out of Superman IV's deleted scenes. I can't picture it at all. |
|
