|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 20, 2017 4:18:27 GMT -5
Personally....
I think the problems with both Superman Returns and Man of Steel is that both had problems figuring out how to connect with their intended audiences--- that is, 'everyone'- both young ones and adults who grew up with the Reeve version.
Truth be told, I have to admit that there are some elements of "Man of Steel" that I thought felt fresh and worked- like an updated "Independence Day" where the threat was Zod and ocmpany- but the problem for me was the writer not getting how to connect with Superman's humanity as a character. Without his powers, Superman always was a boy scout who respected authority- through the decency of Pa Kent. In MOS, Goyer felt a need to make him a 'bad boy' who mouths off at his adopted father during a critical moment when a tornado whisks his father away for saving a dog. (Yeah. WTH?)
The character is a muddled X-men version of Superman.
(Admittedly, while feeling the pain of being an outsider might be a valid element of interpreting Superman.... there's far more material showing Supes growing up relatively happy under the Kents and living in Smallville, prior to the angsty tv show. The balance is too far off.)
By the time MOS ends, while the lack of awareness and sensitivity to collateral damage crosses the line of comfortability with Superman's portrayal- even before that, do we need to have an image of Superman using his heat vision to (unintentionally) torture Lois Lane by cauterizing a wound without anesthesia of any kind?
The characters are all cold and cynical, with maybe only the Kents true to form. Even Jor-el is a machismo Gladiator with battle armor and a big gun. (Ough. And I'm so glad that Donner never chose to have Brando walk around in Lex Luthor armor and a gun on his version of Krypton.)
The idea of having a darker 'Chris Nolan'-ish version of Superman I was fine with- but ripping the heart and humanity of Superman and the main characters is/was the main flaw. I'm not exactly sure who this version's Superman is in relation to what I grew up with, let alone this version of Clark. But we do get the one-dimensional version of who we THINK he's supposed to be.
With Superman Returns-
I loved the complex (and not easy) route of trying to echo and connect Superman to the Donner version almost down to a 't'...
I mean, if you COULD replicate the spirit of Donner & Reeve's Superman.... would you still be able to sympathize and care for the character?
In those, I gave it an "A+". I was admittedly nervous even with Singer's track record at thst point that it would work- but for the most part, I thought it worked perfectly. What MOS lacked, SR had in spades. It wasn't just Routh, but the family of characters that surrounded him and much of the script.
On the flip side....
The forced inclusion of Lex - and real estate Lex - muddled things up during the movie and made for some confusing points in the continuity. Was Lex at the FOS before? He must have been. If so, why did he forget Jor-el was a holographic computer of sorts? Confusing. Also, The 'threat' of a world taken over by someone who wants to convert it into an uninhabitable recreation of Krypton - while it helped perhaps set up some story points (the lifting of the land mass and the Christ-like scenes towards the end).... lacking a superhero battle (originally Dougherty wanted a supervillain included somehow, but Singer nixed it unfortunately) was potential 'oomph' for a story -that- while I liked, was full of melancholy and could have used some extra 'juice' to show off other aspects of Superman aside from self-sacrificing Clark.
Anyhow- It's no secret that I loved enough of the film by the end for the human side of Superman's story, but felt it too 'inside' to be a big blockbuster without the extra fireworks. (Odd how the last Singer superhero entry had the opposite problem: too much empty superfighting with not enough of the human drama side)
If the franchise were given to me now-
(1) Pretty sure the door has long closed on SR's continuation. The kid must be the same age as Superman at this point.
(2) A full-on reboot origin story would seem a bit fast, much like Sony did with the (lesser) Amazing Spiderman.
(3) Starting by introducing him in a group first might also seem a bit weird- a la Suicide Squad/ JLA.
So, what doors are left open to really revive this character? Especiallly, given how STM started the phenomenon, but now is just one player among many? (Seeing a man fly on-screen convincingly was the giant draw at the time, but the whole world that Donner created around him was the hook and sinker)
It seems like the choices are:
(A) Give the character a break. The problem is..... they've done that over and over. Didn't help too much. The audience wants something fresh... but good, too. MOS was freah, but not so good.
So, no big break to rest the franchise. The superhero saturation isn't going away anytime soon.
(B) Have a through-iine that changes the core radically from what we've seen before on-screen. Byrne's version of Krypton was cold and alien- and that did have some ripple effects, and Goyer's Krypton is different than Donner's, but both feel/felt pretty thin overall. If the next incarnation actually had Krypton as a hi-tech utopia, would that be sufficient to make the audience feel like everything else with Superman was new? Or putting it in the 21st century?
MOS did change things- but, lacked humanity. One gain, but too big a loss on the other side.
What would I do? I'd go with visual utopia. Spend MORE time with who Jor-el and Lara were, to differentiate them. And what they wanted to pass on to Kal-el. Spend MORE time with the Kents and how this particular Clark even as a kid would live in this century but be positive inside while also having to know he was different.
(C) Include a portion of the origin in the teen years include the visit by the Legion.... but make this section key versus a trivial slice of his upbringing along with Jor-el's messages.
This part might be a hard sell- but emphasizing more that having other friends to 'fill out' his humanity during his teen years by this bit of history in the comics can also make this 'new' version of Superman's origin make sense to have it included. Shaping how this happens is tricky (maybe the villain introduced ties into the same villain at the end of the movie).
The theme that differs is that Clark is influenced by the same things as before: Krypton/ the Kents/ etc.--- but also while seeing the darkness of current times, the vision of the future being possibly an optimistic one- inspired by him (via the Legion's history) might be the core fresh 'thing' that hasn't been that big a deal in previous incarnations.
To include the Legion's visit would be costly- so, I think to defray costs, it'd be similar to the plan for New Line's LOTR series. Commit to a trilogy and shoot back to back.
Anyhow, that's my 'what if' scenario. Others?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 23, 2017 18:34:44 GMT -5
It's tough. The brand is damaged. I'd probably wait five to ten years and develop whatever it needs to be in that time. I'd spin DC films off into its own more free studio the way marvel studios is. They'd still report to WB but they'd also be somewhat seperate and given more freedom. I'd poach Jeph Loeb from Marvel Entertainment and make him DC films Kevin Feige.
I'd skip the origin and make Superman new on the job. I'd probably start it all with a smaller Batman movie to build confidence. The DCAU would be the template for tone and characters.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 24, 2017 16:07:28 GMT -5
It's tough. The brand is damaged. I'd probably wait five to ten years and develop whatever it needs to be in that time. I'd spin DC films off into its own more free studio the way marvel studios is. They'd still report to WB but they'd also be somewhat seperate and given more freedom. I'd poach Jeph Loeb from Marvel Entertainment and make him DC films Kevin Feige. I'd skip the origin and make Superman new on the job. I'd probably start it all with a smaller Batman movie to build confidence. The DCAU would be the template for tone and characters. Jeph Loeb sounds like a solid choice. Joss Whedon did uncredited rewrites/ overseeing for much of Phase One. If Whedon isn't still pissed at the way WB treated him on Wonder Woman, maybe he should get the job. (though his casting for Scarlet Witch still throws me now and then).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 24, 2017 18:17:28 GMT -5
I've liked Olsen myself. Not fantastic but not bad either. I've always been iffy on Wanda as a character anyway though. I found Johnson as Quicksilver to be the weaker casting of the two.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 25, 2017 0:50:10 GMT -5
I've liked Olsen myself. Not fantastic but not bad either. I've always been iffy on Wanda as a character anyway though. I found Johnson as Quicksilver to be the weaker casting of the two. I thought they were ok.... but.... Aaron Johnson I thought carried off the arrogance properly, but neither Olsen nor Johnson physically I thought were quite what I imagined in the roles. Still... I thought they gave it their all, there could have been worse choices, but it takes a little bit of an effort on my part to see them as 'the' characters. (Though having Quicksilver out of breath seemed pretty silly imo) Superhero movie casting-wise, I thought these were 'top=class': Reeve as Superman (Would have been fine with Routh carrying the mantle) Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne (minus cough drop voice taken too far in TDK) Helen Slater as Supergirl Grant Justin as Flash Andrew Garfield as Spiderman (Runner up: Tobey Maguire) RDJ made Iron Man/Tony Stark actually more interesting Chris Evans as Captain America Chris Helmsworth as Thor Tom Hiddleston as Loki Charlie Cox as Daredevil Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (though too darn tall) Patrick Stewart as Professor X Ian McCellan and Michael Fassbender as Magneto The actors who played Iceman and Colossus in X2 (gah, forgot his name) Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye (though Whedon's making him a family man felt incredibly wrong) The other casting... i.e.- Scarjo as Widow, Michael Douglass as Hank Pym (though the character is a bit different by aging him up and bypassing a lot of his history) Batfleck, Reynolds as GL- It takes a bit of effort and one 'rolls' with it... but imo- casting is often said it's half the battle with a movie, but I think it's far moreso with superhero films that wish to do justice to adapting their source material.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 25, 2017 1:33:07 GMT -5
I've liked Olsen myself. Not fantastic but not bad either. I've always been iffy on Wanda as a character anyway though. I found Johnson as Quicksilver to be the weaker casting of the two. I thought they were ok.... but.... Aaron Johnson I thought carried off the arrogance properly, but neither Olsen nor Johnson physically I thought were quite what I imagined in the roles. Still... I thought they gave it their all, there could have been worse choices, but it takes a little bit of an effort on my part to see them as 'the' characters. (Though having Quicksilver out of breath seemed pretty silly imo) Superhero movie casting-wise, I thought these were 'top=class': Reeve as Superman (Would have been fine with Routh carrying the mantle) Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne (minus cough drop voice taken too far in TDK) Helen Slater as Supergirl Grant Justin as Flash Andrew Garfield as Spiderman (Runner up: Tobey Maguire) RDJ made Iron Man/Tony Stark actually more interesting Chris Evans as Captain America Chris Helmsworth as Thor Tom Hiddleston as Loki Charlie Cox as Daredevil Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (though too darn tall) Patrick Stewart as Professor X Ian McCellan and Michael Fassbender as Magneto The actors who played Iceman and Colossus in X2 (gah, forgot his name) Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye (though Whedon's making him a family man felt incredibly wrong) The other casting... i.e.- Scarjo as Widow, Michael Douglass as Hank Pym (though the character is a bit different by aging him up and bypassing a lot of his history) Batfleck, Reynolds as GL- It takes a bit of effort and one 'rolls' with it... but imo- casting is often said it's half the battle with a movie, but I think it's far moreso with superhero films that wish to do justice to adapting their source material. That's a realign good list, CAM. I actually thought about posting one myself a few days ago of top ten superheroes and villains casting. . I had a sort of top ten. Christopher Reeve as Superman Hugh Jackman as Wolverine Tom Hiddleston as Loki Heath Ledger as The Joker Bill Bixby as "David" Bruce Banner Patrick Stewart as Professor Charles Xavier Robert Downey Jr. As Tony Stark Chris Hemsworth as Thor Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman Chris Evans as Steve Rogers After that the ones who make my top 20 would be Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool Ben Affleck as Batman Frank Gorshin as The Riddler Wesley Snipes as Blade Terence Stamp as General Zod Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker Ian McKellan as Magneto Melissa Benoist as Supergirl Michele Pfeiffer as Catwoman Alan Cumming as Nightcrawler I've got another list for supporting characters. I thought Fox beat Marvel for once with their casting for Quicksilver. They just pulled the whole thing off better imo.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 25, 2017 13:05:22 GMT -5
I thought they were ok.... but.... Aaron Johnson I thought carried off the arrogance properly, but neither Olsen nor Johnson physically I thought were quite what I imagined in the roles. Still... I thought they gave it their all, there could have been worse choices, but it takes a little bit of an effort on my part to see them as 'the' characters. (Though having Quicksilver out of breath seemed pretty silly imo) Superhero movie casting-wise, I thought these were 'top=class': Reeve as Superman (Would have been fine with Routh carrying the mantle) Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne (minus cough drop voice taken too far in TDK) Helen Slater as Supergirl Grant Justin as Flash Andrew Garfield as Spiderman (Runner up: Tobey Maguire) RDJ made Iron Man/Tony Stark actually more interesting Chris Evans as Captain America Chris Helmsworth as Thor Tom Hiddleston as Loki Charlie Cox as Daredevil Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (though too darn tall) Patrick Stewart as Professor X Ian McCellan and Michael Fassbender as Magneto The actors who played Iceman and Colossus in X2 (gah, forgot his name) Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye (though Whedon's making him a family man felt incredibly wrong) The other casting... i.e.- Scarjo as Widow, Michael Douglass as Hank Pym (though the character is a bit different by aging him up and bypassing a lot of his history) Batfleck, Reynolds as GL- It takes a bit of effort and one 'rolls' with it... but imo- casting is often said it's half the battle with a movie, but I think it's far moreso with superhero films that wish to do justice to adapting their source material. That's a realign good list, CAM. I actually thought about posting one myself a few days ago of top ten superheroes and villains casting. . I had a sort of top ten. Christopher Reeve as Superman Hugh Jackman as Wolverine Tom Hiddleston as Loki Heath Ledger as The Joker Bill Bixby as "David" Bruce Banner Patrick Stewart as Professor Charles Xavier Robert Downey Jr. As Tony Stark Chris Hemsworth as Thor Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman Chris Evans as Steve Rogers After that the ones who make my top 20 would be Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool Ben Affleck as Batman Frank Gorshin as The Riddler Wesley Snipes as Blade Terence Stamp as General Zod Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker Ian McKellan as Magneto Melissa Benoist as Supergirl Michecke Pfeiffer as Catwoman Alan Cumming as Nightcrawler I've got another list for supporting characters. I thought Fox beat Marvel for once with their casting for Quicksilver. They just pulled the whole thing off better imo. Out of that list, I think I'd only really have some disagreement with Batfleck... though a huge part of it I admit is having been too familar with his movies onscreen for too long before seeing him as the Bat.... plus- I still don't feel like his Wayne has that 'dark psychotic edge' that Christian Bale brought. What worked so much for me in the first two Batman films is that scene where it's said that Bruce Wayne had disappeared and that he was really just Batman after his journeys, and not Wayne anymore. With Affleck, I feel like he's too much the nice guy and doesn't exactly 'disappear' in a role, even though I thought he worked enough in BvS.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 25, 2017 16:31:51 GMT -5
To each his own. It comes off as the opposite to me. Imo Bales Wayne is more altruistic and optimistic while Afflecks Wayne is tettering dangerously close to the brink of darkness. He's lost faith and his sense of morality or at least where the line is. Bales Wayne was a man who would fight the bad guys but wouldn't cross the line to fight as dirty as they do. He always tried to be better. Affleck's Wayne is a man who feels the job must be done by any means necessary. Fight fire with Fire (or firepower in his case). Seems like something more in common with what Keaton's Wayne would do only he wasn't as flakey and quirky. I like Afflecks physical presence in the suit. He's more domineering as Batman. They both brought a physicality that none of the previous Batman really matched. I think both guys have their positives. Bale would probably make my top twenty now that I think about it. It's become such a competitive list. I do miss the sense of Batmans intelligence and cool Level headedness bale brought to the role. Afflecks comes off more as a surly thug sometimes. I felt they could both pull off the whole arrogant drunken playboy facade. I think I said it before if Bale is the O'Neil/Adams Batman then Affleck is the Miller Batman. I also think Bale is more believable as someone who grew up in priveledge. He carries that aura well. Affleck naturally comes off more like a party loving average joe.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 25, 2017 23:58:03 GMT -5
To each his own. It comes off as the opposite to me. Imo Bales Wayne is more altruistic and optimistic while Afflecks Wayne is tettering dangerously close to the brink of darkness. He's lost faith and his sense of morality or at least where the line is. Bales Wayne was a man who would fight the bad guys but wouldn't cross the line to fight as dirty as they do. He always tried to be better. Affleck's Wayne is a man who feels the job must be done by any means necessary. Fight fire with Fire (or firepower in his case). Seems like something more in common with what Keaton's Wayne would do only he wasn't as flakey and quirky. I like Afflecks physical presence in the suit. He's more domineering as Batman. They both brought a physicality that none of the previous Batman really matched. I think both guys have their positives. Bale would probably make my top twenty now that I think about it. It's become such a competitive list. I do miss the sense of Batmans intelligence and cool Level headedness bale brought to the role. Afflecks comes off more as a surly thug sometimes. I felt they could both pull off the whole arrogant drunken playboy facade. I think I said it before if Bale is the O'Neil/Adams Batman then Affleck is the Miller Batman. I also think Bale is more believable as someone who grew up in priveledge. He carries that aura well. Affleck naturally comes off more like a party loving average joe. Bale does seem cool and cold- which works to his advantage in Nolan's Batman. So does Cavill....but it's a disadvantage in Nolan's Superman. Affleck as Batman does have the physical presence of Miller's Batman. I have to give Snyder this: It's the ONLY time Batman has kicked booty on screen the way he should. Even in TDK (the best Batman film imo), the martial arts seem pretty stiff and slow for a 'master'. The thing with Affleck for me very likely has nothing to do with Affleck's performance, but my own over-familiarity with him onscreen in other roles, and, as Ben Affleck in interviews. Sort of how Donner said, "you could cast Robert Redford as Superman, but you'd always be seeing Robert Redford, not Superman" (or something like that). So, I'll admit my own baggage also comes into play...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 26, 2017 13:29:05 GMT -5
I agree with that. There is a thing such as being too famous to play a role like this. It can be a distraction. I didn't really have a problem with that but I see why some people could. My issues with Afflecks Batman were more because of the writing not his performance. I though he played it as good as he could have given the circumstances.
I think Bale was pretty cool and level headed as Batman. He played it seriously but he could also show some charisma and personality. That's where Cavill fails maybe it's an issue with writing and directing but he's bland. He shows very little personality. He's "nice" but not very likable or human as Superman or Clark. You rooted for Bale because when he spoke he came across as earnest. Cavill comes off as devoid of emotion.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 27, 2017 1:16:14 GMT -5
I agree with that. There is a thing such as being too famous to play a role like this. It can be a distraction. I didn't really have a problem with that but I see why some people could. My issues with Afflecks Batman were more because of the writing not his performance. I though he played it as good as he could have given the circumstances. I think Bale was pretty cool and level headed as Batman. He played it seriously but he could also show some charisma and personality. That's where Cavill fails maybe it's an issue with writing and directing but he's bland. He shows very little personality. He's "nice" but not very likable or human as Superman or Clark. You rooted for Bale because when he spoke he came across as earnest. Cavill comes off as devoid of emotion. Cavill I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt- but it is easier for me to see Cavill as Superman (physically) than Affleck. If Bale and Nolan never did Batman, I think I might be more open to Affleck's version of Batman. While Affleck is more physically intimidating than Keaton, I think both Bale and Keaton give a feeling of being dangerous (outside of the horrible, 'ya wanna see crazy? c'mon.... let's get crazy!' Burton scene)- while Affleck's Bruce Wayne seems more freaked out and reacting rather than someone detached and on the border of not being human. Still- Batfleck worked much better than I thought, but I'll always think of Bale as the 'real' film Batman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 27, 2017 10:03:04 GMT -5
Cavill was also lesser known than Affleck so that may have helped you accept him more easily. No preconceived notions since as you said Affleck was more famous.
It's an interesting discussion. With Superman it's usually more of a priority to cast someone who looks like he does in the comics more than it is with Batman for some reason. I guess it's because we see Superman's face all the time. Not so much with Batman. Batmans usually in a rubber suit. Superman usually has to be in shape and muscular. Most of the Supermen have the looks. Some more than others. Most of the Batman don't. Keaton looks less like Bruce Wayne than Affleck like you said but I think Keaton did a fine job. Better than Cavills turns as Superman. IMO Cavill looks more like Superman than Dean Cain but I think Cain was better.
It's a question of casting for look vs casting for talent. Usually the actors playing these roles don't look much like their comic book counterparts. For example Reb Brown looked more like Steve Rogers to me but Evans is a far better talent. You have to find that balance. Sometimes you get the best of both worlds like Christopher Reeve. That's what I'd prefer but it doesn't always work out like that. Almost none of the actors to play Alfred Pennyworth look like him but they've all been excellent.
Snyder casts almost purely on looks. He casts big/tall guys as his heroes. Hot women as his heroines. There had to be better actresses out there for Wonder Woman but she had the look. Bryan Singer casts more off talent. Few of his X-men casting choices look like their comic book counterparts but he worried about that later.
My preference for Batman is something along the lines of the O'Neil/Adams Batman from the comics and Burnett/Timm/Dini Batman from the first 65 episodes of Batman TAS. To me the definitive/best version of the character lies somewhere between those two. I think the two actors to capture the spirit and personality of that Batman on film best were Christian Bale and surprisingly...Val Kilmer. Kilmer didn't quite nail it but Bale came close.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 27, 2017 14:28:18 GMT -5
Cavill was also lesser known than Affleck so that may have helped you accept him more easily. No preconceived notions since as you said Affleck was more famous. It's an interesting discussion. With Superman it's usually more of a priority to cast someone who looks like he does in the comics more than it is with Batman for some reason. I guess it's because we see Superman's face all the time. Not so much with Batman. Batmans usually in a rubber suit. Superman usually has to be in shape and muscular. Most of the Supermen have the looks. Some more than others. Most of the Batman don't. Keaton looks less like Bruce Wayne than Affleck like you said but I think Keaton did a fine job. Better than Cavills turns as Superman. IMO Cavill looks more like Superman than Dean Cain but I think Cain was better. It's a question of casting for look be casting for talent. Usually the actors playing these roles don't look much like their comic book counterparts. For example Reb Brown looked more like Steve Rogers to me but Evans is a far better talent. You have to find that balance. Sometimes you get the best of both worlds like Christopher Reeve. That's what I'd prefer but it doesn't always work out like that. Almost none of the actors to play Alfred Pennyworth look like him but they've all been excellent. Snyder casts almost purely on looks. He casts big/tall guys as his heroes. Hot women as his heroines. There had to be better actresses out there for Wonder Woman but she had the look. Bryan Singer casts more off talent. Few of his X-men casting choices look like their comic book counterparts but he worried about that later. My preference for Batman is something along the lines of the O'Neil/Adams Batman from the comics and Burnett/Timm/Dini Batman from the first 65 episodes of Batman TAS. To me the definitive/best version of the character lies somewhere between those two. I think the two actors to capture the spirit and personality of that Batman on film best were Christian Bale and surprisingly...Val Kilmer. Kilmer didn't quite nail it but Bale came close. Funny that you mention Kilmer. As despised as Batman Forever was, there were a number of elements that I kind of liked and thought, 'hey, that's never been done before in the comics, I kinda like that'-... the Robin origin I thought was particularly well done (preferred it to the Nolan version of Robin's story).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 27, 2017 14:44:50 GMT -5
I think Kilmer is underrated as Batman. He wasn't outstanding but he was bad either. It seems like he's been forgotten about and lost in the shuffle. Clooney is at least remembered for being in an infamously bad film. Kilmer doesn't seem to get mentioned much either way. I think Kilmers take as far as what it was sits somewhere between Keaton's and Bales. He's not as dark as Keaton but more tortured than Bale. He was a more baseline Batman. More level. In some ways he comes off as a darker more serious version of what Adam West was doing.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 30, 2017 1:05:33 GMT -5
I think Kilmer is underrated as Batman. He wasn't outstanding but he was bad either. It seems like he's been forgotten about and lost in the shuffle. Clooney is at least remembered for being in an infamously bad film. Kilmer doesn't seem to get mentioned much either way. I think Kilmers take as far as what it was sits somewhere between Keaton's and Bales. He's not as dark as Keaton but more tortured than Bale. He was a more baseline Batman. More level. In some ways he comes off as a darker more serious version of what Adam West was doing. I found him a welcome change physically from Keaton (who seemed too small) and seemed committed, I thought it was an upgrade of sorts. Clooney could have worked- but as you mentioned, the movie was SO bad that he really had no chance to let audiences know how good a fit he might have been as the character.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Feb 5, 2017 16:21:12 GMT -5
Agree with the propositions by all posited above.
From a cinematic point of view.....one thing I would add......there needs to be more focus on.......FLYING!!!!!!
It is the one thing which is symbiotic with Supes....that he flies.
Superman Returns,MOS and BvS all failed to emphasize this aspect with any real depth.
Of course,cinematic flying is now common place from Harry Potter to Iron Man.
Still they need to push the boundaries of what has been accomplished so far and take it further.....it certainly won't do Supes any harm.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 5, 2017 20:03:12 GMT -5
Agree with the propositions by all posited above. From a cinematic point of view.....one thing I would add......there needs to be more focus on.......FLYING!!!!!! It is the one thing which is symbiotic with Supes....that he flies. Superman Returns,MOS and BvS all failed to emphasize this aspect with any real depth. Of course,cinematic flying is now common place from Harry Potter to Iron Man. Still they need to push the boundaries of what has been accomplished so far and take it further.....it certainly won't do Supes any harm. Well, I somewhat agree- I think SR did well with the updated "flying ballet" that was and wasn't different from STM and showed the beauty and hope associated with the idea of an invulnerable person with heart being able to fly. MOS made the flying seem (intentionally) hard-edged and dangerous... but there's a lot of misguided intents with that film. I think the difficulty with any reboot of Supes at this point is the same problem that a reboot with Spiderman or Batman has/would have: overexposure to a degree. How to embrace the classic elements, but make it supplant previous incarnations? Singer chose what I felt was a fascinating (and far more difficult) solution by making it a sequel of sorts to Donner's version- and I always thought that attempt never got it's full credit.... though the rumored sequel ideas still has me raising an eyebrow whether or not it would work.
|
|
Rod
New Member
Believe it or not
Posts: 498
|
Post by Rod on Feb 14, 2017 22:19:18 GMT -5
Why Villains Are Terrible - Fixing General Zod
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 15, 2017 18:26:19 GMT -5
Agree with the propositions by all posited above. From a cinematic point of view.....one thing I would add......there needs to be more focus on.......FLYING!!!!!! It is the one thing which is symbiotic with Supes....that he flies. Superman Returns,MOS and BvS all failed to emphasize this aspect with any real depth. Of course,cinematic flying is now common place from Harry Potter to Iron Man. Still they need to push the boundaries of what has been accomplished so far and take it further.....it certainly won't do Supes any harm. They really dropped the ball with the flying in BVS. He's usually just taking off or landing. You don't see him doing much in the air. I guess cause Snyder was more interested in the fight scenes. One exception might be when he takes Doomsday into space but even that was a fight scene. Even MOS showed us more with the flying and like you said that one wasn't that great either.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 16, 2017 11:57:55 GMT -5
Agree with the propositions by all posited above. From a cinematic point of view.....one thing I would add......there needs to be more focus on.......FLYING!!!!!! It is the one thing which is symbiotic with Supes....that he flies. Superman Returns,MOS and BvS all failed to emphasize this aspect with any real depth. Of course,cinematic flying is now common place from Harry Potter to Iron Man. Still they need to push the boundaries of what has been accomplished so far and take it further.....it certainly won't do Supes any harm. They really dropped the ball with the flying in BVS. He's usually just taking off or landing. You don't see him doing much in the air. I guess cause Snyder was more interested in the fight scenes. One exception might be when he takes Doomsday into space but even that was a fight scene. Even MOS showed us more with the flying and like you said that one wasn't that great either. I think it's got to be a challenge to focus on the flying and make it fresh and exciting. Also, since Donner did such an amazing job with STM it's a hard act to follow... though I give props to Jeannot Swarc for a different approach in "Supergirl" with her experimenting with flying in the beginning (probably the best sequence in that whole misguided film). Singer did a nice job making the experience feel fresh with the young Clark leaping and floating - as well as the updated Supes/Lois flying ballet. But I can imagine it hard to come up with a fresh twist on film. Seems like Snyder's solution to making the flying fresh was 'faster and dangerous'. Meh.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 16, 2017 15:06:52 GMT -5
Why Villains Are Terrible - Fixing General Zod That's a great video. Really highlighted how they failed to make Zod something special. Shannon delivered despite being directed by a manchild but the video breakdown was dead on. They had a chance to make Zod truly complex and they failed. As it is he's not sympathetic he's just an idiot. Certainly not a superior military mind.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 18, 2017 13:36:53 GMT -5
Why Villains Are Terrible - Fixing General Zod That's a great video. Really highlighted how they failed to make Zod something special. Shannon delivered despite being directed by a manchild but the video breakdown was dead on. They had a chance to make Zod truly complex and they failed. As it is he's not sympathetic he's just an idiot. Certainly not a superior military mind. They had a WHOLE complete blank slate to recreate Superman in MOS. Such a pity.....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 18, 2017 21:24:23 GMT -5
Problem is their idea of a recreation was poor and the execution of it was even worse. Snyder and Goyer either didn't get or didn't like the core of the character. In these films he's an angry not very concerned hypocritical jerk. They were totally the wrong two guys to recreate Superman.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Feb 19, 2017 7:57:08 GMT -5
Problem is their idea of a recreation was poor and the execution of it was even worse. Snyder and Goyer either didn't get or didn't like the core of the character. In these films he's an angry not very concerned hypocritical jerk. They were totally the wrong two guys to recreate Superman. I tried watching MoS recently, and it is visually such an ugly movie. Everything looks bleak, grey and metallic.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 19, 2017 10:02:22 GMT -5
The color palette has all the problems that Superman Returns was criticized for having only worse. The suit looks black in some scenes. Snyder overused the filters and desaturation way too much. I saw some fan made color corrected MOS clips on YouTube that looked so much better.
Snyders visual style is taking cues from the Matrix and Blade but that was 18 f*cking years ago. The heavy blue filters looked cool in Payback but now? Guys like him and Len Wiseman really are cut from the same cloth. They can't create mood and emotion any other way but through the lack of color.
|
|