crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Aug 24, 2016 20:16:44 GMT -5
It was bad because the "lesson" Supes was supposed to learn was that he wasn't supposed to turn back time anymore
Because Jor-El is satisfied that Superman learned his lesson, he agrees to turn back time himself??
That's like saying because you know now that you can't do X, I will do X for you.
Also it doesn't explain how Superman got his powers back.
Will Selutron please come forward and justify this?
Where am I wrong here?
On the plus side I'm glad he addressed the public's questions about whatever happened to the villains.
I also liked the smallville funeral music at the end.. that music would so fit the ending of the second picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 24, 2016 20:59:20 GMT -5
It was bad because the "lesson" Supes was supposed to learn was that he wasn't supposed to turn back time anymore Because Jor-El is satisfied that Superman learned his lesson, he agrees to turn back time himself?? That's like saying because you know now that you can't do X, I will do X for you.Also it doesn't explain how Superman got his powers back. Will Selutron please come forward and justify this? Where am I wrong here? On the plus side I'm glad he addressed the public's questions about whatever happened to the villains. I also liked the smallville funeral music at the end.. that music would so fit the ending of the second picture. I thought it was an interesting choice- given how limited (it seemed/seems) the resources are for fixing the ending. The whole problem from the get-go is: no matter what- unless time-travel and time-reversal is the core of a movie's universe (i.e. Back to the Future), the time reversal tactic is akin to- 'oh, it was just all a dream' type story mechanism that makes everyone groan, because nothing the movie did REALLY counted. When STM/SII were first proposed and it looked like "these will be the ONLY two films ever for Superman"- then I think it a bit more forgiveable, especially if (according to an early script summary in Mediaprevue, an old movie magazine) the Puzo script had the cost of the one-time time reversal was that the Fortress of Solitude explodes - so that there's SOME price to pay for the use of it. The ideal thing would have been for STM to end on a cliffhanger as it was originally planned- and then use it ONCE for the ending of SII. By placing it at the end of STM, it made something a little wonky that much worse continuity wise and impact wise, by putting it in the MIDDLE of the two part 'saga'. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Aug 24, 2016 22:02:28 GMT -5
It was bad because the "lesson" Supes was supposed to learn was that he wasn't supposed to turn back time anymore Because Jor-El is satisfied that Superman learned his lesson, he agrees to turn back time himself?? That's like saying because you know now that you can't do X, I will do X for you.Also it doesn't explain how Superman got his powers back. Will Selutron please come forward and justify this? Where am I wrong here? On the plus side I'm glad he addressed the public's questions about whatever happened to the villains. I also liked the smallville funeral music at the end.. that music would so fit the ending of the second picture. I thought it was an interesting choice- given how limited (it seemed/seems) the resources are for fixing the ending. The whole problem from the get-go is: no matter what- unless time-travel and time-reversal is the core of a movie's universe (i.e. Back to the Future), the time reversal tactic is akin to- 'oh, it was just all a dream' type story mechanism that makes everyone groan, because nothing the movie did REALLY counted. When STM/SII were first proposed and it looked like "these will be the ONLY two films ever for Superman"- then I think it a bit more forgiveable, especially if (according to an early script summary in Mediaprevue, an old movie magazine) the Puzo script had the cost of the one-time time reversal was that the Fortress of Solitude explodes - so that there's SOME price to pay for the use of it. The ideal thing would have been for STM to end on a cliffhanger as it was originally planned- and then use it ONCE for the ending of SII. By placing it at the end of STM, it made something a little wonky that much worse continuity wise and impact wise, by putting it in the MIDDLE of the two part 'saga'. Why can't the film just end with Lois knowing? Superman and Lois break up on the balcony, Dons' Diner, Flag, END FILM. That was the ending of my cut (which is gone forever and I have to start from scratch now). Why do people think that we have to choose between either toxic sludge (kiss) or acid (time travel)? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 25, 2016 2:31:41 GMT -5
I thought it was an interesting choice- given how limited (it seemed/seems) the resources are for fixing the ending. The whole problem from the get-go is: no matter what- unless time-travel and time-reversal is the core of a movie's universe (i.e. Back to the Future), the time reversal tactic is akin to- 'oh, it was just all a dream' type story mechanism that makes everyone groan, because nothing the movie did REALLY counted. When STM/SII were first proposed and it looked like "these will be the ONLY two films ever for Superman"- then I think it a bit more forgiveable, especially if (according to an early script summary in Mediaprevue, an old movie magazine) the Puzo script had the cost of the one-time time reversal was that the Fortress of Solitude explodes - so that there's SOME price to pay for the use of it. The ideal thing would have been for STM to end on a cliffhanger as it was originally planned- and then use it ONCE for the ending of SII. By placing it at the end of STM, it made something a little wonky that much worse continuity wise and impact wise, by putting it in the MIDDLE of the two part 'saga'. Why can't the film just end with Lois knowing? Superman and Lois break up on the balcony, Dons' Diner, Flag, END FILM. That was the ending of my cut (which is gone forever and I have to start from scratch now). Why do people think that we have to choose between either toxic sludge (kiss) or acid (time travel)? Well, it's in thinking about what would have been done during that time frame- when things between Lois and Clark had to be 'reset' (presumably) by the end, plus what footage is/was available. Having Lois remember is the more adult way to go about it- but it's definitely a bit of a downer ending. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Aug 25, 2016 3:35:09 GMT -5
Why can't the film just end with Lois knowing? Superman and Lois break up on the balcony, Dons' Diner, Flag, END FILM. That was the ending of my cut (which is gone forever and I have to start from scratch now). Why do people think that we have to choose between either toxic sludge (kiss) or acid (time travel)? Well, it's in thinking about what would have been done during that time frame- when things between Lois and Clark had to be 'reset' (presumably) by the end, plus what footage is/was available. Having Lois remember is the more adult way to go about it- but it's definitely a bit of a downer ending. Maybe they can just re-shoot a new ending (and all the unshot Donner stuff) and use highly advanced CGI to make the actor's look like Reeve and Kidder? My guess is this happens to celebrate the centennial of STM in 2078.... hopefully we're all alive to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 25, 2016 10:24:58 GMT -5
Well, it's in thinking about what would have been done during that time frame- when things between Lois and Clark had to be 'reset' (presumably) by the end, plus what footage is/was available. Having Lois remember is the more adult way to go about it- but it's definitely a bit of a downer ending. Maybe they can just re-shoot a new ending (and all the unshot Donner stuff) and use highly advanced CGI to make the actor's look like Reeve and Kidder? My guess is this happens to celebrate the centennial of STM in 2078.... hopefully we're all alive to see it. That'd be nice, but I doubt that any projected dvd sales would support WB plunking down the money for realistic CGI actors. My thought before was cheaper 3-d animation for the whole STM/SII script as was- that way things wouldn't stick out too much. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jul 15, 2022 2:58:34 GMT -5
Selutron used to proclaim that only "professionals" should be allowed to make fan cuts of S2
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 15, 2022 10:15:26 GMT -5
Selutron used to proclaim that only "professionals" should be allowed to make fan cuts of S2 Well Thau was a professional.........look where that got us! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 15, 2022 17:58:33 GMT -5
Selutron used to proclaim that only "professionals" should be allowed to make fan cuts of S2 When he said that.... (1) it really took my respect for Selutron a few pegs and (2) it made me wonder who would puff themselves up as the only one capable of a fan cut and sad if it was that necessary. I don't care WHO makes a better cut- because it's not about the editor, but the end result! |
|
