Revisiting Supergirl on Blu-ray...

[crazy_asian_man]

Had a mixed reaction making the purchase for Supergirl on Bluray- no matter how you slice it, it was always a bad film-
Not quite innocent or fun enough for kids, had giant gaps of logic in the story, but for diehard fans of STM and comics- of course, there was no way I wasn't going to check out the film when it first came out.... but... of course, there's-
(1) Helen Slater as Supergirl (2) Some really wonderful flying sequences (3) Jerry Goldsmith music (4) Marc Mclure (5) Peter O'toole and a heckuva budget. (Though not always used to the best advantage)

Anyhow- started with the behind-the-scenes documentary, and a few things came up, as it's been quite awhile since I've seen it...

(1)- How YOUNG Slater is when she had this role... the age is not as noticeable during the movie, but behind the scenes- Helen's age really kind of pops out, and it's amusing. Given the age, they really did roll the dice and take a huge chance.
(2)- The ambition of the live action stunts- which, sadly, just don't come across as all that big (much like the Lester sequences in SII most of the time)- even though taken more seriously here.
(3)- It also brought up the wonder how things might have turned out- if: #1- it had a good script, and #2- if the box office was good enough, if a sequel might have redeemed the film- much like how FF #2 was better the terrible FF#1 movie.

In revisiting the movie with commentary, I was reminded that Reeve seemed THIS close to doing the movie according to the director, but dropped out & affected the script in several places.
It explains (but doesn't really forgive) some of the flaws in the script- but one wonders: Would the movie have been much better if they recast Superman at this point? Would it have been a situation where (like Christian Bale & Batman)- Reeve might have come back to do it, if he felt uncomfortable with another actor being recast as Superman?

I remember reading a draft with Superman in it- I don't know if it was going to be the shooting draft, but it certainly did have so many of the really horrible nonsense with the school hi jinx and Selena/whatnot.... but it seemed 'ok'- but I never thought the visual concept of fighting an invisible monster had much 'oomph' to it. There are some great practical effects with stuff getting crushed, and the big 'save' sequence where the small city gets trashed- but it just still looks staged and none of the action scenes come even close to matching even the quality of some of the current tv superhero shows (not comparing the stuff where CGI has/had an advantage, but comparing the camera angles/editing/whatnot) -

Anyhow... yeah, there's definitely a LOT of scenes to 'fast forward' on- and the most interesting sequences to me are limited to the aerial ballet, the stuff on Argo City, and the Phantom Zone.

I did find parts of the commentary interesting- particularly bits where originally it was to start with Krypton exploding--- Reeve's last minute decision to leave the project, and questions posed on whether they would tie the look of Argo City closer to STM's Krypton (which would have been interesting if visually there was a more intentional connection to both films).

Anyhow- it is neat to think about how we would have had the first superhero 'crossover' fllm way back then, as opposed to having to wait until the MCU was born to see it happen years later.
Would have been nice to have had a new interview with Slater on the dvd, but given how dvd sales are now, and that it's made-to-order, I guess it's surprising that they had this come out at all.... but.... yeah, I know I sound like a broken record: I want SII tv cut next!!!

[crown]

Helen Slater was HOTTTT as Supergirl.

For that reason the film gets a 10/10 from me.

[dejan]

Jul 28, 2018 23:26:21 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Had a mixed reaction making the purchase for Supergirl on Bluray- no matter how you slice it, it was always a bad film-
Not quite innocent or fun enough for kids, had giant gaps of logic in the story, but for diehard fans of STM and comics- of course, there was no way I wasn't going to check out the film when it first came out.... but... of course, there's-
(1) Helen Slater as Supergirl (2) Some really wonderful flying sequences (3) Jerry Goldsmith music (4) Marc Mclure (5) Peter O'toole and a heckuva budget. (Though not always used to the best advantage)

Anyhow- started with the behind-the-scenes documentary, and a few things came up, as it's been quite awhile since I've seen it...

(1)- How YOUNG Slater is when she had this role... the age is not as noticeable during the movie, but behind the scenes- Helen's age really kind of pops out, and it's amusing. Given the age, they really did roll the dice and take a huge chance.
(2)- The ambition of the live action stunts- which, sadly, just don't come across as all that big (much like the Lester sequences in SII most of the time)- even though taken more seriously here.
(3)- It also brought up the wonder how things might have turned out- if: #1- it had a good script, and #2- if the box office was good enough, if a sequel might have redeemed the film- much like how FF #2 was better the terrible FF#1 movie.

In revisiting the movie with commentary, I was reminded that Reeve seemed THIS close to doing the movie according to the director, but dropped out & affected the script in several places.
It explains (but doesn't really forgive) some of the flaws in the script- but one wonders: Would the movie have been much better if they recast Superman at this point? Would it have been a situation where (like Christian Bale & Batman)- Reeve might have come back to do it, if he felt uncomfortable with another actor being recast as Superman?

I remember reading a draft with Superman in it- I don't know if it was going to be the shooting draft, but it certainly did have so many of the really horrible nonsense with the school hi jinx and Selena/whatnot.... but it seemed 'ok'- but I never thought the visual concept of fighting an invisible monster had much 'oomph' to it. There are some great practical effects with stuff getting crushed, and the big 'save' sequence where the small city gets trashed- but it just still looks staged and none of the action scenes come even close to matching even the quality of some of the current tv superhero shows (not comparing the stuff where CGI has/had an advantage, but comparing the camera angles/editing/whatnot) -

Anyhow... yeah, there's definitely a LOT of scenes to 'fast forward' on- and the most interesting sequences to me are limited to the aerial ballet, the stuff on Argo City, and the Phantom Zone.

I did find parts of the commentary interesting- particularly bits where originally it was to start with Krypton exploding--- Reeve's last minute decision to leave the project, and questions posed on whether they would tie the look of Argo City closer to STM's Krypton (which would have been interesting if visually there was a more intentional connection to both films).

Anyhow- it is neat to think about how we would have had the first superhero 'crossover' fllm way back then, as opposed to having to wait until the MCU was born to see it happen years later.
Would have been nice to have had a new interview with Slater on the dvd, but given how dvd sales are now, and that it's made-to-order, I guess it's surprising that they had this come out at all.... but.... yeah, I know I sound like a broken record: I want SII tv cut next!!!

So I just finished watching the Blu Ray on a JVC rs600 4K E-shift Projector. This projector is effectively the OLED of the projection world with great deep inky blacks.
Wow....It's been at least 10 years since I have seen this flick(on DVD) and I thoroughly enjoyed it despite all it's faults. For the record I did watch  Supergirl 3 times in 1984 as a 10 year old. 2 of those involved watching the film twice in a row by simple remaining in my seat in the cinema. Back in the day  little kids simply plonked themselves in seats( with all the rubbish and cigarette stubs lying around) and evaded the pop corn ushers(if there were any on duty.....usually there were not) escorting people out of the theatre at the end of a showing.
So yeah I am not being completely impartial in my analysis......as a bit of nostalgia is mitigating my ability to reason  

Still this is a great transfer and quite surprisingly the backdrop plates for the flying sequences look absolutely fantastic.....I thought the higher resolution of the blu ray would expose the shortcomings of the 35mm photochemical workflow......but not so(IMHO).

Highly recommended for all...even if you do think the film is crap.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 29, 2018 10:59:17 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jul 28, 2018 23:26:21 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Had a mixed reaction making the purchase for Supergirl on Bluray- no matter how you slice it, it was always a bad film-
Not quite innocent or fun enough for kids, had giant gaps of logic in the story, but for diehard fans of STM and comics- of course, there was no way I wasn't going to check out the film when it first came out.... but... of course, there's-
(1) Helen Slater as Supergirl (2) Some really wonderful flying sequences (3) Jerry Goldsmith music (4) Marc Mclure (5) Peter O'toole and a heckuva budget. (Though not always used to the best advantage)

Anyhow- started with the behind-the-scenes documentary, and a few things came up, as it's been quite awhile since I've seen it...

(1)- How YOUNG Slater is when she had this role... the age is not as noticeable during the movie, but behind the scenes- Helen's age really kind of pops out, and it's amusing. Given the age, they really did roll the dice and take a huge chance.
(2)- The ambition of the live action stunts- which, sadly, just don't come across as all that big (much like the Lester sequences in SII most of the time)- even though taken more seriously here.
(3)- It also brought up the wonder how things might have turned out- if: #1- it had a good script, and #2- if the box office was good enough, if a sequel might have redeemed the film- much like how FF #2 was better the terrible FF#1 movie.

In revisiting the movie with commentary, I was reminded that Reeve seemed THIS close to doing the movie according to the director, but dropped out & affected the script in several places.
It explains (but doesn't really forgive) some of the flaws in the script- but one wonders: Would the movie have been much better if they recast Superman at this point? Would it have been a situation where (like Christian Bale & Batman)- Reeve might have come back to do it, if he felt uncomfortable with another actor being recast as Superman?

I remember reading a draft with Superman in it- I don't know if it was going to be the shooting draft, but it certainly did have so many of the really horrible nonsense with the school hi jinx and Selena/whatnot.... but it seemed 'ok'- but I never thought the visual concept of fighting an invisible monster had much 'oomph' to it. There are some great practical effects with stuff getting crushed, and the big 'save' sequence where the small city gets trashed- but it just still looks staged and none of the action scenes come even close to matching even the quality of some of the current tv superhero shows (not comparing the stuff where CGI has/had an advantage, but comparing the camera angles/editing/whatnot) -

Anyhow... yeah, there's definitely a LOT of scenes to 'fast forward' on- and the most interesting sequences to me are limited to the aerial ballet, the stuff on Argo City, and the Phantom Zone.

I did find parts of the commentary interesting- particularly bits where originally it was to start with Krypton exploding--- Reeve's last minute decision to leave the project, and questions posed on whether they would tie the look of Argo City closer to STM's Krypton (which would have been interesting if visually there was a more intentional connection to both films).

Anyhow- it is neat to think about how we would have had the first superhero 'crossover' fllm way back then, as opposed to having to wait until the MCU was born to see it happen years later.
Would have been nice to have had a new interview with Slater on the dvd, but given how dvd sales are now, and that it's made-to-order, I guess it's surprising that they had this come out at all.... but.... yeah, I know I sound like a broken record: I want SII tv cut next!!!

So I just finished watching the Blu Ray on a JVC rs600 4K E-shift Projector. This projector is effectively the OLED of the projection world with great deep inky blacks.
Wow....It's been at least 10 years since I have seen this flick(on DVD) and I thoroughly enjoyed it despite all it's faults. For the record I did watch  Supergirl 3 times in 1984 as a 10 year old. 2 of those involved watching the film twice in a row by simple remaining in my seat in the cinema. Back in the day  little kids simply plonked themselves in seats( with all the rubbish and cigarette stubs lying around) and evaded the pop corn ushers(if there were any on duty.....usually there were not) escorting people out of the theatre at the end of a showing.
So yeah I am not being completely impartial in my analysis......as a bit of nostalgia is mitigating my ability to reason  

Still this is a great transfer and quite surprisingly the backdrop plates for the flying sequences look absolutely fantastic.....I thought the higher resolution of the blu ray would expose the shortcomings of the 35mm photochemical workflow......but not so(IMHO).

Highly recommended for all...even if you do think the film is crap.

Thanks for sharing, man- yeah... I miss the cellphone-free movie experience SO much, when people actually might have even talked to each other in line during these events. I remember as a kid being dropped off by my parents on the weekend to a big movie theatre playing STM and hiding out in the men's room while they cleared the theatre, so I could stay for multiple showings of STM (3x a Saturday) without having to line up again or pay- there was no VHS until a few years later to have that experience again. Before the movie, already had been a comics fan, so seeing Helen in costume--- wow.
(I'm just so glad that they jettisoned the aerobics headband and incredibly awful costume design that stuck in the comics for awhile before filming- I presume the movies came up with it first, then went back to the traditional costume).

[dejan]

@cam

I reciprocate...thank you for sharing too

Out of interest how many times did you see STM on the big screen(I swear I am not jealous )

I saw STM twice on the big screen...…..the first time being the back to back screening with SII in 1981....a childhood highlight.

But just before Supergirl  premiered our local did a STM matinee in the summer of 84'.

I snuck in for the 10:00am  showing.

By this point I had the video of STM(a recording off a TV broadcast from Jan 84')…...here in Europe we had a video system  called the v2000...an early competitor to Betamax and VHS.


Anyways when I went into the theatre for the STM matinee' ......….it was amazingly empty!

And it remained that way. I had the entire cinema to myself....not bad for a 10 year old.  

I remember the opening section of the print(the comic book morphing into the daily planet) being really beat up----I guess this was a then 6 year old print that had done the theatrical rounds by that point.

But when the film opened into the main titles.....I was shocked just how superior the clarity of the blue titles  were as they shot onto the screen......compared to the  muddy quality of my home video recording LOL.
And for the rest of presentation I became acutely aware for the first time just how inferior home video was(at that point) to big screen cinema.
  
And that was the genesis of my quest for home cinema perfection.
 

[Metallo]

I remember watching the vintage making of and seeing Slater acting more her age. It was just the way she carried herself behind the scenes. She wasn’t an airhead or anything but came off more as a “kid” of that era than the more serious and proper Kara character.

Does the Blu-ray have ANY new extras? Glad to have a better transfer but it’d be nice if they put something else on there to mark the upcoming anniversary.

Recently finally purchased the Blu-ray of Batman: the movie from I guess ten years ago and while I was disappointed there were no new interviews with West I was pleasantly surprised they put together a few new featurettes and audio options.

As for Reeve I think his presence would have automatically made the film “better” but not necessarily “good.” Maybe another Superman III type situation. Jeannot Szwarc is a decent enough director but I wonder how the film would have turned out if someone who could have made it more of a teen coming of age film without making it too 80s and dated. Something kinda like BTTF in that sense or some of John Hughes better films but as a superhero movie.

I like Supergirl btw but it’s a flawed film.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 29, 2018 14:00:05 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

I reciprocate...thank you for sharing too

Out of interest how many times did you see STM on the big screen(I swear I am not jealous )

I saw STM twice on the big screen...…..the first time being the back to back screening with SII in 1981....a childhood highlight.

But just before Supergirl  premiered our local did a STM matinee in the summer of 84'.

I snuck in for the 10:00am  showing.

By this point I had the video of STM(a recording off a TV broadcast from Jan 84')…...here in Europe we had a video system  called the v2000...an early competitor to Betamax and VHS.


Anyways when I went into the theatre for the STM matinee' ......….it was amazingly empty!

And it remained that way. I had the entire cinema to myself....not bad for a 10 year old.  

I remember the opening section of the print(the comic book morphing into the daily planet) being really beat up----I guess this was a then 6 year old print that had done the theatrical rounds by that point.

But when the film opened into the main titles.....I was shocked just how superior the clarity of the blue titles  were as they shot onto the screen......compared to the  muddy quality of my home video recording LOL.
And for the rest of presentation I became acutely aware for the first time just how inferior home video was(at that point) to big screen cinema.
  
And that was the genesis of my quest for home cinema perfection.
 

It was local and I was old enough at the time that my parents could drop me off for the day- but it was a bit of a drive- so I wish I could give an exact number- but I do remember that these were the conditions at the time:

(1) The movie lasted for MONTHS on the big screen. I vaguely remember seeing it the first time with an hour-long wait, and people being extremely friendly as the anticipation was huge and the press was EXTREMELY guarded reportedly because the remade King Kong had shown footage of Kong either on tv ads or clips, and they attributed some of the box-office disappointment to that. When I saw previews on tv talking about the movie, the only scene I remember them sharing was the scene of Clark meeting the Daily Planet staff--- because WB or the Salkinds didn't want to release any flying footage as they wanted audiences to pay to see that. So, anticipation was at an all-time high--- and you never got to see a clip on the internet of him flying, you had to SEE THE MOVIE to get any of it! (Which was great!)

(2) I was able to see it at least a few times on a Saturday (meaning 3 showings)--- so 9 or 12 times on the big screen?

(3) When it moved to the 'medium size' screens, I STILL went to watch it... why? Because the idea of OWNING the movie didn't quite exist yet!--- and I believe home Videotape recorders were either just getting started or not quite cheap enough yet for the home user.
But- the sad thing was- after being spoiled with the hour-long lines of excited movie watchers and the 1st class theatrical treatment--- The medium and small size screens had few to nobody in them- but I still dug it, though not quite nearly as much. I took my first date to STM- the relationship with the girl didn't last, but the love for STM stayed on.

(4) When it finally came to VHS tape-- First, I was thrilled i was available- but I noticed that it was trimmed toward the end, and the end credits mostly got lopped off! But, other than that, played that VHS tape to death. And, yeah, you can bet I was shocked beyond belief when the tv version added all those deleted bits. Holy cow!

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 29, 2018 20:14:02 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I remember watching the vintage making of and seeing Slater acting more her age. It was just the way she carried herself behind the scenes. She wasn’t an airhead or anything but came off more as a “kid” of that era than the more serious and proper Kara character.

Does the Blu-ray have ANY new extras? Glad to have a better transfer but it’d be nice if they put something else on there to mark the upcoming anniversary.

Recently finally purchased the Blu-ray of Batman: the movie from I guess ten years ago and while I was disappointed there were no new interviews with West I was pleasantly surprised they put together a few new featurettes and audio options.

As for Reeve I think his presence would have automatically made the film “better” but not necessarily “good.” Maybe another Superman III type situation. Jeannot Szwarc is a decent enough director but I wonder how the film would have turned out if someone who could have made it more of a teen coming of age film without making it too 80s and dated. Something kinda like BTTF in that sense or some of John Hughes better films but as a superhero movie.

I like Supergirl btw but it’s a flawed film.

Didn't notice any new extras. I saw disc one- but haven't checked the bonus dvd/director's cut.
I do find the Selena bits hard to sit through- I think that wouldn't have changed much even if Reeve and the script would have stayed.... but Swarc did mention that there was originally going to be a flying sequence of both of them flying- that was substituted with the solo aerial ballet- which was also really nice. That scene is definitely a loss, though.

It's a pity that Reeve didn't decide to leave earlier on so that a better script could have been written or else that they didn't just decide to recast Reeve if he didn't want to be a part of it. Oh well...

[Metallo]

Glad they didn’t do something crazy like recast but yeah it needed a top to bottom rewrite. the core story seemed to have stayed the same after he left but between removing him and the issues that were already there it needed some major work.

I think if he had been stayed he would have elevated the movie somewhat but it would have been like Red Sonja: Arnold’s involvment didn’t save the movie because they didn’t really nail down what the movie was. I always thought Selena didn’t quite work as a villain. She was more of a con woman who got lucky and then got in over her head than someone who was a true villain.

[Metallo]

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 31, 2018 9:22:35 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Glad they didn’t do something crazy like recast but yeah it needed a top to bottom rewrite. the core story seemed to have stayed the same after he left but between removing him and the issues that were already there it needed some major work.

I think if he had been stayed he would have elevated the movie somewhat but it would have been like Red Sonja: Arnold’s involvment didn’t save the movie because they didn’t really nail down what the movie was. I always thought Selena didn’t quite work as a villain. She was more of a con woman who got lucky and then got in over her head than someone who was a true villain.

That's the thing- the script as it was WITH Superman was 'meh', but made far more sense and the story didn't have as many holes in it.

The Salkinds didn't exactly have a lot of great story sense. If so, SII wouldn't have gotten slightly off the rails the way it did under Lester- and SIII wouldn't have been the mess it was.

One wonders if they stopped production once Reeve was no longer attached and gotten a proper rewrite, if it would have succeeded better creatively (if not box office wise, but then again, hardly mattered at that point)-

Red Sonja was a sad mess- at least Supergirl had Slater in costume.

Selena felt like it was made in hopes of recapturing a campy over-the-top villain like Hackman as Lex--- only, I always felt Lex was just a setup and counterbalance for Zod.
Can you imagine if they somehow rewrote it to have had Sarah Douglass's Ursa come back to be the villain for that film (and they actually could have had her meet the trio as she did go to the Phantom Zone).

Anyhow- the movie is what it is. I enjoy the eye candy on it and to me Slater is/was the best Supergirl...

[Metallo]

Jul 31, 2018 11:37:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 31, 2018 9:22:35 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Glad they didn’t do something crazy like recast but yeah it needed a top to bottom rewrite. the core story seemed to have stayed the same after he left but between removing him and the issues that were already there it needed some major work.

I think if he had been stayed he would have elevated the movie somewhat but it would have been like Red Sonja: Arnold’s involvment didn’t save the movie because they didn’t really nail down what the movie was. I always thought Selena didn’t quite work as a villain. She was more of a con woman who got lucky and then got in over her head than someone who was a true villain.

That's the thing- the script as it was WITH Superman was 'meh', but made far more sense and the story didn't have as many holes in it.

The Salkinds didn't exactly have a lot of great story sense. If so, SII wouldn't have gotten slightly off the rails the way it did under Lester- and SIII wouldn't have been the mess it was.

One wonders if they stopped production once Reeve was no longer attached and gotten a proper rewrite, if it would have succeeded better creatively (if not box office wise, but then again, hardly mattered at that point)-

Red Sonja was a sad mess- at least Supergirl had Slater in costume.

Selena felt like it was made in hopes of recapturing a campy over-the-top villain like Hackman as Lex--- only, I always felt Lex was just a setup and counterbalance for Zod.
Can you imagine if they somehow rewrote it to have had Sarah Douglass's Ursa come back to be the villain for that film (and they actually could have had her meet the trio as she did go to the Phantom Zone).

Anyhow- the movie is what it is. I enjoy the eye candy on it and to me Slater is/was the best Supergirl...

The casting was trying to replicate what STM has done. Dunaway like Hackman was a recognizable lead after stuff like Bonnie and Clyde, Network, and Chinatown.

More work on the script would have made it a better movie. They had enough talented people on board to see some of the problems if they’d had more time. I think the movie was in a bad spot either way financially. There was a Superman fatigue setting in after 3. You could argue after 2. The series got more and more comedic with each passing movie and they each made less and less.

The novelty had worn off as well. We’d seen a man fly. What else ya got? It’s something that tended to happen with sequels back then. Even the best of them. I can’t think of too many sequels to hits back then that massively outperformed the original at the box office. Usually sequels were seen as having diminishing returns. Supergirl wasn’t a sequel but a spin-off yet it was still closely tied to the Superman films.

Red Sonja is a fair comparison because it faced so many of the same problems. It’s one of the few contemporary examples that has parallels. Each film was more female led fantasy movie, eccentric foreign producer more concerned with money than story, and they’d made the franchise more comedic after they’d lost the one director who made the first film work. They even tried to get “Conan” to show up to help launch the new spinoff. Arnold (like Reeve) didn’t want to do it but did it as a favor to Dino and to finish up his contract. From what I know Reeve was contractually done after Superman III so they had no hold on him. I don’t blame him for getting cold feet but he could have given them more notice.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 31, 2018 16:45:36 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 31, 2018 11:37:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

That's the thing- the script as it was WITH Superman was 'meh', but made far more sense and the story didn't have as many holes in it.

The Salkinds didn't exactly have a lot of great story sense. If so, SII wouldn't have gotten slightly off the rails the way it did under Lester- and SIII wouldn't have been the mess it was.

One wonders if they stopped production once Reeve was no longer attached and gotten a proper rewrite, if it would have succeeded better creatively (if not box office wise, but then again, hardly mattered at that point)-

Red Sonja was a sad mess- at least Supergirl had Slater in costume.

Selena felt like it was made in hopes of recapturing a campy over-the-top villain like Hackman as Lex--- only, I always felt Lex was just a setup and counterbalance for Zod.
Can you imagine if they somehow rewrote it to have had Sarah Douglass's Ursa come back to be the villain for that film (and they actually could have had her meet the trio as she did go to the Phantom Zone).

Anyhow- the movie is what it is. I enjoy the eye candy on it and to me Slater is/was the best Supergirl...

The casting was trying to replicate what STM has done. Dunaway like Hackman was a recognizable lead after stuff like Bonnie and Clyde, Network, and Chinatown.

More work on the script would have made it a better movie. They had enough talented people on board to see some of the problems if they’d had more time. I think the movie was in a bad spot either way financially. There was a Superman fatigue setting in after 3. You could argue after 2. The series got more and more comedic with each passing movie and they each made less and less.

The novelty had worn off as well. We’d seen a man fly. What else ya got? It’s something that tended to happen with sequels back then. Even the best of them. I can’t think of too many sequels to hits back then that massively outperformed the original at the box office. Usually sequels were seen as having diminishing returns. Supergirl wasn’t a sequel but a spin-off yet it was still closely tied to the Superman films.

Red Sonja is a fair comparison because it faced so many of the same problems. It’s one of the few contemporary examples that has parallels. Each film was more female led fantasy movie, eccentric foreign producer more concerned with money than story, and they’d made the franchise more comedic after they’d lost the one director who made the first film work. They even tried to get “Conan” to show up to help launch the new spinoff. Arnold (like Reeve) didn’t want to do it but did it as a favor to Dino and to finish up his contract. From what I know Reeve was contractually done after Superman III so they had no hold on him. I don’t blame him for getting cold feet but he could have given them more notice.

Exactly- with all the money thrown at it- why not write a big paycheck to someone like William Goldman again? A good script overcomes a lot.

Superman II I'm convinced would have made MORE money than STM if Donner (or someone who would have kept his footage and tone) finished it back then. SII was pretty tight even with Lester's sidetracking up until the Metro battle- where I really feel the movie did a tailspin under Lester creatively- I remember working as a kid in that movie theatre, and hearing cheers up to the moment where Supes asks Zod to step outside over and over again.... but then pretty much silence after that.

Anyhow- You're right, though- not many sequels outperform their original.

Red Sonja had a poor lead, a script that seemed to try to pander to kids (?)- ugh. Funny about the comparisons you bring up- hadn't noticed that, but you're right on the money with the parallels.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 31, 2018 11:14:21 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Again, awesome find-
A lot of interesting bits.

I do wonder about McClure's memory---

Donner and them signed up for 7 movies?
That just doesn't sound quite right, particularly after the lawsuits for two movies with Three Musketeers.

[Metallo]

Jul 31, 2018 18:55:19 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Exactly- with all the money thrown at it- why not write a big paycheck to someone like William Goldman again? A good script overcomes a lot.

Superman II I'm convinced would have made MORE money than STM if Donner (or someone who would have kept his footage and tone) finished it back then. SII was pretty tight even with Lester's sidetracking up until the Metro battle- where I really feel the movie did a tailspin under Lester creatively- I remember working as a kid in that movie theatre, and hearing cheers up to the moment where Supes asks Zod to step outside over and over again.... but then pretty much silence after that.

Anyhow- You're right, though- not many sequels outperform their original.

Red Sonja had a poor lead, a script that seemed to try to pander to kids (?)- ugh. Funny about the comparisons you bring up- hadn't noticed that, but you're right on the money with the parallels.

Here’s some more. Red Sonja director Richard Fleischer had already directed Conan The Destroyer and made it a sillier film just like Richard Lester did with Superman II. They both got their two in.

He got the job after a history of successful adventure films of his own just like Lester. Donner and Milius took their films more serious but Lester and Fleischer delivered what the producers wanted.

Dino didn’t have a problem going after anyone who criticized him just like the Salkinds didn’t.

Richard was the son of Dave Fleischer and nephew of Max Fleischer. A more direct Superman connection.

As for sequels didn’t Empire make less than the original Star Wars even though now empire is considered by many to be the better film? That’s why these guy tended to make cuts for the sequels or go for PG ratings when the original was R rated to try to make more money. It’s why the planet of the apes movies of the 70s got cheaper and cheaper. It’s a different story now where sequels regularly outperform the original films.

Lester’s an odd one though. Some of his additions helped the movie while others hurt it. I’m sure we’ve all wondered what it would have been like if he’d just shot what he needed to finish the film instead of a majority. Guess that’s one reason a lot of people what a hybrid cut.

[Metallo]

Jul 31, 2018 19:52:39 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 31, 2018 11:14:21 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Again, awesome find-
A lot of interesting bits.

I do wonder about McClure's memory---

Donner and them signed up for 7 movies?
That just doesn't sound quite right, particularly after the lawsuits for two movies with Three Musketeers.

Yeah I had to do a double take at that. I remember Tom Mankiewicz once saying an idea was they’d each direct two and that maybe they’d like to get to around seven films in total but I’ve never heard that everyone was contracted for seven films. Also heard the original plan in the earliest of stages was one film a year but that obviously wasn’t going to happen. Bond couldn’t even keep that up for long. For big films like that one film a year just wasn’t feasible. It still isn’t unless you shoot several films back to back or concurrently then release them later.

[crazy_asian_man]

Aug 1, 2018 12:52:20 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 31, 2018 19:52:39 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Again, awesome find-
A lot of interesting bits.

I do wonder about McClure's memory---

Donner and them signed up for 7 movies?
That just doesn't sound quite right, particularly after the lawsuits for two movies with Three Musketeers.

Yeah I had to do a double take at that. I remember Tom Mankiewicz once saying an idea was they’d each direct two and that maybe they’d like to get to around seven films in total but I’ve never heard that everyone was contracted for seven films. Also heard the original plan in the earliest of stages was one film a year but that obviously wasn’t going to happen. Bond couldn’t even keep that up for long. For big films like that one film a year just wasn’t feasible. It still isn’t unless you shoot several films back to back or concurrently then release them later.

Right.... plus, Reeve re-negotiated his contract after STM and SII didn't finish shooting all at once, as per his contract. (According to the newspapers at the time when SII's shooting dragged on).

BUT...
Can you imagine if Donner had stayed & wanted to oversee this, making it his legacy.

STM would have been the beginning- and DC would probably have been what the MCU is now. Mank already did a script for Batman & the Salkinds probably would have gotten a giant piece of the pie as STM grew out what came from the comics.

I'm thrilled that the MCU happened, but it's sad that something like that could have been handled successfully if Donner/Mank were in charge way back when.

Also, it is a shame that Donner/Mank didn't come back when asked by WB later on- I could see why they didn't want to come back after the well had been tainted- but I'm glad that didn't phase Singer to come back when Ratner ruined the well for X-men way back when.

[Metallo]

I don’t blame Donner for not coming back for IV since no one could save that (he couldn’t save X-men origins either if the rumors are true) but I do with he’d come back for III and WB kept the Salkinds off his back. Heck if they could have gotten Superman V off the ground it would have been nice if he’d directed that. Not unheard of for a director to come back so late on the series. By that point I don’t think WB was interested in the Salkinds being involved at all.

WB probably could have tried a shared universe in the 90s. Probably would have been crap but they didn’t even really try. Most we got was some broad mentions in Lois & Clark and Schumachers Bat films. It’s the fact that they’re following the leader that makes it look so lame now. It’s why I’d rather they focus on solo stand alone films now.

[crazy_asian_man]

Aug 2, 2018 9:37:16 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I don’t blame Donner for not coming back for IV since no one could save that (he couldn’t save X-men origins either if the rumors are true) but I do with he’d come back for III and WB kept the Salkinds off his back. Heck if they could have gotten Superman V off the ground it would have been nice if he’d directed that. Not unheard of for a director to come back so late on the series. By that point I don’t think WB was interested in the Salkinds being involved at all.

WB probably could have tried a shared universe in the 90s. Probably would have been crap but they didn’t even really try. Most we got was some broad mentions in Lois & Clark and Schumachers Bat films. It’s the fact that they’re following the leader that makes it look so lame now. It’s why I’d rather they focus on solo stand alone films now.

The thing was, it seemed at the time that studios had more hope in creating their next Star Wars than going for superhero properties, even if STM was a giant hit.

Dune, Flash Gordon, Star Trek all were being made with giant budgets- but it took almost a decade for a Batman movie to come out (which was the only other big superhero film in that era)--- then after 4 Batman films.... NOTHING on the bigscreen for superhero films until Spiderman and X-men in 2000 (?)....

So I don't think that (unfortunately) studios felt that superhero films were a solid gold mine until the MCU came along.... so the idea of shared universes was a bit of a moot point if WB barely had confidence in continuing the Superman franchise!

Now.... we live in era of almost too many superhero films- and unexpected repercussions of it pushing things into mediocrity.... but hopefully not extinction.

Right now, the MCU is the main hope of superhero films sticking around long-term.

Hard to bet on the WB, and.... let's face it- there's mainly WB and the MCU for superhero movies.

[Metallo]

Aug 2, 2018 11:40:17 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

The thing was, it seemed at the time that studios had more hope in creating their next Star Wars than going for superhero properties, even if STM was a giant hit.

Dune, Flash Gordon, Star Trek all were being made with giant budgets- but it took almost a decade for a Batman movie to come out (which was the only other big superhero film in that era)--- then after 4 Batman films.... NOTHING on the bigscreen for superhero films until Spiderman and X-men in 2000 (?)....

So I don't think that (unfortunately) studios felt that superhero films were a solid gold mine until the MCU came along.... so the idea of shared universes was a bit of a moot point if WB barely had confidence in continuing the Superman franchise!

Now.... we live in era of almost too many superhero films- and unexpected repercussions of it pushing things into mediocrity.... but hopefully not extinction.

Right now, the MCU is the main hope of superhero films sticking around long-term.

Hard to bet on the WB, and.... let's face it- there's mainly WB and the MCU for superhero movies.

Actually studios saw the interest in comic book and superhero films after Batman. That’s why we saw a glut of them in the 90s after very little in the 80s. vagina Tracy, Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Crow, The Phantom, The Mask and to a lesser extent cheaper stuff like Fantastic Four, Captain America, and Punisher all got pushed because of Batman. Problem is most of them failed which put the genre on similar footing as video game movies. They didn’t see that potential again until X-men and Spider-Man

They didn’t see it with Superman because it was the first one. As far as they were concerned it was a fluke or an exception to the rule. There was no genre. Superman had more in common with the sci fi fantasy and adventure films of the 70s and 80s like Bond and close encounters and Star Wars and those are the films that influenced it.

You saw a few attempts at pulp and comic strip characters like Conan, Popeye, and Flash Gordon and in the immediate wake Superman but since most of those flopped it would take Batman’s massive success to get Hollywood to try again. Superman showed it was possible and Batman showed that it could be replicated.

[Metallo]

Oliver Harpers review of the Blu-ray.

[crazy_asian_man]

Aug 3, 2018 14:13:32 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Oliver Harpers review of the Blu-ray.

Love his video reviews, he always puts together a nice presentation! Agree with it for the most part.

[Metallo]

Ditto. Typically find myself agreeing with everything those guys say. Olivers channel really deserves more success because he puts in a lot of effort and does great work with editing, audio, video, etc. Not like some guys on YouTube who just stand in front of a green screen and talk and don’t even go very in depth doing that. His restrospectives and reviews really do cover it all.

[atp]

I only recently realised that Ethan in Supergirl was also Ellis in Die Hard.

[crazy_asian_man]

Aug 4, 2018 10:12:48 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Ditto. Typically find myself agreeing with everything those guys say. Olivers channel really deserves more success because he puts in a lot of effort and does great work with editing, audio, video, etc. Not like some guys on YouTube who just stand in front of a green screen and talk and don’t even go very in depth doing that. His restrospectives and reviews really do cover it all.

Agreed. I do respect the amount of time he puts into the presentation, that could easily be overlooked.