Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 7, 2020 13:51:56 GMT -5
Clark leads Zod and Black Zero to earth in the first place. Doesn’t seem all that bothered by it.
Clark Takes Zod (and the fight) out of an isolated and rural area an into a small population center where there’s a higher risk of collateral damage and deaths. Doesn’t seem very concerned that he made it worse. He’s also not to worried about the fact that he left his old defenseless mom alone with a bunch of super powered ex cons who might be pissed that he just attacked their leader.
Zod kills thousands in metropolis. Clark doesn’t seem to give a sh!t. One family in trouble and he breaks Zods neck to stop him.
A short time later he doesn’t seem to be upset at all over ANY of the stuff that just happened
The movie is wildly inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 7, 2020 14:27:51 GMT -5
Clark leads Zod and Black Zero to earth in the first place. Doesn’t seem all that bothered by it. Clark Takes Zod (and the fight) out of an isolated and rural area an into a small population center where there’s a higher risk of collateral damage and deaths. Doesn’t seem very concerned that he made it worse. He’s also not to worried about the fact that he left his old defenseless mom alone with a bunch of super powered ex cons who might be pissed that he just attacked their leader. Zod kills thousands in metropolis. Clark doesn’t seem to give a sh!t. One family in trouble and he breaks Zods neck to stop him. A short time later he doesn’t seem to be upset at all over ANY of the stuff that just happened The movie is wildly inconsistent. Absolutely. I thought (and still think) there was fresh stuff that could make a workable fan edit to fix those- but that's a substantial 'rewrite' of what was presented. The 'ID4 meets Superman' angle could work- and the trailer certainly gave a lot of hope- but such a wrong turn on that film... |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Mar 7, 2020 22:20:26 GMT -5
Two scenes in particular really 'broke' the film for me early on: #1: Teen Clark whining "You're not my real dad!" before Pa Kent got killed by a hurricane while saving a dog- and Clark could have still saved him. #2: Superman using his heat vision on Lois Lane in the FOS to cauterize a wound... WTH?  Superman as horror movie didn't sit right... "Man of Apathy" is probably a more accurate title. The bar scene derailed the whole movie for me. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2020 23:16:01 GMT -5
Two scenes in particular really 'broke' the film for me early on: #1: Teen Clark whining "You're not my real dad!" before Pa Kent got killed by a hurricane while saving a dog- and Clark could have still saved him. #2: Superman using his heat vision on Lois Lane in the FOS to cauterize a wound... WTH? Superman as horror movie didn't sit right... "Man of Apathy" is probably a more accurate title. The bar scene derailed the whole movie for me. The bar scene was pretty silly, I agree- but so many other one kind of killed it for me... |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on Mar 15, 2020 12:36:44 GMT -5
He definitely thought outside the box. With today’s new technology to easily rotoscope out actors or even FaceSwap, the possibilities are endless when it comes to pulling off a new Donner cut. The deal is that it needs to make everyone’s approval. Donner would HATE sharing credit with Lester, but we have the power to veto that with fan edits, along with using footage from other movies to create a pretty good product. It’s the only way to go. I’m still confused on how involved Baird was on Superman II. They tried to claim what was in Lester’s II was cut by Baird, but I always figured that was supervised by John Victor Smith. I think they used that excuse to explain why it was relatively unchanged and involved Donner’s approval at the bare minimum. I remember how shocked I was when seeing some of the first Selutron rotoscoped material. My whole problem with Lester's footage is his desire to go so cheap and tone-wise go too far into the slapstick direction. Donner may have had humor, but primarily he wanted a serious romantic action drama. The Mank script is definitely a shade darker- but it also doesn't fall off the map into pure silliness. I remember interviews with Baird saying how he had edited almost simultaneously STM and SII footage- with one editing suite for one movie across from the other-- and how he cut back and forth until they decided just to focus on STM. Style-wise to me the Donner sequences look like they were cut by Baird- with maybe extra trims by Victor Smith at the ends. I always felt like these scenes were completed by Baird: * 1: Moon scenes (except for the Nasa cutaways) * 2: Luthor escapes prison (though uncertain towards the end if the scene would have been extended like in the RDC- we do know that it was shot for night) * 3: Luthor approaches FOS (tv extended cut) * 4: Diner scene * 5: Lex in White House * 6: Villains storm into DP- up until Supes shows up... * 7: Villains approach FOS/ Arctic Police scene/ Supes & Lois chat outside FOS/ Balcony (tv cut) * 8: Jimmy gets new camera * 9: Diner rematch The only really questionable scene to me is the White House scene that's definitely more violent in the RDC- I'm guessing (though not sure) that the tv cut is more 'pure' Baird editing than maybe even the RDC.... Hi CAM...agree with pretty much all your points regarding Baird's edits for SII However have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Lester's looks cheap. Without boasting  ok....maybe I am!(but it's definitely not my intention)....but I am watching these flicks on an 8K(psueudo) projector with an anamorphic lens(in other words getting the full horizontal and vertical resolution) on a 110inch wide screen. It can make a world of difference Was watching the beginning of Infinity war (where Thanos's henchmen descend on New York to get the time stone )recently and it's pretty obvious that the backgrounds have been synthesized either partially or completely by CG.....it does give it a rather shallow look. Don't et me wrong I love the sequence in terms of entertainment but close visual scrutiny reveals the superficial/artificial nature of the backgrounds. For SII: The metrobattle(especially for 1981) is phenomenal in terms of attention to detail and scale. A lot of this gets lost on screens and resolutions that are less than adequate(e.g standard def DVD or even HD on small screens ) That set was huge and unprecedented for the way it was used(superheros throwing buses ,landing, flying, blowing up cars ect) And apart from maybe a few earthquake/disaster movies where soundstages were used to simulate apocalyptic scenarios there had never been anything like SII's urban climax. So in the context of 1980/81 it was a groundbreaking set piece finale. hence the reaction at the time being what it was( a sequel that surpassed the original). Also Lester's location work in Paris and the Niagra falls is escellent in terms of scale. The Donner cut suffers tremendously with the omission/trimming down of those scenes. On a huge screen thare is no substitute for the real thing.....and those locations are spectacular when seen large. They also positively make the work done in Superman Returns and Man Of Steel look small by comparison. I agree that the slapstick is misplaced(but some people like that stuff--I personally don't mind it---I don't think it broke the scenes)....in fact I know it did not because I watched SII twice on the big screen in 81 and 82 and the mostly adult audiences could not get enough of it(I was probably one of the youngest there as they were late evening showings). The applause when Supes lands on the balcony still reverberates within my memories now With good reason because at that point in time these were unique sequences. The only other comparable thing at that point was Star Wars(and Empire)…..but they were expressing space fantasy(Death star/AT AT attacks) as opposed to far out exploits in the real world(villains lifting /throwing full scale buses ect). Would really love Lester to give his take on the whole affair. We had Donner's.opinions...and that was fine while Donner's footage remained under lock and key for the best part of 30 years and we could hypothesise what Donner's shots looked like. When they were finally revealed in 2006 in all their unadulterated glory there was not one trim or excision made by Lester/Victor Smith in 1980 of Donner's material that was not justified. Everything from Brando's material(I personally think York did a better job in the re-shoots) to simple reaction shots(compare Lester's Lois shouting "Superman" when Supes arrives on the balcony to Donner's version......Lester's is way more energized and dramatic and helps stimulate the scene). So as much as anything Lester's real mistake has been NOT to promote his side of the facts over the last 20 years or so since SII's troubled production started to distill into the fan's consciousness and the mainstream critic's awareness at large. Just my 2 cents and of course total respect for your opinions CAM |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Mar 15, 2020 18:08:56 GMT -5
I remember how shocked I was when seeing some of the first Selutron rotoscoped material. My whole problem with Lester's footage is his desire to go so cheap and tone-wise go too far into the slapstick direction. Donner may have had humor, but primarily he wanted a serious romantic action drama. The Mank script is definitely a shade darker- but it also doesn't fall off the map into pure silliness. I remember interviews with Baird saying how he had edited almost simultaneously STM and SII footage- with one editing suite for one movie across from the other-- and how he cut back and forth until they decided just to focus on STM. Style-wise to me the Donner sequences look like they were cut by Baird- with maybe extra trims by Victor Smith at the ends. I always felt like these scenes were completed by Baird: * 1: Moon scenes (except for the Nasa cutaways) * 2: Luthor escapes prison (though uncertain towards the end if the scene would have been extended like in the RDC- we do know that it was shot for night) * 3: Luthor approaches FOS (tv extended cut) * 4: Diner scene * 5: Lex in White House * 6: Villains storm into DP- up until Supes shows up... * 7: Villains approach FOS/ Arctic Police scene/ Supes & Lois chat outside FOS/ Balcony (tv cut) * 8: Jimmy gets new camera * 9: Diner rematch The only really questionable scene to me is the White House scene that's definitely more violent in the RDC- I'm guessing (though not sure) that the tv cut is more 'pure' Baird editing than maybe even the RDC.... Hi CAM...agree with pretty much all your points regarding Baird's edits for SII However have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Lester's looks cheap. Without boasting ok....maybe I am!(but it's definitely not my intention)....but I am watching these flicks on an 8K(psueudo) projector with an anamorphic lens(in other words getting the full horizontal and vertical resolution) on a 110inch wide screen. It can make a world of difference Was watching the beginning of Infinity war (where Thanos's henchmen descend on New York to get the time stone )recently and it's pretty obvious that the backgrounds have been synthesized either partially or completely by CG.....it does give it a rather shallow look. Don't et me wrong I love the sequence in terms of entertainment but close visual scrutiny reveals the superficial/artificial nature of the backgrounds. For SII: The metrobattle(especially for 1981) is phenomenal in terms of attention to detail and scale. A lot of this gets lost on screens and resolutions that are less than adequate(e.g standard def DVD or even HD on small screens ) That set was huge and unprecedented for the way it was used(superheros throwing buses ,landing, flying, blowing up cars ect) And apart from maybe a few earthquake/disaster movies where soundstages were used to simulate apocalyptic scenarios there had never been anything like SII's urban climax. So in the context of 1980/81 it was a groundbreaking set piece finale. hence the reaction at the time being what it was( a sequel that surpassed the original). Also Lester's location work in Paris and the Niagra falls is escellent in terms of scale. The Donner cut suffers tremendously with the omission/trimming down of those scenes. On a huge screen thare is no substitute for the real thing.....and those locations are spectacular when seen large. They also positively make the work done in Superman Returns and Man Of Steel look small by comparison. I agree that the slapstick is misplaced(but some people like that stuff--I personally don't mind it---I don't think it broke the scenes)....in fact I know it did not because I watched SII twice on the big screen in 81 and 82 and the mostly adult audiences could not get enough of it(I was probably one of the youngest there as they were late evening showings). The applause when Supes lands on the balcony still reverberates within my memories now With good reason because at that point in time these were unique sequences. The only other comparable thing at that point was Star Wars(and Empire)…..but they were expressing space fantasy(Death star/AT AT attacks) as opposed to far out exploits in the real world(villains lifting /throwing full scale buses ect). Would really love Lester to give his take on the whole affair. We had Donner's.opinions...and that was fine while Donner's footage remained under lock and key for the best part of 30 years and we could hypothesise what Donner's shots looked like. When they were finally revealed in 2006 in all their unadulterated glory there was not one trim or excision made by Lester/Victor Smith in 1980 of Donner's material that was not justified. Everything from Brando's material(I personally think York did a better job in the re-shoots) to simple reaction shots(compare Lester's Lois shouting "Superman" when Supes arrives on the balcony to Donner's version......Lester's is way more energized and dramatic and helps stimulate the scene). So as much as anything Lester's real mistake has been NOT to promote his side of the facts over the last 20 years or so since SII's troubled production started to distill into the fan's consciousness and the mainstream critic's awareness at large. Just my 2 cents and of course total respect for your opinions CAM Having had 14 years to digest the fabled Donner cut, I have to agree with all of this. The theatrical version is better. It is not perfect, and there are some scenes that seem "cheap" or at least small. But it still blew me away as a child. I saw it in 1981, when I was 8, and I remember thinking it was incredible. Back then, the consensus waa that part 2 was better. Of course, 40 years later, STM had aged better. But at the time, nobody I knew ever thought that S2 had been ruined. I do wonder what would have happened if Lester had directed the entire S2, rather than parts of it. Would it have been even better? |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Mar 15, 2020 18:12:12 GMT -5
Forgot to say, I saw S2 at a drive-in. And the cheering and hooting when Superman appeared at the balcony also still reverberates with me.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 15, 2020 19:35:51 GMT -5
Forgot to say, I saw S2 at a drive-in. And the cheering and hooting when Superman appeared at the balcony also still reverberates with me. It's interesting in terms of the "small" aspect of SII---which is the Houston sequence. Whilst the location was small the feats of the villains were big. Let me explain. Back then the only powerful feats that were embedded in popular culture when it came to TV or cinema were the set pieces that you got in 6 Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, Spiderman(Nick Hammond) and the Incredible Hulk. Ferrigno's Hulk would maybe lift a car(and not completely). Carter's WW would maybe lasso a guy and jump down from a relatively great height Lee Major's MDM would run at bionic speed--lol--usually slow mo. Some of the stunt work in Hammond's Spidey is still fantastic to this day...whatever the other failings of that series.....but Spidey could be shot at or hurled off a building by a villain. In the Spy Who Loved Me you had Richard Kiel's Jaws and that was a very imposing character(I am sure O Halloran used some of that for inspiration in his Non interpretation)…..but the most he did was throw Bond from side to side in a train. That was it.....anything else that simulated super strength was either in comics or cartoons. So when the villains in SII started kicking the astronauts into outerspace and in particular when Zod throws/pushes that fella("you are gonna spit teeth") through the barn or where he deflects the flamethrowers fire onto the building......those carried a lot of weight for audiences in 1980/81.....just to sight some examples. I remember when Non first got his laser beams to make that jeep crash through apartment the audience were stunned....and then they cracked out laughing when he turned to Zod(see what I can do). People were lapping this stuff up because they had never seen it interpreted on screen before. Now it's common place. It's classic story telling too.(Both Donner and Lester deserve credit for it)…..the villains striding imperviously through the entire film unimpeded.....hence the thunderous applause when Supes showed up on the balcony. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2020 1:44:37 GMT -5
I remember how shocked I was when seeing some of the first Selutron rotoscoped material. My whole problem with Lester's footage is his desire to go so cheap and tone-wise go too far into the slapstick direction. Donner may have had humor, but primarily he wanted a serious romantic action drama. The Mank script is definitely a shade darker- but it also doesn't fall off the map into pure silliness. I remember interviews with Baird saying how he had edited almost simultaneously STM and SII footage- with one editing suite for one movie across from the other-- and how he cut back and forth until they decided just to focus on STM. Style-wise to me the Donner sequences look like they were cut by Baird- with maybe extra trims by Victor Smith at the ends. I always felt like these scenes were completed by Baird: * 1: Moon scenes (except for the Nasa cutaways) * 2: Luthor escapes prison (though uncertain towards the end if the scene would have been extended like in the RDC- we do know that it was shot for night) * 3: Luthor approaches FOS (tv extended cut) * 4: Diner scene * 5: Lex in White House * 6: Villains storm into DP- up until Supes shows up... * 7: Villains approach FOS/ Arctic Police scene/ Supes & Lois chat outside FOS/ Balcony (tv cut) * 8: Jimmy gets new camera * 9: Diner rematch The only really questionable scene to me is the White House scene that's definitely more violent in the RDC- I'm guessing (though not sure) that the tv cut is more 'pure' Baird editing than maybe even the RDC.... Hi CAM...agree with pretty much all your points regarding Baird's edits for SII However have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Lester's looks cheap. Without boasting ok....maybe I am!(but it's definitely not my intention)....but I am watching these flicks on an 8K(psueudo) projector with an anamorphic lens(in other words getting the full horizontal and vertical resolution) on a 110inch wide screen. It can make a world of difference Was watching the beginning of Infinity war (where Thanos's henchmen descend on New York to get the time stone )recently and it's pretty obvious that the backgrounds have been synthesized either partially or completely by CG.....it does give it a rather shallow look. Don't et me wrong I love the sequence in terms of entertainment but close visual scrutiny reveals the superficial/artificial nature of the backgrounds. For SII: The metrobattle(especially for 1981) is phenomenal in terms of attention to detail and scale. A lot of this gets lost on screens and resolutions that are less than adequate(e.g standard def DVD or even HD on small screens ) That set was huge and unprecedented for the way it was used(superheros throwing buses ,landing, flying, blowing up cars ect) And apart from maybe a few earthquake/disaster movies where soundstages were used to simulate apocalyptic scenarios there had never been anything like SII's urban climax. So in the context of 1980/81 it was a groundbreaking set piece finale. hence the reaction at the time being what it was( a sequel that surpassed the original). Also Lester's location work in Paris and the Niagra falls is escellent in terms of scale. The Donner cut suffers tremendously with the omission/trimming down of those scenes. On a huge screen thare is no substitute for the real thing.....and those locations are spectacular when seen large. They also positively make the work done in Superman Returns and Man Of Steel look small by comparison. I agree that the slapstick is misplaced(but some people like that stuff--I personally don't mind it---I don't think it broke the scenes)....in fact I know it did not because I watched SII twice on the big screen in 81 and 82 and the mostly adult audiences could not get enough of it(I was probably one of the youngest there as they were late evening showings). The applause when Supes lands on the balcony still reverberates within my memories now With good reason because at that point in time these were unique sequences. The only other comparable thing at that point was Star Wars(and Empire)…..but they were expressing space fantasy(Death star/AT AT attacks) as opposed to far out exploits in the real world(villains lifting /throwing full scale buses ect). Would really love Lester to give his take on the whole affair. We had Donner's.opinions...and that was fine while Donner's footage remained under lock and key for the best part of 30 years and we could hypothesise what Donner's shots looked like. When they were finally revealed in 2006 in all their unadulterated glory there was not one trim or excision made by Lester/Victor Smith in 1980 of Donner's material that was not justified. Everything from Brando's material(I personally think York did a better job in the re-shoots) to simple reaction shots(compare Lester's Lois shouting "Superman" when Supes arrives on the balcony to Donner's version......Lester's is way more energized and dramatic and helps stimulate the scene). So as much as anything Lester's real mistake has been NOT to promote his side of the facts over the last 20 years or so since SII's troubled production started to distill into the fan's consciousness and the mainstream critic's awareness at large. Just my 2 cents and of course total respect for your opinions CAM Hey Dejan! No worries- Always love to hear different perspectives on this franchise! Recently the posting on age & viewing "Diamonds on Forever" has made me shift my thinking a bit.... Where I thought that fitm had the right amount of comedy at the time- it was also from not having anything to compare it to and no expectations. I don't know how adults might have reacted to the film as I saw it in mostly an empty theatre with cousins. When viewing STM as a freshman in high school- I got chills from the seriousness of the trial scene on Krypton and anticipated the same level of intensity and seriousness (which we get bits and pieces of from Donner in the theatrical)- and the original Mankiewicz script reinforces the tone of what was originally intended for the battle scenes. Seeing SII in the theatre- I was excited for the first few seconds- until (to me) it stopped being serious from the "thank you"/smile from the tower rescue.... and got more silly sprinkled in from there.... but I might have had a completely different reaction if I wasn't (if I remember right) a sophomore in high school by then, who wanted that section of the movie as serious as the x-wing battle/ Death Star sequence in the original Star Wars... I didn't mind a similar silliness in "The Three Musketeers" in that movie- but this part of the movie I thought should have been heavy and intense- not broken up with lightness.... but a lot of fans didn't seem to have the same problems that I did. But, I agreed completely with what I'd read in the Mank script that validated what I thought in my mind should have been the tone for SII. A few thoughts; The Lester stuff isn't 'cheap-cheap'- at all- the Salkinds knew how to make the money available and I agree that shooting on location helped the scale tremendously- but Donner definitely was trying to summon up a grand reverential epic- while Lester wanted things lighter and somewhat silly and broad in humor (Donner's way of making the villains funny was to make them deadly serious and scary in contrast to Luthor's blind narcissi was hilarious and kept in line with the trial scene I thought)- also I'd argue that the way things were shot undermined the scale of it. As a comparison- compare the helicopter rescue of STM with the location shooting of the crowd on the ground versus the Metro battle- While the Metro battle might have cost more, many times it looks like a gigantic sitcom stage set- rather than being shot and staged for realism (aside from some of the exploding car shots and the bus toss). Lester had some decent bits here and there that were serious, but it's clear from the final edit that he wanted it intermixed with a lot of broad humor and then extremely broad humor that had nothing to do with the characters at all. (i.e. the blowing scenes). |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2020 1:54:30 GMT -5
The 'extended' Donner cut is superior to the 'wide release' Donner cut for sure. Minor stuff, but at least it's more comprehensible.
If I saw SII at 8 years old versus being a high schooler, I'm sure my experience would have been far more accepting and I might have loved every frame.
If Lester had directed the entire S2--- I envision the same silliness and quick shooting as Superman III- which few rave about.
While some Lester scenes tried to mimic some of the Donner material (the bus toss scene & perhaps parts of the Paris opener)- I think some of the more dynamic scenes shot by Donner with the villains would have been more conventionally shot and/or had more jokes sewn in.
As a comparison: The moon attack scenes & White House scenes - (which are almost like from a horror film but masterfully done)- by Donner- where almost every angle conceivable is shot & edited together for potency- versus - the Houston scenes that do the job, but emphasize the comedy element wherever possible over the sense of menace.
There are a ton of great scenes in S2.... and mostly functional ones in S3. I feel that's the difference (along with a far better story for S2).
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Mar 16, 2020 2:13:43 GMT -5
Forgot to say, I saw S2 at a drive-in. And the cheering and hooting when Superman appeared at the balcony also still reverberates with me. It's interesting in terms of the "small" aspect of SII---which is the Houston sequence. Whilst the location was small the feats of the villains were big. Let me explain. Back then the only powerful feats that were embedded in popular culture when it came to TV or cinema were the set pieces that you got in 6 Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, Spiderman(Nick Hammond) and the Incredible Hulk. Ferrigno's Hulk would maybe lift a car(and not completely). Carter's WW would maybe lasso a guy and jump down from a relatively great height Lee Major's MDM would run at bionic speed--lol--usually slow mo. Some of the stunt work in Hammond's Spidey is still fantastic to this day...whatever the other failings of that series.....but Spidey could be shot at or hurled off a building by a villain. In the Spy Who Loved Me you had Richard Kiel's Jaws and that was a very imposing character(I am sure O Halloran used some of that for inspiration in his Non interpretation)…..but the most he did was throw Bond from side to side in a train. That was it.....anything else that simulated super strength was either in comics or cartoons. So when the villains in SII started kicking the astronauts into outerspace and in particular when Zod throws/pushes that fella("you are gonna spit teeth") through the barn or where he deflects the flamethrowers fire onto the building......those carried a lot of weight for audiences in 1980/81.....just to sight some examples. I remember when Non first got his laser beams to make that jeep crash through apartment the audience were stunned....and then they cracked out laughing when he turned to Zod(see what I can do). People were lapping this stuff up because they had never seen it interpreted on screen before. Now it's common place. It's classic story telling too.(Both Donner and Lester deserve credit for it)…..the villains striding imperviously through the entire film unimpeded.....hence the thunderous applause when Supes showed up on the balcony. Yes, all true. I remember being awed by the idea that there were other people with Superman's powers. And that there were three of them. And that they were bad. It was brilliant storytelling to leave the villains out of STM. Unlike MoS which stuffed too much in. In 1970s-80s, movies were still cultural events that were talked about for years. So we saw Superman on screen in 1978, and then had two to three years for him to percolate through our consciousness. Kids dressed up as him, and there were stickers to collect, etc. It was like the impact E.T. had. And then after a couple of years of accepting Superman, we were hit with the idea that there were three more like him... Still gives me goosebumps. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2020 2:31:50 GMT -5
It's interesting in terms of the "small" aspect of SII---which is the Houston sequence. Whilst the location was small the feats of the villains were big. Let me explain. Back then the only powerful feats that were embedded in popular culture when it came to TV or cinema were the set pieces that you got in 6 Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, Spiderman(Nick Hammond) and the Incredible Hulk. Ferrigno's Hulk would maybe lift a car(and not completely). Carter's WW would maybe lasso a guy and jump down from a relatively great height Lee Major's MDM would run at bionic speed--lol--usually slow mo. Some of the stunt work in Hammond's Spidey is still fantastic to this day...whatever the other failings of that series.....but Spidey could be shot at or hurled off a building by a villain. In the Spy Who Loved Me you had Richard Kiel's Jaws and that was a very imposing character(I am sure O Halloran used some of that for inspiration in his Non interpretation)…..but the most he did was throw Bond from side to side in a train. That was it.....anything else that simulated super strength was either in comics or cartoons. So when the villains in SII started kicking the astronauts into outerspace and in particular when Zod throws/pushes that fella("you are gonna spit teeth") through the barn or where he deflects the flamethrowers fire onto the building......those carried a lot of weight for audiences in 1980/81.....just to sight some examples. I remember when Non first got his laser beams to make that jeep crash through apartment the audience were stunned....and then they cracked out laughing when he turned to Zod(see what I can do). People were lapping this stuff up because they had never seen it interpreted on screen before. Now it's common place. It's classic story telling too.(Both Donner and Lester deserve credit for it)…..the villains striding imperviously through the entire film unimpeded.....hence the thunderous applause when Supes showed up on the balcony. Yes, all true. I remember being awed by the idea that there were other people with Superman's powers. And that there were three of them. And that they were bad. It was brilliant storytelling to leave the villains out of STM. Unlike MoS which stuffed too much in. In 1970s-80s, movies were still cultural events that were talked about for years. So we saw Superman on screen in 1978, and then had two to three years for him to percolate through our consciousness. Kids dressed up as him, and there were stickers to collect, etc. It was like the impact E.T. had. And then after a couple of years of accepting Superman, we were hit with the idea that there were three more like him... Still gives me goosebumps. Speaking of goosebumps, LOVED LOVED LOVED the teaser poster in the theatres with the three of them standing below the moon prominently in their stance. Fired the imagination on what was going to happen for the same reasons you mentioned. ("Three! Count them... three!") |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 16, 2020 5:42:58 GMT -5
Hi CAM...agree with pretty much all your points regarding Baird's edits for SII However have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Lester's looks cheap. Without boasting ok....maybe I am!(but it's definitely not my intention)....but I am watching these flicks on an 8K(psueudo) projector with an anamorphic lens(in other words getting the full horizontal and vertical resolution) on a 110inch wide screen. It can make a world of difference Was watching the beginning of Infinity war (where Thanos's henchmen descend on New York to get the time stone )recently and it's pretty obvious that the backgrounds have been synthesized either partially or completely by CG.....it does give it a rather shallow look. Don't et me wrong I love the sequence in terms of entertainment but close visual scrutiny reveals the superficial/artificial nature of the backgrounds. For SII: The metrobattle(especially for 1981) is phenomenal in terms of attention to detail and scale. A lot of this gets lost on screens and resolutions that are less than adequate(e.g standard def DVD or even HD on small screens ) That set was huge and unprecedented for the way it was used(superheros throwing buses ,landing, flying, blowing up cars ect) And apart from maybe a few earthquake/disaster movies where soundstages were used to simulate apocalyptic scenarios there had never been anything like SII's urban climax. So in the context of 1980/81 it was a groundbreaking set piece finale. hence the reaction at the time being what it was( a sequel that surpassed the original). Also Lester's location work in Paris and the Niagra falls is escellent in terms of scale. The Donner cut suffers tremendously with the omission/trimming down of those scenes. On a huge screen thare is no substitute for the real thing.....and those locations are spectacular when seen large. They also positively make the work done in Superman Returns and Man Of Steel look small by comparison. I agree that the slapstick is misplaced(but some people like that stuff--I personally don't mind it---I don't think it broke the scenes)....in fact I know it did not because I watched SII twice on the big screen in 81 and 82 and the mostly adult audiences could not get enough of it(I was probably one of the youngest there as they were late evening showings). The applause when Supes lands on the balcony still reverberates within my memories now With good reason because at that point in time these were unique sequences. The only other comparable thing at that point was Star Wars(and Empire)…..but they were expressing space fantasy(Death star/AT AT attacks) as opposed to far out exploits in the real world(villains lifting /throwing full scale buses ect). Would really love Lester to give his take on the whole affair. We had Donner's.opinions...and that was fine while Donner's footage remained under lock and key for the best part of 30 years and we could hypothesise what Donner's shots looked like. When they were finally revealed in 2006 in all their unadulterated glory there was not one trim or excision made by Lester/Victor Smith in 1980 of Donner's material that was not justified. Everything from Brando's material(I personally think York did a better job in the re-shoots) to simple reaction shots(compare Lester's Lois shouting "Superman" when Supes arrives on the balcony to Donner's version......Lester's is way more energized and dramatic and helps stimulate the scene). So as much as anything Lester's real mistake has been NOT to promote his side of the facts over the last 20 years or so since SII's troubled production started to distill into the fan's consciousness and the mainstream critic's awareness at large. Just my 2 cents and of course total respect for your opinions CAM Hey Dejan! No worries- Always love to hear different perspectives on this franchise! Recently the posting on age & viewing "Diamonds on Forever" has made me shift my thinking a bit.... Where I thought that fitm had the right amount of comedy at the time- it was also from not having anything to compare it to and no expectations. I don't know how adults might have reacted to the film as I saw it in mostly an empty theatre with cousins. When viewing STM as a freshman in high school- I got chills from the seriousness of the trial scene on Krypton and anticipated the same level of intensity and seriousness (which we get bits and pieces of from Donner in the theatrical)- and the original Mankiewicz script reinforces the tone of what was originally intended for the battle scenes. Seeing SII in the theatre- I was excited for the first few seconds- until (to me) it stopped being serious from the "thank you"/smile from the tower rescue.... and got more silly sprinkled in from there.... but I might have had a completely different reaction if I wasn't (if I remember right) a sophomore in high school by then, who wanted that section of the movie as serious as the x-wing battle/ Death Star sequence in the original Star Wars... I didn't mind a similar silliness in "The Three Musketeers" in that movie- but this part of the movie I thought should have been heavy and intense- not broken up with lightness.... but a lot of fans didn't seem to have the same problems that I did. But, I agreed completely with what I'd read in the Mank script that validated what I thought in my mind should have been the tone for SII. A few thoughts; The Lester stuff isn't 'cheap-cheap'- at all- the Salkinds knew how to make the money available and I agree that shooting on location helped the scale tremendously- but Donner definitely was trying to summon up a grand reverential epic- while Lester wanted things lighter and somewhat silly and broad in humor (Donner's way of making the villains funny was to make them deadly serious and scary in contrast to Luthor's blind narcissi was hilarious and kept in line with the trial scene I thought)- also I'd argue that the way things were shot undermined the scale of it. As a comparison- compare the helicopter rescue of STM with the location shooting of the crowd on the ground versus the Metro battle- While the Metro battle might have cost more, many times it looks like a gigantic sitcom stage set- rather than being shot and staged for realism (aside from some of the exploding car shots and the bus toss). Lester had some decent bits here and there that were serious, but it's clear from the final edit that he wanted it intermixed with a lot of broad humor and then extremely broad humor that had nothing to do with the characters at all. (i.e. the blowing scenes). Hi CAM Totally understand where you are coming from because I too went through that phase of viewing SII through the lens/prism of Donner's POV. It's interesting regarding the Helicopter rescue sequence....because I think the better comparison would be to Lester's Eiffel tower rescue..both have location and optical work thrown into the mix. Even the scenarios are practically identical(rescuing Lois from a falling object). Both have large crowds assembled at the base of their respective locations. And I do not see any differences in tone between Donner's "you got me, who has got you " line and Lester's "mam, this is your floor" and "a bomb, there is a bomb up there". Ilya said as much in the DVD commentary that the real comparison between Lester and Donner's work should be just from the 3rd part of STM onwards....because that was the comic book tone adapted to movie template(which was groundbreaking at that point in time of course) that set up everything. Lester's SII really follows on from that final 3rd of STM in terms of tone. There are many STM fans who actually prefer the 1st 50 mins (Krypton and Smallville) to the rest of the flick and vice versa! But they unfairly compare the whole of SII to the first 50 mins of STM when the tones and intentions are completely different. Also Donner complains(in 1989) about Lester's US Army in Houston being weak or small scale but overlooks the fact that his US Army in the Rockies in STM is way more docile and so easily duped by Luther and even more embarrassingly.......Otis and Miss Tescmacher! But it is beautifully shot with respect to the Canadian backgrounds. See what I mean!...it's a complex subject. Lester never took Donner's material in SII and converted it into a my footage Vs his footage debate. He used Donner's excellent shots(the moon,white house ect) of the villains sowing destruction and appended it to his own(the helicopter flying into the barn, the bus being thrown ect) so it could be seen as one cohesive whole which is how 1980/81 audiences be enlarge saw it. So the Zod that kicks the astronaut into space is the same Zod that hurls that red neck through the barn's walls. It was Donner who started digesting SII down into the "everything in the theatrical SII that is good is mine" accusation in the late 1980s whilst his own SII footage remained quarantined.....thereby denying any objective analysis from being done.....until 2006. As Ilya said in the DVD commentary....they reviewed Donner's SII material in 1979 and junked the stuff that was not up to scratch. It would take until 2006 to see that they were absolutely right to do so. Also we tend to get bogged down in the action scenes comparison between the 2 directors whilst forgetting the emotional stuff. Lester's emotional finale with the controversial memory kiss has acting that far surpasses the Donner scene at the fortress of solitude where Lois and Supes reminisce("just don't ever forget") in terms of weight and substance. There is also the home video aspect to all of this whereby we can watch the films over and over ad nauseum and the logical byproduct is that we can become cynical to every nuance of these flicks...….just look at the original Star Wars....lol But Lucas said it best when he explained that these type of flicks were designed to be seen once and for the audience to be blown away. Every film starts to break down when you apply close scrutiny from 2001 to Lawrence to the Godfather to Star Wars and STM and SII. But as a one off viewing in 1981 SII was awesome and original.....and it's that viewing that should also be considered when evaluating it's impact. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 16, 2020 6:03:02 GMT -5
It's interesting in terms of the "small" aspect of SII---which is the Houston sequence. Whilst the location was small the feats of the villains were big. Let me explain. Back then the only powerful feats that were embedded in popular culture when it came to TV or cinema were the set pieces that you got in 6 Million Dollar Man, Wonder Woman, Spiderman(Nick Hammond) and the Incredible Hulk. Ferrigno's Hulk would maybe lift a car(and not completely). Carter's WW would maybe lasso a guy and jump down from a relatively great height Lee Major's MDM would run at bionic speed--lol--usually slow mo. Some of the stunt work in Hammond's Spidey is still fantastic to this day...whatever the other failings of that series.....but Spidey could be shot at or hurled off a building by a villain. In the Spy Who Loved Me you had Richard Kiel's Jaws and that was a very imposing character(I am sure O Halloran used some of that for inspiration in his Non interpretation)…..but the most he did was throw Bond from side to side in a train. That was it.....anything else that simulated super strength was either in comics or cartoons. So when the villains in SII started kicking the astronauts into outerspace and in particular when Zod throws/pushes that fella("you are gonna spit teeth") through the barn or where he deflects the flamethrowers fire onto the building......those carried a lot of weight for audiences in 1980/81.....just to sight some examples. I remember when Non first got his laser beams to make that jeep crash through apartment the audience were stunned....and then they cracked out laughing when he turned to Zod(see what I can do). People were lapping this stuff up because they had never seen it interpreted on screen before. Now it's common place. It's classic story telling too.(Both Donner and Lester deserve credit for it)…..the villains striding imperviously through the entire film unimpeded.....hence the thunderous applause when Supes showed up on the balcony. Yes, all true. I remember being awed by the idea that there were other people with Superman's powers. And that there were three of them. And that they were bad. It was brilliant storytelling to leave the villains out of STM. Unlike MoS which stuffed too much in. In 1970s-80s, movies were still cultural events that were talked about for years. So we saw Superman on screen in 1978, and then had two to three years for him to percolate through our consciousness. Kids dressed up as him, and there were stickers to collect, etc. It was like the impact E.T. had. And then after a couple of years of accepting Superman, we were hit with the idea that there were three more like him... Still gives me goosebumps. Agreed. Infinity War and Endgame are already starting to fade simply through over exposure....they were available within 3 months on home video(DVD,Blu Ray,UHD) after the theatrical runs ended. To be fair STM came out on VHS in 1980 but there were very few people who had VCRs back then so the imagination and memory was the thing that stimulated fan's appetite for the material. Nothing can surpass those 1st viewings of STM and SII because at the point in time they came out they were unprecedented and original. When MOS debuted in 2013 you already had Pacific Rim , Iron Man 3, Transformers , Star Trek Into Darkness ect......all those flicks followed the same boring generic template of big CGI infested climactic wan***y. There was no way MOS could stand out....in fact it pretty much followed the same CGI infested climactic wan***y template ....lol.....hence the reason why 8 year old kids who saw it in 2013 have probably have long since forgotten it even by 2020...let alone 2023 lol |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Mar 16, 2020 6:09:12 GMT -5
Hey Dejan! No worries- Always love to hear different perspectives on this franchise! Recently the posting on age & viewing "Diamonds on Forever" has made me shift my thinking a bit.... Where I thought that fitm had the right amount of comedy at the time- it was also from not having anything to compare it to and no expectations. I don't know how adults might have reacted to the film as I saw it in mostly an empty theatre with cousins. When viewing STM as a freshman in high school- I got chills from the seriousness of the trial scene on Krypton and anticipated the same level of intensity and seriousness (which we get bits and pieces of from Donner in the theatrical)- and the original Mankiewicz script reinforces the tone of what was originally intended for the battle scenes. Seeing SII in the theatre- I was excited for the first few seconds- until (to me) it stopped being serious from the "thank you"/smile from the tower rescue.... and got more silly sprinkled in from there.... but I might have had a completely different reaction if I wasn't (if I remember right) a sophomore in high school by then, who wanted that section of the movie as serious as the x-wing battle/ Death Star sequence in the original Star Wars... I didn't mind a similar silliness in "The Three Musketeers" in that movie- but this part of the movie I thought should have been heavy and intense- not broken up with lightness.... but a lot of fans didn't seem to have the same problems that I did. But, I agreed completely with what I'd read in the Mank script that validated what I thought in my mind should have been the tone for SII. A few thoughts; The Lester stuff isn't 'cheap-cheap'- at all- the Salkinds knew how to make the money available and I agree that shooting on location helped the scale tremendously- but Donner definitely was trying to summon up a grand reverential epic- while Lester wanted things lighter and somewhat silly and broad in humor (Donner's way of making the villains funny was to make them deadly serious and scary in contrast to Luthor's blind narcissi was hilarious and kept in line with the trial scene I thought)- also I'd argue that the way things were shot undermined the scale of it. As a comparison- compare the helicopter rescue of STM with the location shooting of the crowd on the ground versus the Metro battle- While the Metro battle might have cost more, many times it looks like a gigantic sitcom stage set- rather than being shot and staged for realism (aside from some of the exploding car shots and the bus toss). Lester had some decent bits here and there that were serious, but it's clear from the final edit that he wanted it intermixed with a lot of broad humor and then extremely broad humor that had nothing to do with the characters at all. (i.e. the blowing scenes). Hi CAM Totally understand where you are coming from because I too went through that phase of viewing SII through the lens/prism of Donner's POV. It's interesting regarding the Helicopter rescue sequence....because I think the better comparison would be to Lester's Eiffel tower rescue..both have location and optical work thrown into the mix. Even the scenarios are practically identical(rescuing Lois from a falling object). Both have large crowds assembled at the base of their respective locations. And I do not see any differences in tone between Donner's "you got me, who has got you " line and Lester's "mam, this is your floor" and "a bomb, there is a bomb up there". Ilya said as much in the DVD commentary that the real comparison between Lester and Donner's work should be just from the 3rd part of STM onwards....because that was the comic book tone adapted to movie template(which was groundbreaking at that point in time of course) that set up everything. Lester's SII really follows on from that final 3rd of STM in terms of tone. There are many STM fans who actually prefer the 1st 50 mins (Krypton and Smallville) to the rest of the flick and vice versa! But they unfairly compare the whole of SII to the first 50 mins of STM when the tones and intentions are completely different. Also Donner complains(in 1989) about Lester's US Army in Houston being weak or small scale but overlooks the fact that his US Army in the Rockies in STM is way more docile and so easily duped by Luther and even more embarrassingly.......Otis and Miss Tescmacher! But it is beautifully shot with respect to the Canadian backgrounds. See what I mean!...it's a complex subject. Lester never took Donner's material in SII and converted it into a my footage Vs his footage debate. He used Donner's excellent shots(the moon,white house ect) of the villains sowing destruction and appended it to his own(the helicopter flying into the barn, the bus being thrown ect) so it could be seen as one cohesive whole which is how 1980/81 audiences be enlarge saw it. So the Zod that kicks the astronaut into space is the same Zod that hurls that red neck through the barn's walls. It was Donner who started digesting SII down into the "everything in the theatrical SII that is good is mine" accusation in the late 1980s whilst his own SII footage remained quarantined.....thereby denying any objective analysis from being done.....until 2006. As Ilya said in the DVD commentary....they reviewed Donner's SII material in 1979 and junked the stuff that was not up to scratch. It would take until 2006 to see that they were absolutely right to do so. Also we tend to get bogged down in the action scenes comparison between the 2 directors whilst forgetting the emotional stuff. Lester's emotional finale with the controversial memory kiss has acting that far surpasses the Donner scene at the fortress of solitude where Lois and Supes reminisce("just don't ever forget") in terms of weight and substance. There is also the home video aspect to all of this whereby we can watch the films over and over ad nauseum and the logical byproduct is that we can become cynical to every nuance of these flicks...….just look at the original Star Wars....lol But Lucas said it best when he explained that these type of flicks were designed to be seen once and for the audience to be blown away. Every film starts to break down when you apply close scrutiny from 2001 to Lawrence to the Godfather to Star Wars and STM and SII. But as a one off viewing in 1981 SII was awesome and original.....and it's that viewing that should also be considered when evaluating it's impact. I couldn't have said all of that any better. I just wish Lester hadn't made the villains (especially Non) quite as comical in places. And I don't like the way Zod's hair and voice change. He is far more menacing with the soft voice he has in STM. The deep booming voice in S2 is a bit over the top. And I wish the kiss at the end hadn't wiped Lois' memory. That breakup scene is almost perfect, but I'd prefer it to end with her remembering everything and going along with the act. It's too much like a repeat of the time reversal in S2. Finally, the Paris rescue gives the impression that Superman and Lois have been friends for years, and it isn't taking place immediately after STM. They seem more easy with one another. I actually like that. If a few years passed between the release of STM and S2,it feels right that a few years passed in the films too. Ultimately, the die was cast in 1978 when they decided to finish STM first. That led to the time reversal ending, and it meant that S2 would need to be rewritten, no matter ended up directing. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 16, 2020 6:15:15 GMT -5
Yes, all true. I remember being awed by the idea that there were other people with Superman's powers. And that there were three of them. And that they were bad. It was brilliant storytelling to leave the villains out of STM. Unlike MoS which stuffed too much in. In 1970s-80s, movies were still cultural events that were talked about for years. So we saw Superman on screen in 1978, and then had two to three years for him to percolate through our consciousness. Kids dressed up as him, and there were stickers to collect, etc. It was like the impact E.T. had. And then after a couple of years of accepting Superman, we were hit with the idea that there were three more like him... Still gives me goosebumps. Speaking of goosebumps, LOVED LOVED LOVED the teaser poster in the theatres with the three of them standing below the moon prominently in their stance. Fired the imagination on what was going to happen for the same reasons you mentioned. ("Three! Count them... three!") My own personal favourite:  |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 16, 2020 6:34:32 GMT -5
Hi CAM Totally understand where you are coming from because I too went through that phase of viewing SII through the lens/prism of Donner's POV. It's interesting regarding the Helicopter rescue sequence....because I think the better comparison would be to Lester's Eiffel tower rescue..both have location and optical work thrown into the mix. Even the scenarios are practically identical(rescuing Lois from a falling object). Both have large crowds assembled at the base of their respective locations. And I do not see any differences in tone between Donner's "you got me, who has got you " line and Lester's "mam, this is your floor" and "a bomb, there is a bomb up there". Ilya said as much in the DVD commentary that the real comparison between Lester and Donner's work should be just from the 3rd part of STM onwards....because that was the comic book tone adapted to movie template(which was groundbreaking at that point in time of course) that set up everything. Lester's SII really follows on from that final 3rd of STM in terms of tone. There are many STM fans who actually prefer the 1st 50 mins (Krypton and Smallville) to the rest of the flick and vice versa! But they unfairly compare the whole of SII to the first 50 mins of STM when the tones and intentions are completely different. Also Donner complains(in 1989) about Lester's US Army in Houston being weak or small scale but overlooks the fact that his US Army in the Rockies in STM is way more docile and so easily duped by Luther and even more embarrassingly.......Otis and Miss Tescmacher! But it is beautifully shot with respect to the Canadian backgrounds. See what I mean!...it's a complex subject. Lester never took Donner's material in SII and converted it into a my footage Vs his footage debate. He used Donner's excellent shots(the moon,white house ect) of the villains sowing destruction and appended it to his own(the helicopter flying into the barn, the bus being thrown ect) so it could be seen as one cohesive whole which is how 1980/81 audiences be enlarge saw it. So the Zod that kicks the astronaut into space is the same Zod that hurls that red neck through the barn's walls. It was Donner who started digesting SII down into the "everything in the theatrical SII that is good is mine" accusation in the late 1980s whilst his own SII footage remained quarantined.....thereby denying any objective analysis from being done.....until 2006. As Ilya said in the DVD commentary....they reviewed Donner's SII material in 1979 and junked the stuff that was not up to scratch. It would take until 2006 to see that they were absolutely right to do so. Also we tend to get bogged down in the action scenes comparison between the 2 directors whilst forgetting the emotional stuff. Lester's emotional finale with the controversial memory kiss has acting that far surpasses the Donner scene at the fortress of solitude where Lois and Supes reminisce("just don't ever forget") in terms of weight and substance. There is also the home video aspect to all of this whereby we can watch the films over and over ad nauseum and the logical byproduct is that we can become cynical to every nuance of these flicks...….just look at the original Star Wars....lol But Lucas said it best when he explained that these type of flicks were designed to be seen once and for the audience to be blown away. Every film starts to break down when you apply close scrutiny from 2001 to Lawrence to the Godfather to Star Wars and STM and SII. But as a one off viewing in 1981 SII was awesome and original.....and it's that viewing that should also be considered when evaluating it's impact. I couldn't have said all of that any better. I just wish Lester hadn't made the villains (especially Non) quite as comical in places. And I don't like the way Zod's hair and voice change. He is far more menacing with the soft voice he has in STM. The deep booming voice in S2 is a bit over the top. And I wish the kiss at the end hadn't wiped Lois' memory. That breakup scene is almost perfect, but I'd prefer it to end with her remembering everything and going along with the act. It's too much like a repeat of the time reversal in S2. Finally, the Paris rescue gives the impression that Superman and Lois have been friends for years, and it isn't taking place immediately after STM. They seem more easy with one another. I actually like that. If a few years passed between the release of STM and S2,it feels right that a few years passed in the films too. Ultimately, the die was cast in 1978 when they decided to finish STM first. That led to the time reversal ending, and it meant that S2 would need to be rewritten, no matter ended up directing. Agreed. Yeah it may have been a mistake to do back to back shooting. IMHO it seldom works. There is a huge disparity in quality between Back To the Future II and III. Same goes for the Matrix 2 & 3. Lord Of The Rings used CGI to mask the fact that they were bloated back to back fillers.....and let's not mention the Hobbit trilogy which have exposed Jackson for the shallow horror hack (who subsequently got consumed by CGI) he always was. I watched Return Of The king recently and it's a mess and has not held up well at all...…Gollum almost makes me laugh. These are my opinions of course but the CGI landscape has allowed a whole host of crap to pass through our quality control filters over the last 20 years or so that I can't help but feel jaded. STM and SII have held far better especially when you watch them on a massive screen. It is a mazing in retrospect that Donner shot as much as he did of SII and that his STM footage was so good given the time that he had also devoted to SII in the original shoot .Incredible. I often imagine what STM would have been like had they just made STM without any time being devoted to SII. Could STM have been even better....that boggles the mind On edit: Even Endgame and Infinity War start to crumble into CG video game territory(especially EndGame's) during their respective climaxes. The part where Iron Man quickly takes the infinity stones from Thanos's gauntlet looks jerky as heck here in 2019/20.....kinda takes me out of the movie for what should be the most dramatic part of the story. Compare that to Supes crushing Zods hand in 1981 and I know which is more indelible memory |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2020 13:05:19 GMT -5
Here's the thing:
The Donner/Mank plan was STM/SII- was ALWAYS planned to be one giant double-epic. In reading the Mank SII script, much of what was planted in STM had a payoff in SII.
That's why there's so much mourning on my side of what 'could have been'.
If Donner was a hired gun in the beginning, his mindset HAD to have changed- from seeing STM (a first of a kind experience being the ONLY AND FIRST big budget Superhero film - and reading the SII script and seeing the bits that Donner directed- it was going to be his pop 'masterpiece'.
I would have been fine giving Lester more credit if he stuck to Mank's script and fulfilled the outline, outside of the Brando stuff which was understandable.... but here's the thing:
Does one prefer what one can imagine from seeing the Donner footage & the Mank script more, or what one got from the Donner/Lester rewritten script?
I'll never deny that there are bits that Lester did competently- but even on first viewing (and it could have been my age and aesthetics while viewing it)- but which script is better?
We can get a feeling based on the scripts (I don't count the RDC because the editing was incredibly sloppy and missing parts gunshot)- plus the style, editing, and performances of STM-
So we can get an estimate based on what's there- but of course it can't ever be a '100% foolproof case' if one prefers the choices one over the other.
The 'three movies in one style' for STM - continued in the script for SII- The Mank script does NOT have Zod be anything less than terrifying and soft-spoken... which would have made the hand crushing even more satisfying at the end of SII.
If Lester had done SII front to back, I think we would have gotten quality-wise something shot fairly conventional and even more visual jokes. The style in which the elevator scene was shot mimicked Donner- but script wise it certainly wasn't done in a way that gave the maximum punch. (I would have had Supes approach, the terrorists shoot at Supes, Supes overcomes them, while on the side the French police as in the movie accidentally cause the elevator to come down with the primed bomb- THEN Supes rescue)
But- I was okay with the sequence as is, and on first view I was okay enough with everything until the Metro battle- I wanted the same seriousness that was in the Mank script. Some of that was shown in the RDC with a few seconds of Supes charging at Lex- and Non intercepting... if Lester was going to make things light or lighter, I was fine up until the big battle- but if it was fine for everyone else, that's cool..... but from day one it drove me crazy with a sour taste sitting in the theatre with a WTF? moment plastered on my face.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 16, 2020 13:14:49 GMT -5
Endgame/Infinity War are a completely different animal imo-
As far as shooting back to back... well...
On a case by case basis:
LOTR to me I think is still the best argument FOR having a plan and shooting back to back. What balls for something that could have been a flop!
The LOTR extended versions imo are the ones to see, but they're constrained by how much you love the original books, I think.
BACK TO THE FUTURE:
The whole thing imo was compromised when they couldn't/didn't come to an agreement with Crispin Glover and couldn't secure the original actress for the sequels.... so...
There's fun stuff to be had- but to me that's the prism I have to see it in to enjoy it--- "If there's a choice between NO sequels or imperfect ones, which do you choose?"
Seeing the 'happy' future was fun. Seeing Michael J. and Doc Brown was fun.... but if BTTF really had planned to do this from the beginning, things would have been far different..
On the flip side:
TERMINATOR: DARK FATE-
Was holding onto material in thoughts of being a trilogy.... if they instead thought of putting it all into one.... a stronger film? Who knows? Maybe?
In any case-
I'm glad that Donner shot back to back.... but it's a pity he didn't shoot MORE before he was let go! But at least there's some footage we can enjoy...
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 19, 2020 6:04:01 GMT -5
Here's the thing: The Donner/Mank plan was STM/SII- was ALWAYS planned to be one giant double-epic. In reading the Mank SII script, much of what was planted in STM had a payoff in SII. That's why there's so much mourning on my side of what 'could have been'. If Donner was a hired gun in the beginning, his mindset HAD to have changed- from seeing STM (a first of a kind experience being the ONLY AND FIRST big budget Superhero film - and reading the SII script and seeing the bits that Donner directed- it was going to be his pop 'masterpiece'. I would have been fine giving Lester more credit if he stuck to Mank's script and fulfilled the outline, outside of the Brando stuff which was understandable.... but here's the thing: Does one prefer what one can imagine from seeing the Donner footage & the Mank script more, or what one got from the Donner/Lester rewritten script? I'll never deny that there are bits that Lester did competently- but even on first viewing (and it could have been my age and aesthetics while viewing it)- but which script is better? We can get a feeling based on the scripts (I don't count the RDC because the editing was incredibly sloppy and missing parts gunshot)- plus the style, editing, and performances of STM- So we can get an estimate based on what's there- but of course it can't ever be a '100% foolproof case' if one prefers the choices one over the other. The 'three movies in one style' for STM - continued in the script for SII- The Mank script does NOT have Zod be anything less than terrifying and soft-spoken... which would have made the hand crushing even more satisfying at the end of SII. If Lester had done SII front to back, I think we would have gotten quality-wise something shot fairly conventional and even more visual jokes. The style in which the elevator scene was shot mimicked Donner- but script wise it certainly wasn't done in a way that gave the maximum punch. (I would have had Supes approach, the terrorists shoot at Supes, Supes overcomes them, while on the side the French police as in the movie accidentally cause the elevator to come down with the primed bomb- THEN Supes rescue) But- I was okay with the sequence as is, and on first view I was okay enough with everything until the Metro battle- I wanted the same seriousness that was in the Mank script. Some of that was shown in the RDC with a few seconds of Supes charging at Lex- and Non intercepting... if Lester was going to make things light or lighter, I was fine up until the big battle- but if it was fine for everyone else, that's cool..... but from day one it drove me crazy with a sour taste sitting in the theatre with a WTF? moment plastered on my face. I like your take on the eiffel tower scene Nice touch. And I find it exceedingly interesting that you sat in the theater in 1981 with a disappointed feeling. Actually reminds me that when SII came out on home video in 82/83' I watched it with my mum who basically detests fantasy films. She hated SII and interestingly.....most of STM: Apart from those scenes in STM in smallville…..lol Love my mum to bits and after all she never stopped me from watching these flicks(in fact she encouraged it).....she was just never shy to tell me what she thought(lol) and also to help me see through what she saw as the fakery of it all.....almost the complete opposite of my pap who lapped this stuff up and went along with it....so I basically got to see both sides of the argument from an adults perspective back then. In fact they took me to watch Gandhi in 82' at least 3 times...lol.....partly as a response to my fascination with cinematic fantasy stuff Obviously it's an unfair comparison to you CAM as you have a liking for fantasy ect…..but the connection that you have with my mum(from a psychological perspective) with regards to SII is that Lester's method of execution for expressing said fantasy somehow triggers something in your respective psyches that inhibits you both from "believing" lol....I get it. Actually rewatching Siskel and Ebert's SII review it's interesting that Siskel totally loved it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGPXkyZ23ggIf you watch Siskel's other reviews for fantasy , most of the time he complains about how the kiddy factor takes him out of the movie....but not with SII (at least at that point in time-1981). I actually did a little experiment(lol) a year or so back watching Excalibur, Outland, Clash Of The Titans, Raiders and then SII all in the course of one day using the projector and the best quality possible(blu ray).I came out a bit bleary eyed lol. But in comparison to the others SII is big, it's fast, it has great production values and it's unique.....there were no other flicks at that point that displayed superfeats(apart from STM of course).It also has a nice love story that is executed more eloquently than the other flicks. Something that Siskel also noted in his review back in 81'. As I said I just wish Lester would come forward and say something. Donner has been given too much of a free pass with his point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 21, 2020 13:01:11 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts:
(1) I totally agree about wishing Lester would give his side of the story. I used to 'demonize' the Salkinds, but with Ilya sharing his side of the story, even though I take everything with a grain of salt- I could also see his points, too. I might be able to give Lester more slack if he shared why he made the choices he did... or add more details to the whole story.
(2) The Richard Donner cut should have been able to give his point of view.... but.... the problem is that the way it was presented, it made for a difficult way to really see what he had in mind. (I think the Mank script offers the best view of what would have been) I would have FAR rather that the missing parts be filled in with well-drawn storyboards and perhaps voice actors/whatnot.... as the approach to hack/slash the rewritten material just made it feel incomplete and 'less than' the theatrical as a cohesive piece.
Right now, I think the International Release Cut is the best Donner cut- though I still wish they had cut the over-the-top Lester material.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 22, 2020 18:01:16 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts: (1) I totally agree about wishing Lester would give his side of the story. I used to 'demonize' the Salkinds, but with Ilya sharing his side of the story, even though I take everything with a grain of salt- I could also see his points, too. I might be able to give Lester more slack if he shared why he made the choices he did... or add more details to the whole story. (2) The Richard Donner cut should have been able to give his point of view.... but.... the problem is that the way it was presented, it made for a difficult way to really see what he had in mind. (I think the Mank script offers the best view of what would have been) I would have FAR rather that the missing parts be filled in with well-drawn storyboards and perhaps voice actors/whatnot.... as the approach to hack/slash the rewritten material just made it feel incomplete and 'less than' the theatrical as a cohesive piece. Right now, I think the International Release Cut is the best Donner cut- though I still wish they had cut the over-the-top Lester material. Yes agreed What's interesting with the scripts to screen process is how changes are made on the fly. Even for STM , the additional touches they added whilst they shot the Lois in helicopter jeapordy sequence(which took almost a year)......the final result ended up being quite different from what was originally scripted. So even with Donner helming SII....there is no guarantee that changes would not have been made. Obviously Donner would have been without Brando.....so I could envisage Donner having done something not too dissimilar to what Lester did with the fortress of solitude sequences in the theatrical SII. In terms of the Villains taking over the world, that is more difficult to answer. I think for 1980, what was scripted by Mank would have looked incredible......and it would also have been unprecedented because nothing like it would been seen on screen before. I do think that the sequence(as scripted) is a touch too quick though( montages of Moscow, Tokyo and Paris being decimated as Zod performs his speech).....although of course it is difficult to gage as one has to interpret in one's own imagination how those words in the script translate to live temporal images...….maybe they could have found a way to stretch this sequence out if they had shot it From a 1980 perspective, I do find the build up(in terms of scale) in the small town in terms of each successive super feat surpassing the preceding one to be intriguing. Let me explain 1) Ursa Arm Wrestles the first red neck.....seeing a female character do this in 1980/81 was extremely rare.....the table breaking too added to the effect....also the subconscious physical threat from the audience perspective is palpable("I think my arm is broken".....it's subtly powerful) 2)Zod chucks the 2nd red neck through barn wall.....it's a great stunt and still holds up IMHO.....in 81' it was awesome. 3)Zon levates the kid's pap......a not entirely original effect but the threat of the villains is increasing.....the first 2 super feats were physical...now they are quasi supernatural.....on my first viewing in the cinema , I was just itching for Supe's to show up and take on these douches! 4)Non laser beams the jeep.....a great stunt and also a big surprise on the first viewing as Non had been struggling to optimise his laser beams until that moment.....good story telling 5)Zod deflects the flamethrowers fire onto the barn.....for 81 it's a great effect....the look Zod gives to Ursa is classic(+the music) amps it all up even further(these guys can't be stopped) 6)3 Villains resist the Bazooka, the rockets from the chopper......and then Ursa blows said Chopper into a building + ensuing explosion. For 81' this was also unprecedented.....at least when it came to showing what looked like human beings performing exceptional and destructive feats. The only other movie showing this kinda stuff was of course STM. It also covers the best part of 10 -15 mins of screen time---beautifully intercut with the Fortess Of Solitude stuff so the audience can't wait for these opposing forces to square off. Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how the villains destroying the big cities as originally scripted would have translated to the screen . |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 22, 2020 22:21:14 GMT -5
The thing that impressed me most about the Mankiewicz script were two things:
#1: The incredibly smooth and concise exposition. Rather than a few scenes, when the villains land in front of the Sheriff's car-it crunches several steps of the villains journal right away:
(1) it gets the villains to earth
(2) since we've seen the villains already question the astronauts- we get new information on the next step- how to get to the leader of the country
(3) Zod learns about the president right away (incorporating the generals' scene)
#2: How each of the villains' scenes each were not conventional but HUGE and visually ICONIC.
Oddly, it might have been cheaper to go this route:
(1) Sherriff's car-
(2) Washington monument scene with Zod
(3) one shot of Zod melting the Effeil Tower
(4) one shot of Ursa metling/ reshaping Mount Rushmore (suprisingly Ilya Salkind said this was already shot--- why couldn't we have seen this in the RDC?)
Right after- it goes to the army attack (though the script has a bit where the military booby-traps and eyes the front door--- probably never shot) and has a similar good escalation.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 23, 2020 11:30:44 GMT -5
The thing that impressed me most about the Mankiewicz script were two things: #1: The incredibly smooth and concise exposition. Rather than a few scenes, when the villains land in front of the Sheriff's car-it crunches several steps of the villains journal right away: (1) it gets the villains to earth (2) since we've seen the villains already question the astronauts- we get new information on the next step- how to get to the leader of the country (3) Zod learns about the president right away (incorporating the generals' scene) #2: How each of the villains' scenes each were not conventional but HUGE and visually ICONIC. Oddly, it might have been cheaper to go this route: (1) Sherriff's car- (2) Washington monument scene with Zod (3) one shot of Zod melting the Effeil Tower (4) one shot of Ursa metling/ reshaping Mount Rushmore (suprisingly Ilya Salkind said this was already shot--- why couldn't we have seen this in the RDC?) Right after- it goes to the army attack (though the script has a bit where the military booby-traps and eyes the front door--- probably never shot) and has a similar good escalation. Hi CAM Totally agree that Mank's SII destruction would have been iconic. Just reread the SII script to refresh myself on how the Villains taking over the world unfolds. To pull it off technically would have involved the use of matt painting interspersed with live elements ala' Earthquake(74').   In the context of 1979/1980 special effects tech...…. One problem would have been the visualisation of 100's or 1000's of people fleeing said destruction in Tokyo ,Moscow and Paris as depicted in the script. The pioneering effect of analogue crowd duplication(to simulate large crowds) that was used in the TV series of Young Indy Jones was still 10-15 years into the future....and even then this special effect was restricted to standard def Video(as opposed to high resolution 35/70mm film). They could have used stock footage of large crowds(maybe taken from real live dramatic events ) and interweaved that with the Matt paintings. Another problem with matts is that they are by default , stationary. You just get one angle and that angle only.....just like the Mount Rushmore shot(love that shot btw). It is not an environment you can explore with from a 3-Dimentional perspective. So, most likely, the 1979/80 shots of Tokyo and Moscow being in flames would have been static frames again ala' Earthquake. Also Non melting the Eiffel tower ,Ursa defacing Mount Rushmore and the already in flames Tokyo, Paris and Moscow shots would have potentially robbed the villains of any interaction with real people in camera(or in frame). In fact the Mount Rushmore shot as finalised in the Lester theatrical version exemplifies that fact.....the 3 villains enter from the left of frame......laser beam the sculpted faces imbedded in the Mountain and exit frame......all without the reaction of any live people-crowds... within the captured angle. Now within the context of Lester's SII ,it worked because by that point you already had the astronauts , the Sheriffs, and the Houston folks all have full on interaction with the 3 villains. And the Houston sequence, for all it's potential faults does have one thing....real people and a real environment for the villainous actors to react and interplay with. Of course the destruction of the Washington Monument with the police at the base would have involved live elements and I would loved to have seen how Donner would have assembled that sequence had things been different. We know Donner could handle large crowds.....the helicopter sequence in STM being testimony to that fact. So as discussed a million times before...it's all hypothetical but I do wonder what could have been accomplished had Donner been at the helm....and using strictly analogue techniques inherent to 1979/80 to visualise those destructive sequences.   |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 23, 2020 16:09:02 GMT -5
I think this scene from the 1979 Meteor disaster film which had crowds from Hong Kong running from a scifi Tsunami mirrors what we might have gotten. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvUundqmRkBut- just as STM paid for unused footage from "The Swarm" and integrated it into the film.... I can imagine the same would have happened to make the scene with Tokyo affordable. If Lester had embraced what was already in the Donner footage- here are the savings as I picture it: * DP jump instead of the Paris rescue. Already shot--- just add a couple of fx shots. * Film the 'blank bullets' scene on the hotel set- instead of the costly stunt with Lois jumping into Niagara falls. While Lois in the water definitely looks more expensive than the hotel--- the location isn't exactly epic, but more touristy and campy. * The 'Washington Monument' scene might have cost a bit for a set- but with some clever location shooting- I think this would have cost far less than building that whole section of small town East Houston... plus the helicopter attack fx- which were impressive- but the location hardly as iconic a location as where the Washington monument is/ would have been. * The ending 'battle' with the huge sort-of Time Square was SO wasted imo. if this was the way to go, then I just wish this had been not dominated by crowd sight-gags. I give credit for the Salkinds for putting the money into having that huge city set- but staging it in a way that (1) most of the time looked unreal outside of the bus toss and how they driected the extras - and- (2) didn't take advantage of all the things that could have been done with a closed set as far as action. I have to say I was pretty open to any director at the time (not knowing any better) to finish off SII--- but when I watched SII--- It was the first time I really understood what a difference a different director made. |
|
ok....maybe I am!(but it's definitely not my intention)....but I am watching these flicks on an 8K(psueudo) projector with an anamorphic lens(in other words getting the full horizontal and vertical resolution) on a 110inch wide screen.