|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 7, 2018 16:15:55 GMT -5
The whole title wouldn't fit, but I was thinking:
With Avengers 3 FINALLY having a villain with real depth and menace- but STILL having humor..... if this tone and overall feeling for Infinity Wars is what we would've gotten with Donner's SII?
Avengers 1 and 2 may have had some darkness to it, but not on this level.
* Comparisons:
- Loki's death and Hulk's beatdown early on, hangs over the rest of film, giving us a sense of the degree of Thanos' menace.
- In SII- the callousness of the villains' killing of the astronauts SHOULD have hung over the rest of the film as scripted by Mank- but the Lester Houston bits and the Metro battle goofiness undermines the sense of menace.
- Avengers 3 (like all the Marvel movies) has a sense of humor - and this time- tragic romance (the bit with Starlord agreeing to kill Gamora and pulling the trigger)-
- SII- of course, the Lois/Supes romance, but the Donner scenes of the breakup at the end and what should have been a powerful scene with the depowering that Lois unintentionally causes.
- Every time we see Thanos in a scene, we wonder: will another character be killed in the scene?
- In SII's original script, almost every time we have a scene with the villains- innocents are killed tragically, which just increases the sense of danger (and humor) when Lex is in the same room as them, flirting with getting killed by them (even moreso in the FOS scene).
- The most intense action scenes (for me) actually are in the beginning (well, Paris equally)- set in New York with what looks like tons of extras running in the background. There was also this in Avengers 2 and Civil War, but the superpowers were more 'all out'- and was exhilarating.
We got a LITTLE taste of that in the theatrical and Donner cuts, but really a sliver. While the original Avengers arguably had even more action in New York- I never felt the sense of danger in the Joss Whedon Avengers, while the Roussos seemed to have known how to add the edge to really make it exciting.
Anyhow...
I know I harp on endlessly about 'what could have been' with the Donner Metro battle- but that's probably because I think of STM as a classic, and with so many breakthrough scenes, always wonder what Donner could have delivered with part two.... and with Infinity Wars, maybe there's a touch there of what that epic might have felt like.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 8, 2018 8:16:43 GMT -5
I’m not really sure. It’s not really a one to one comparison. Maybe the first avengers or winter soldier would be better comparisons to what II could have been. Particularly winter soldier. Cap struggled with his place in the world which AND having a normal life like Superman also did in II. It upped the action and went for a more serious tone. I think that’s what donners SII would have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2018 10:22:55 GMT -5
I’m not really sure. It’s not really a one to one comparison. Maybe the first avengers or winter soldier would be better comparisons to what II could have been. Particularly winter soldier. Cap struggled with his place in the world which AND having a normal life like Superman also did in II. It upped the action and went for a more serious tone. I think that’s what donners SII would have been. I agree- Avengers 3 might not be the best comparison -Spiderman 2 maybe a better one in comparing SII= particularly with struggling with the price of having a personal life over the superhero duties-after all.... but didn't really feel Doc Ock was that scary as much as misguided.(And a little over the top actually) One thing that I DO think might be a fair example is the portrayal of both villains in Avengers 3 and what Donner would have done with the PZ criminals- I do think that Thanos actually gave you the feeling of a quiet villain who is so psychotic and dangerous, that he could switch to killing someone in the room without missing a beat. That sense of menace I think we partially got to see with Zod- but was undermined by Lester's rewrite to make the menace fairly silly (or undercut with slapstick humor). I do miss the original treatment of the villains in the Mank script as pure evil as a great contrast to Supes. Every scene in Avengers 3 with Thanos in the room (appropriately) gave you a sense of dread. The damage Lester did I feel would have been similar to Lester inserting a fart joke for Thanos in the Infinity War film. One single scene like that would have broken the potency or 'the spell' of the level of danger the villain (s) had. And it did in SII. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 8, 2018 12:16:19 GMT -5
Yeah you’re right Spider-Man 2 is a better example on a lot of ways. Not necessarily concerning the bad guy but certainly with everything else. You can really see the influence Superman 1 2 and 3 had on the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy.
To me Thanos is more like man of steels general Zod done better. Both are about more than just ruling the earth. They’re both on a quest that they feel will serve the greater good and try to justify it morally. Sacrifice some to save others. Difference is thanos is far more fleshed out as a person while we don’t really know much about Zod beyond his role as military commander. Thanos also doesn’t seem to contradict himself nearly as much. Neither one of them are good but they have points of view one could understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 10, 2018 14:44:27 GMT -5
Yeah you’re right Spider-Man 2 is a better example on a lot of ways. Not necessarily concerning the bad guy but certainly with everything else. You can really see the influence Superman 1 2 and 3 had on the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. To me Thanos is more like man of steels general Zod done better. Both are about more than just ruling the earth. They’re both on a quest that they feel will serve the greater good and try to justify it morally. Sacrifice some to save others. Difference is thanos is far more fleshed out as a person while we don’t really know much about Zod beyond his role as military commander. Thanos also doesn’t seem to contradict himself nearly as much. Neither one of them are good but they have points of view one could understand. The great thing I thought about Raimi's first two Spiderman movies is that he was openly an admirer of Donner's STM- but also of the Lee/Ditko/Romita comics. The movies are kind of like a child of both, plus a touch of Sam Raimi wackiness- which curves into the offbeat humor Lee injected into Spiderman comics back in the day. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2018 11:01:13 GMT -5
That’s one thing I missed in the amazing Spider-Man movies. Raimi’s humor got a little too zany and off beat at times but it still fit the character. There was a nice balance so that things didn’t feel so samey all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2018 12:29:21 GMT -5
That’s one thing I missed in the amazing Spider-Man movies. Raimi’s humor got a little too zany and off beat at times but it still fit the character. There was a nice balance so that things didn’t feel so samey all the time. Agreed- the quirky of Raimi is parallel to Stan Lee's quirky humor in the original comics, so still felt like 'Spiderman' even if it was or wasn't a Spiderman specific joke. At the same time, Raimi can do 'straight' dramas. I think the movie was called 'The Gift' with Cate Blanchett as someone who had clairvoyant powers- no zaniness, just a really solid drama. So- if you asked me if Raimi could have done a good Batman movie, I'd have to say--- 'maybe'... depending on whether he wanted to play it straight or include the 'quirky'. We kind of got both with the first two Spiderman movies. Arguably, some might say that Lester did comedy and drama well in SII- but outside of the cheaper aesthetics (he would have made Ed Wood proud perhaps)- the choices of when to add comedy I have to admit were ok in some bits of SII, but took away TOO much in other bits when I thought it counted. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2018 13:30:43 GMT -5
I guess starting out early on with the Cohens (who are also good at blending comedy and drama) Raimi really developed his skill at both. I’ve liked a lot of Raimis dramatic films. I thought A Simple Plan was a fine film and while The Quick and The Dead wasn’t great I do think it’s underrated. Solid performances by everyone involved particularly quite a few awesome actors known for character and supporting roles.
Lester was good at drama but I guess for whatever reason he saw Superman as more and more comedy oriented as time went on.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2018 15:17:29 GMT -5
I guess starting out early on with the Cohens (who are also good at blending comedy and drama) Raimi really developed his skill at both. I’ve liked a lot of Raimis dramatic films. I thought A Simple Plan was a fine film and while The Quick and The Dead wasn’t great I do think it’s underrated. Solid performances by everyone involved particularly quite a few awesome actors known for character and supporting roles. Lester was good at drama but I guess for whatever reason he saw Superman as more and more comedy oriented as time went on. I really wouldn't have all this venom towards Lester if he didn't ruin someone else's half-completed (and successful) film and warp it to his tastes after the script had already been written and most of the heavy lifting had already been done for him. If someone else completed SII, and then Lester came along and did his (unfiltered) SIII- I still wouldn't be crazy about it, but it's not nearly as irritating as ruining and derailing S2 to his own ends. Ilya Salkind could have stopped Lester if he wanted, but at least Ilya is honest about saying that STM was the best of the Superman films, even after completing S2 in magazines. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2018 17:37:34 GMT -5
The salkinds wanted to go silly in the first place so I don’t think Ilya even cared as long as they thought they could squeeze more money out of it. Just thinking about how much the quality of the scores and when the credits for II and III compared to STM is still disappointing.
Seems like the only time a replacement director honors the vision of the guy he’s replacing is when the other guy dies or leaves on good terms. There’s all the news about how much the tone of Solo has changed and then there’s the Fantfourstic situation.
Even when the studios don’t want people to know the first directors been canned it seems like the films change radically.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2018 23:48:25 GMT -5
The salkinds wanted to go silly in the first place so I don’t think Ilya even cared as long as they thought they could squeeze more money out of it. Just thinking about how much the quality of the scores and when the credits for II and III compared to STM is still disappointing. Seems like the only time a replacement director honors the vision of the guy he’s replacing is when the other guy dies or leaves on good terms. There’s all the news about how much the tone of Solo has changed and then there’s the Fantfourstic situation. Even when the studios don’t want people to know the first directors been canned it seems like the films change radically. To his credit, Ilya said in the boxset that he had been distracted by personal issues during the making of SII- and might have intervened more with pulling back Lester on the slapstick portions of the Metro battle. I am curious what Williams would have done with Donner's SII- but I did gain new appreciation for what Ken Thorne did I think when that wonderful cd box set came out & all those liner notes. We know that Lester stuck around to get the money owed him by the Salkinds--- and that his film career was non-existent at that point- but what gets me is that he could have finished the film closer to Donner's style and closer to Mank's script- and I assume he would have gotten even more praise. Having said that- I was open to hearing Lester's point of view via a director's commentary on SII. While it's probably hard to know the whole truth behind these things, I have to admit that Ilya Salkind sounded actually fairly reasonable in his commentaries. As a kid, I kind of demonized the Salkinds for firing Donner- but he doesn't sound like a monster on these commentaries and his willingness to talk on them made me more willing to hear his side of the story. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2018 9:19:45 GMT -5
I don’t believe him at all. He always says stuff like that after the fact. What he would have done. But in every instance he let it happen. I think when he says that he’s just covering his a$$. Their original take on Superman was camp. “Who loves ya baby?” He sat there nodding his head when Brando wanted to be a bagel. He passes the buck on Superman III damaging the franchise. Reeve almost walked when he saw what Superman III was going to be. Just read Ilya’s original outline for III that WB rejected. It was mental.
I’ll give them credit they always came through on the money side because they wanted to be the next Eon but their execution makes their intentions look dubious at best. They did make Supergirl more serious than II or III but I think that’s more on other people. The salkind Superman productions always depended on the quality of work other people put in. Superboy is a perfect example. I think it was people like Bates and Wolfman that made that show what it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 10:34:17 GMT -5
I don’t believe him at all. He always says stuff like that after the fact. What he would have done. But in every instance he let it happen. I think when he says that he’s just covering his a$$. Their original take on Superman was camp. “Who loves ya baby?” He sat there nodding his head when Brando wanted to be a bagel. He passes the buck on Superman III damaging the franchise. Reeve almost walked when he saw what Superman III was going to be. Just read Ilya’s original outline for III that WB rejected. It was mental. I’ll give them credit they always came through on the money side because they wanted to be the next Eon but their execution makes their intentions look dubious at best. They did make Supergirl more serious than II or III but I think that’s more on other people. The salkind Superman productions always depended on the quality of work other people put in. Superboy is a perfect example. I think it was people like Bates and Wolfman that made that show what it was. This sounds... amazing. The whole outline reads like someone read all of Superman's 1950s and 60s comic adventures in one day, snorted a kilo of cocaine, and summarized all the stories into a 3-page movie pitch which would amount to a 5-hour epic film. meatfighter.com/superman3/part4/s3_original_idea.pdfFavorite parts - Braniac, as a father figure, falling in love with his adopted daughter Superman posing as a criminal to determine Kara's true intention Superman immediately falling in love with both Lana and Supergirl. Braniac transmuting rocks into gold and diamonds to become rich (Braniac, that's not how rare gems or minerals work!) Clark Kent superslapping Perry White. Supergirl only being a prop in a love triangle Mxyzptlk out of nowhere Knight fight at the end Mxy's super puzzle |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2018 10:48:20 GMT -5
It’s insane isn’t it? It’s like an episode of Superfriends on steroids after dropping acid. The whole jousting as knights bit is right out of a superfriends episode.
Does make me wonder if the idea of the Matrix Supergirl modeling herself on Lana Lang was inspired by Ilyas script and the writers just decided to combine the two into one character. Not the the first time comics have taken idea from movies and tv shows. Just like i wonder if the basic idea of clone superboy comes from nuclear man.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2018 21:30:40 GMT -5
I don’t believe him at all. He always says stuff like that after the fact. What he would have done. But in every instance he let it happen. I think when he says that he’s just covering his a$$. Their original take on Superman was camp. “Who loves ya baby?” He sat there nodding his head when Brando wanted to be a bagel. He passes the buck on Superman III damaging the franchise. Reeve almost walked when he saw what Superman III was going to be. Just read Ilya’s original outline for III that WB rejected. It was mental. I’ll give them credit they always came through on the money side because they wanted to be the next Eon but their execution makes their intentions look dubious at best. They did make Supergirl more serious than II or III but I think that’s more on other people. The salkind Superman productions always depended on the quality of work other people put in. Superboy is a perfect example. I think it was people like Bates and Wolfman that made that show what it was. I agree- It's hard NOT to give them credit, when WB sat on Superman as a property for decades. While I blame them for firing Donner, and not intervening when Lester decided to derail the picture... I do have to credit them for ultimately making the Donner STM (and parts of II) happen. I wonder how much producers are really that hands-on, though. (Look at Chris Nolan's non-interference for MOS) I got the feeling that Ilya felt that his job was done once he paid for a Puzo script, got big actors to sign on, and got a director. As an example- Look at Lauren Shuler Donner and Xmen 3- what the heck? Singer was willing to stay on as producer and guide the story when he was offered SR. Though I read somewhere that the studio head was pretty pissed when Singer left - so maybe to appease the then-studio head, Donner cut off Singer's connection? (Which is a little odd, because Lauren had to know that Singer worshipped and was going to be respectful to her husband's Superman movies) Perhaps it is case to case on how much producers feel about really guiding a project and how much they feel like they can/should step in. It is funny to hear on Supergirls' commentary how he felt that on STM he had too many arguments with Donner- but felt that SG he didn't have enough arguments. Also it's weird that WB actually did have more say on SIII once they realized that Supes was a potential cash cow--- but that didn't seem to help SIII at all... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2018 23:34:55 GMT -5
I think Ilya knows that the best Superman movie is the one where the director and writer pushed for better ideas. Supergirl is like all the others in that everyone mostly seemed to do what the producers wanted. I never got the sense that the old man was Super hands one but that Ilya and Spengler were more concerned with the money side of things. How much was too much and what star could get them more attention. They never seems like the type like a Bill Panzer who would personally work on fhe scripts for Highlander and make them worse. He was very hands on creatively. The Superman producers might have an idea or demand certain things and hand it off to the writers.
As much as I admire Richard Donner I don’t rate his wife much at all. Those good X-men movies seemed to be successful despite her involvement. All kinds of stuff happened on X-men 3 and it doesn’t seem like she stepped in to fix it. I give far more credit to people like Ralph Winter. Lauren Schuler Donners idea of a good X-men movie seems to be throw as many mutants in as possible. Without the right people around her she seems clueless on what makes a good X-men film.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 13, 2018 0:41:50 GMT -5
I think Ilya knows that the best Superman movie is the one where the director and writer pushed for better ideas. Supergirl is like all the others in that everyone mostly seemed to do what the producers wanted. I never got the sense that the old man was Super hands one but that Ilya and Spengler were more concerned with the money side of things. How much was too much and what star could get them more attention. They never seems like the type like a Bill Panzer who would personally work on fhe scripts for Highlander and make them worse. He was very hands on creatively. The Superman producers might have an idea or demand certain things and hand it off to the writers. As much as I admire Richard Donner I don’t rate his wife much at all. Those good X-men movies seemed to be successful despite her involvement. All kinds of stuff happened on X-men 3 and it doesn’t seem like she stepped in to fix it. I give far more credit to people like Ralph Winter. Lauren Schuler Donners idea of a good X-men movie seems to be throw as many mutants in as possible. Without the right people around her she seems clueless on what makes a good X-men film. In the behind the scenes features on the boxset, Ilya didn't seem driven to be a filmmaker or writer- following in his dad's footsteps, he probably saw mostly the unexciting aspect of the business. From dealing with low budget filmmakers in the area, I've come to respect the money side more than I used to. While they were criticizing Donner for too many takes and/or perfectionism, it's hard to argue what ended up onscreen. When looking at the behind-the-scenes giant Metropolis set- It's so impressive, that it kills me that Lester made something so big and expensive look so cheap and trivial by his choices. (I have to admit the bus toss looked great, but why did everything else have to look so cheap? On the flip side, I have to say even Joss Whedon deflated the intensity of the New York attack in Avengers with a few too many one-liners in the last act of that film). |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 13, 2018 15:54:00 GMT -5
I recently rewatched one of the making ofs and it seems like the salkinds were frustrated because of what their own ineptitude forced them to do and took it out on Donner. If it weren’t for him no one would have figured out how to make the film as well as it was made.
To me Ilya seemed like he wanted to be the next independent super producer like Broccoli or DeLaurentis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on May 14, 2018 8:14:57 GMT -5
Over the years, I’ve been more forgiving with the humor of Lester’s Superman II, because it is in style with the Roger Moore James Bond films of the era and that’s the model they were trying to emulate to be successful. Donner was taking the material in a bolder and riskier for the time direction to treat it a lot more seriously. Another timely example of this was how they made a farce out of Doc Savage and Flash Gordon while Spielberg and Lucas made better films inspired by their source material to create Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
It’s hard to determine how a released version of Donner’s Superman II would have turned out with all of the factors considered. There’s a lot of changes within Mankiewicz’s screenplay for Superman: The Movie compared to the final film. There’s major hurdles that they would have needed to overcome like Brando being cut out, the death of Unsworth and Barry, along with Donner probably being instant on thinking filming the Metropolis battle on the backlot would look too phony. Williams may not have been able to score the film, due to his work on Empire and Raiders.
Ultimately, the Salkinds realized how much it cost to make these films look as good as they did and they reasonably tried to cut back on costs and see if they could still make money by making Superman III the way they did. Supergirl ran into a brick wall when Reeve suddenly decided he wasn’t going to show up for his small role and the cost cutting was blatantly obvious when they were making their hero fight an invisible monster. I’m quite convinced that Donner and Mankiewicz would have not wanted to continue if they had been allowed to finish Superman II due to the complexity of making them and basically covering the ground of the characters. Don’t think they would have been interested in characters like Brainiac, Bizarro or Mxyzptlk.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2018 10:07:39 GMT -5
I noticed that as he films went on things that they’d perfected in STM got cheaper and cheaper looking — like the credits.
The flying fx did improve with III but they seemed to go for less complex shots.
Bond was really the only guide the Superman movies had to go on. That and the first Star Wars. That’s why Luthor came off more like a bond villian with the eccentric style and the complex lair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on May 14, 2018 10:49:33 GMT -5
Time is money and the sequels couldn’t blow through it like they did on the first movie. The first film was supposed to be out in the summer and ended up coming out in the winter, which the Salkinds probably used as another excuse to fire Donner. They wanted stuff done on time which is quite difficult when you’re taking on something ambitious as this. Probably drove them crazy that Donner was scrapping shooting days in Canada when the sky wasn’t right. With Lester, he shot despite the cloudy rainy days in Paris.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2018 11:29:12 GMT -5
Over the years, I’ve been more forgiving with the humor of Lester’s Superman II, because it is in style with the Roger Moore James Bond films of the era and that’s the model they were trying to emulate to be successful. Donner was taking the material in a bolder and riskier for the time direction to treat it a lot more seriously. Another timely example of this was how they made a farce out of Doc Savage and Flash Gordon while Spielberg and Lucas made better films inspired by their source material to create Star Wars and Indiana Jones. It’s hard to determine how a released version of Donner’s Superman II would have turned out with all of the factors considered. There’s a lot of changes within Mankiewicz’s screenplay for Superman: The Movie compared to the final film. There’s major hurdles that they would have needed to overcome like Brando being cut out, the death of Unsworth and Barry, along with Donner probably being instant on thinking filming the Metropolis battle on the backlot would look too phony. Williams may not have been able to score the film, due to his work on Empire and Raiders. Ultimately, the Salkinds realized how much it cost to make these films look as good as they did and they reasonably tried to cut back on costs and see if they could still make money by making Superman III the way they did. Supergirl ran into a brick wall when Reeve suddenly decided he wasn’t going to show up for his small role and the cost cutting was blatantly obvious when they were making their hero fight an invisible monster. I’m quite convinced that Donner and Mankiewicz would have not wanted to continue if they had been allowed to finish Superman II due to the complexity of making them and basically covering the ground of the characters. Don’t think they would have been interested in characters like Brainiac, Bizarro or Mxyzptlk. That's an interesting point on trying to be in-line with the Roger Moore Bond films PLUS trying to be cheaper. I would be curious how Donner would have handled losing Brando- would he have dug in his heels, and then there be a compromise from Brando's payment? Or would he have relented and recast? Donner said when asked what he would have done with the loss of Unsworth, and he mentioned that he would have assigned the cinematography I believe to one of Unsworth's assistants (which probably made sense). I don't think that the backlot had to look phony for the Metro battle- it's pretty impressive on video for the behind the scenes footage and still pictures. I think it's how it was lit and staged that made it look so cheap. If Donner had access to that, I think he might have (as he did with the helicopter rescue) shot it in bits in pieces both on a backlot and on-location. I read conflicting reports - that Williams was set to do it, but something Lester said pissed Williams off (I believe it's in an Ilya Salkind interview), but Williams when asked took a more diplomatic role and says it was scheduling. Who knows? But over time I've come to appreciate what Ken Thorne did. I'm surprised that the Salkinds didn't offer Reeve an offer he couldn't refuse. Having an appearance by Reeve as Superman in Supergirl might not have saved the movie, but it would have had the same 'cool!' effect that kids get in seeing the same actors appear in crossover Marvel movies now. But- it also would have helped make the movie make a lot more sense in the beginning. (The original script with Superman in it isn't great, but it's not as ridiculous as what came out) That invisible monster- ugh. At the time, with Donner having such a love for the characters and what he and Mank achieved with STM- that I think they both would have seen it as their 'Star Wars' and held onto it, despite the complexity. Even after the fact, Donner did co-write some Superman comics, showing he still loves the character. To have such critical and box office response would have been heartbreaking to walk away from, particularly since the built the movie foundation with the cast & look of the film/etc.- After doing the second one, it would have been a prime gift to Mankiewicz to let him write/direct the third one. We don't know for sure, only what Donner and Mank say they would have done. Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2018 11:35:56 GMT -5
I noticed that as he films went on things that they’d perfected in STM got cheaper and cheaper looking — like the credits. The flying fx did improve with III but they seemed to go for less complex shots. Bond was really the only guide the Superman movies had to go on. That and the first Star Wars. That’s why Luthor came off more like a bond villian with the eccentric style and the complex lair. I did like the flash of menace Luthor had in killing off Teschmacher at the end of STM- only to be rescued by Supes. Pity it didn't stay in to show that he wasn't a complete joke. I know it was Puzo who wrote Luthor campy- but in seeing how well he played off the Donner version of the villains, it made more sense why he wasn't played for pure evil himself and why he was a bit of a buffoon. The opening credits I initially hated, until it was pointed out to me that it was the same company that did the first credits. (Who continued to do interesting credits for Donner on other films at that time) I took it then as something more of a stylistic choice so that they could also transition the recap footage as well. Donner was always trying to push the limits creatively- again, it's unfortunate we only got a taste in the RDC what his Metro battle might have been like. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2018 11:43:47 GMT -5
Time is money and the sequels couldn’t blow through it like they did on the first movie. The first film was supposed to be out in the summer and ended up coming out in the winter, which the Salkinds probably used as another excuse to fire Donner. They wanted stuff done on time which is quite difficult when you’re taking on something ambitious as this. Probably drove them crazy that Donner was scrapping shooting days in Canada when the sky wasn’t right. With Lester, he shot despite the cloudy rainy days in Paris. I would have imagined that WB would have thrown in more money to back up the movie (I think didn't part of this happen on STM?) knowing it was an unprecedented cash cow for WB. I actually would not have minded cheap fx (I was used to them in that time frame) but it's the lack of seriousness during the times I was really engaged in the film that drove me crazy. I thought the villains in STM were as awesome as Darth Vader- but to rewrite them as jokes took the energy out of them. Again, it's like having a scene with fart jokes for Vader in Empire. It undermined the power of the character by going for easy laughs. Empire had humor with Vader,but it was written in a way that didn't take away from his character. Mank's script did the same. Again, I don't begrudge having to make something cheaper (which is why I'm pretty forgiving of a lot of SIV from the start) - but it's the essence of the story and characters that got unnecessarily reworked for the worse that bugged me. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on May 14, 2018 13:13:14 GMT -5
I’m always conflicted by the Mankiewicz script for II. While the villains were more of a threat, it felt like they had no characterization other than just being evil. I liked how Lester worked with their characters to make Zod be vain, Ursa more of a vamp and Non wanting to get the praise from the others.
The romance angle was lacking, which makes me believe that Donner and Mankiewicz may have wanted to rewrite things further following the decision to change the first film’s ending, which was why we never had the scenes at the Fortress that led to the depowering scene. I believe they would have worked something out, but the Salkind probably didn’t want to waste more time on rewriting when they were ready to go after the Newmans did their revisions.
I believe that Donner honestly thought that Warners was going to buy off the Salkinds, which led him to make the statements that if Spengler was the producer, he wasn’t going back. Obviously, the Salkinds saw what a goldmine they were sitting on and didn’t sell, which led them to put Lester in the director’s chair, who obviously got a schedule and budget to maintain while finishing II.
|
|
