|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 28, 2020 19:41:14 GMT -5
Superman the movie's first release in December 1978. What else was playing around that time? * Great Train Robbery * Invasion of the Body Snatchers * Every which way but loose * Star Crash Superman II: (in the US released in summer 1981) * Raiders of the Lost Ark * History of the World: Part 1 * Nighthawks * Excalibur * Evil Dead * American Werewolf in London * Escape From New York * Mad Max 2 * Chariots of Fire * For Your Eyes Only * Heavy Metal * Zorro the magnificent Blade * Blow Out * Thief * Time Bandits * Dragonslayer ((Wow. what a year that was)) Superman III: * Return of the Jedi * Vacation * Risky Business * Scarface * Wargames * Flashdance * Man with Two Brains Superman IV: * Top Gun * Ferris Bueller's Day Off * Blue Velvet * Aliens * Platoon * HIghlander * The Fly * Color of Money Of course, not all of the movies released, but ones that caught my eye for the same years. Bring back any memories?  (btw- movieweb is the source- it's pretty cool- click on a year/month and pics pop up...) |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on Jul 14, 2020 15:39:30 GMT -5
Damn Invasion Of The Body Snatchers(78')….good flick.
Who would have known walking into a theater in 83' to watch Jedi.....that an unknown kid called Tom Cruise.....would then go onto stay on the scene for another 37 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 14, 2020 16:11:42 GMT -5
darn Invasion Of The Body Snatchers(78')….good flick. Who would have known walking into a theater in 83' to watch Jedi.....that an unknown kid called Tom Cruise.....would then go onto stay on the scene for another 37 years! Crazy, isn't it?  In looking at the list for that/those time eras, that: 30-sh years later- #1: the Karate Kid series would have spawned a successful web series in "Cobra Kai" decades later with Macchio & William Zafka? #2: That there would be another Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel in the wings now-ish? #3: that there would even more Star Wars films and be owned by Disney? #4: Top gun would also get a sequel with Tom Cruise? Time is so weird.... |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jul 14, 2020 16:22:29 GMT -5
Superman the movie's first release in December 1978. What else was playing around that time? * Great Train Robbery * Invasion of the Body Snatchers * Every which way but loose * Star Crash Superman II: (in the US released in summer 1981) * Raiders of the Lost Ark * History of the World: Part 1 * Nighthawks * Excalibur * Evil Dead * American Werewolf in London * Escape From New York * Mad Max 2 * Chariots of Fire * For Your Eyes Only * Heavy Metal * Zorro the magnificent Blade * Blow Out * Thief * Time Bandits * Dragonslayer ((Wow. what a year that was)) Superman III: * Return of the Jedi * Vacation * Risky Business * Scarface * Wargames * Flashdance * Man with Two Brains Superman IV: * Top Gun * Ferris Bueller's Day Off * Blue Velvet * Aliens * Platoon * HIghlander * The Fly * Color of Money Of course, not all of the movies released, but ones that caught my eye for the same years. Bring back any memories? (btw- movieweb is the source- it's pretty cool- click on a year/month and pics pop up...) I think you've assigned S4 to 1986 rather than 1987. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 14, 2020 16:26:06 GMT -5
Superman the movie's first release in December 1978. What else was playing around that time? * Great Train Robbery * Invasion of the Body Snatchers * Every which way but loose * Star Crash Superman II: (in the US released in summer 1981) * Raiders of the Lost Ark * History of the World: Part 1 * Nighthawks * Excalibur * Evil Dead * American Werewolf in London * Escape From New York * Mad Max 2 * Chariots of Fire * For Your Eyes Only * Heavy Metal * Zorro the magnificent Blade * Blow Out * Thief * Time Bandits * Dragonslayer ((Wow. what a year that was)) Superman III: * Return of the Jedi * Vacation * Risky Business * Scarface * Wargames * Flashdance * Man with Two Brains Superman IV: * Top Gun * Ferris Bueller's Day Off * Blue Velvet * Aliens * Platoon * HIghlander * The Fly * Color of Money Of course, not all of the movies released, but ones that caught my eye for the same years. Bring back any memories? (btw- movieweb is the source- it's pretty cool- click on a year/month and pics pop up...) I think you've assigned S4 to 1986 rather than 1987. I totally could be wrong. Went by movieweb. That's cool- will have to look up what was around in '87 & post later... |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 14, 2020 16:51:38 GMT -5
darn Invasion Of The Body Snatchers(78')….good flick. Who would have known walking into a theater in 83' to watch Jedi.....that an unknown kid called Tom Cruise.....would then go onto stay on the scene for another 37 years! Crazy, isn't it? In looking at the list for that/those time eras, that: 30-sh years later- #1: the Karate Kid series would have spawned a successful web series in "Cobra Kai" decades later with Macchio & William Zafka? #2: That there would be another Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel in the wings now-ish? #3: that there would even more Star Wars films and be owned by Disney? #4: Top gun would also get a sequel with Tom Cruise? Time is so weird.... Yep....but then again Cinema is only(only!!) 120 years old as a medium.....and what we witnessed in the late 70s early 80s was the flowering of marrying fantasy with reality on the big screen in a way that was unprecedented for that point in time.....and is something that cannot be repeated. Ha ha looking at your list for 1986 /87....poor ol SIV was like a lamb being sent for the slaughter up against some of those other flicks from the same year---lol |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 14, 2020 17:59:48 GMT -5
Crazy, isn't it? In looking at the list for that/those time eras, that: 30-sh years later- #1: the Karate Kid series would have spawned a successful web series in "Cobra Kai" decades later with Macchio & William Zafka? #2: That there would be another Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel in the wings now-ish? #3: that there would even more Star Wars films and be owned by Disney? #4: Top gun would also get a sequel with Tom Cruise? Time is so weird.... Yep....but then again Cinema is only(only!!) 120 years old as a medium.....and what we witnessed in the late 70s early 80s was the flowering of marrying fantasy with reality on the big screen in a way that was unprecedented for that point in time.....and is something that cannot be repeated. Ha ha looking at your list for 1986 /87....poor ol SIV was like a lamb being sent for the slaughter up against some of those other flicks from the same year---lol Totally agree Dejan! The wonderous thing was seeing the giant breakthroughs in special effects marked by Star Wars '77 - and the box office fueling investment and new life into stories that really NEEDED great effects to work... I remember those summers post-Star Wars--- really exciting and wondrous. You're absolutely right also on SIV being a 'lamb to slaughter'- compared to the other movies that had been coming out. Soooo sad.... |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 14, 2020 18:56:00 GMT -5
@cam agreed IMHO 1979 represents the 1st peak of sci-fi creativity on the big screen---literally within 12 months you had STM,Alien Star trek and the Black Hole......not to mention the first re-release of Star wars. on another note ,My black hole blu ray should be arriving in the post soon. might do a 1979 vintage playing all the above flicks over the course of a few days |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 15, 2020 12:58:58 GMT -5
@cam agreed IMHO 1979 represents the 1st peak of sci-fi creativity on the big screen---literally within 12 months you had STM,Alien Star trek and the Black Hole......not to mention the first re-release of Star wars. on another note ,My black hole blu ray should be arriving in the post soon. might do a 1979 vintage playing all the above flicks over the course of a few days I was actually considering buying the black hole myself- funny thing is, not because I was so in love with the movie necessarily (I thought it ok)- but the feelings attached to each of these 'experiments' to be the next Star Wars that took time and a lot of studio dollars. Each one was considered a giant event and it felt that way. I was extremely lucky to have lived close to a few 'giant screen' theatres that were part of one chain, in a city where it was really rare.... so when these summers had all these studios FINALLY invested in a big way for anything fantasy related, and the public extremely hungry for fantasy after Star Wars & Superman- I was able to experience the movies in a way similar to rock concerts--- people would camp overnight for the opening day, with no cellphones - people were more open and anxious to bonding with others in line - great times- while the Marvel movies did bring that back in ways with the Avenger movies.... it's not quite the same, but, I like to think while some doors close, others open up for good times somehow... But- yeah, LOVED/LOVE all those summers and fantasy epics (or wanna-be epics) at that time. It was special. Part of me is trying to recollect and pinpoint when things started 'winding down' and becoming 'less special'/less of an event, though- Star Trek reached higher and higher heights to where it spawned Next Gen--- which became a phenom & spawned multiple series & a few Next Gen movies- I do think that the last 'big' collective 'holy crap, cinema is bringing us something unbelievable we've never seen before' was the first Jurrassic Park- where EVERYONE in the audience roared and cheered when they saw the dinosaur brought to life- I literally could remember a person or two GASPING in the theatre. * (I know I had many of those moments for the first STM and a number of parts with SII- or, well, almost-gasping) Then..... I think it may have been weekly Star Trek series (that had also been getting better and better)-that scifi/fantasy started becoming 'commonplace' for the general public- (Though I was still thrilled with the Star Trek movies though I was bummed that Voyager's stories were not nearly the level of quality of TNG nor DS9)- But I think with the Star Wars trilogy ending (there's a theory in "The Toys that Made Us" tv show that Lucas was waiting out the expiration of a regretted toy contract before making new Star Wars films)- the Indiana Jones trilogy ending (at the time), and the Batman series turning into Batman and Robin- that the energy was dying out in the mainstream I feel...then wouldn't be recharged I think until 2000 with Spiderman and X-men really recharging/starting the superhero movie machine in full throttle. (*With STM/SII--- same epic feeling with the lines, but it might have been the times changing, but nobody camped out for SIII & SIV didn't open at the big theatres but the discount theatres here on opening day (was a bit of a sign).) |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 16, 2020 10:35:51 GMT -5
Yea ….the big event hype up is totally a thing of the past.
You maybe get a little bit of it these days with say something like Infinity War and End Game but they always felt like gigantic soap operas to me.....come and gone and easily forgotten.
Not to mention Lord Of The Rings, Matrix,Potter,SW prequels and now sequels..... and a host of others.....in fact many of these are nearing or have reached the 20 year mark themselves.
You are right about the then new CGI effects in Jurassic Park and their effect t on the audience ...I was one of those gasping!......although I always felt as an entire piece that it was never in the same league as say the original SW trilogy or STM & SII or even Spielberg's own earlier work like Raiders or E.T.
For me Back To The Future or Aliens were the last great sci-fi flicks from that era(1977-1985/86)
Back To The Future 2 & 3 , The last Crusade, Alien 3,SIV(ugh!), Star Trek 5 & 6 were all signs that decay was beginning to set into the fantasy genre froma filmmaking standpoint after that incredible run from 77' to 86..... IMHO
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 16, 2020 13:49:34 GMT -5
Yea ….the big event hype up is totally a thing of the past. You maybe get a little bit of it these days with say something like Infinity War and End Game but they always felt like gigantic soap operas to me.....come and gone and easily forgotten. Not to mention Lord Of The Rings, Matrix,Potter,SW prequels and now sequels..... and a host of others.....in fact many of these are nearing or have reached the 20 year mark themselves. You are right about the then new CGI effects in Jurassic Park and their effect t on the audience ...I was one of those gasping!......although I always felt as an entire piece that it was never in the same league as say the original SW trilogy or STM & SII or even Spielberg's own earlier work like Raiders or E.T. For me Back To The Future or Aliens were the last great sci-fi flicks from that era(1977-1985/86) Back To The Future 2 & 3 , The last Crusade, Alien 3,SIV(ugh!), Star Trek 5 & 6 were all signs that decay was beginning to set into the fantasy genre froma filmmaking standpoint after that incredible run from 77' to 86..... IMHO I'm sad that you didn't have the big love for Endgame- I adore that film. It is a big soap opera, but I thought it unique in that something on that scale (10 years of crossover movies and character development into a giant 3 hour film) that to me suprisingly delivered where it counted. (What's weird is seeing all the deleted scenes on youtube on how many wrong or lesser scenes that were shot for it. I'm glad that they kept shooting until it felt right, but wow--- there's so many alternate choices for that film it makes ones' head spin). The thing is with those big fantasy series- I think the reason there's a large number of them that are being ignored/forgotten on their anniversaries is more due to supply/demand for high quality fantasy. Before as a child, I would worship ANY tv show that had a superhero or fantasy element to it..... as it was extremely rare. With Star Wars/Superman's fx breakthrough- the tech was still extremely expensive and as I understand it, extremely few fx houses that knew how to deliver on a Star Wars level.... So the 'stream' of event movies that wanted big fx were still limited to summer and xmas releases for a decade or so--- and there was 'space' to mentally rest and savor what was there. I remember seeing Jackson's LOTR series multiple times.... but when the underwhelming HOBBIT series came out... one, it wasn't as good as LOTR--- but- second, by that time, what were amazing fx years before were standard by then--- and you didn't only see them on tv, but took them for granted by that point. (Along with videogames I imagine) I agree that -for various reasons- the quality seemed to dip quite a bit around the times of Back to the Future 2 & 3 (which I feel are good but definitely not great), Alien 3, etc.--- but then again- Personally, I'm glad that the era hit at 'the right age' for me to really appreciate those times and those movies. For me, the memories of a number of those films are tied into the 'community experience' of seeing them in a large theatre with strangers all excited and anticipating something that had never been seen before on film. (And something about the politeness of the audiences at that time. Even with the slow Star Trek: the Motion Picture, nobody openly yawned or complained at the endless exterior space scenes) Star Wars had opened the door to that in 77- along with Close Encounters of the Third Kind- and STM opened the door even more. I don't recall how audiences were prior to Star Wars- but I remember vaguely that there were usually very little offerings for kids or young at heart other than the Disney brand at the theatres. Anyhow- definitely a golden era back then--- while you make an EXCELLENT point about how not having vhs, dvd, or now youtube tech would have helped REALLY make movies special by lack of instant access--- it's neat that we can still have the physical media to rekindle part of that magic from whatever film at our fingertips... (The Mad Magazines that parodied the movies as they came out help bring out even more memories I think- they are silly, but at the time prior to vhs comic book adaptations and the movie souvenir books seemed the only way to preserve the movie memories--- plus the other bits really help remind/reflect those specific times...) |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 16, 2020 17:58:28 GMT -5
Excellent post there CAM But don't get me wrong......I thoroughly enjoyed Infinity War and Endgame! In fact as I am still waiting for some other 1978 movies to arrive in the post.....I may even indulge in a bit of Endgame tonight on UHD! But they do not leave a lasting impression on me the same way STM & SII did back in the day. And I don't think it is a rose tinted thing or of being of a certain age. There is nothing in Endgame or Infinity War that has not been seen before in some other capacity. In art.... timing IS everything. If there was a unique aspect to these 2 flicks...….IMHO it was the saturation of characters.....I will concede....that had never been done before. Even EndGame's finale reminded me of ROTK......but unlike ROTK....at least Endgame had a decent villain. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 16, 2020 18:21:18 GMT -5
Excellent post there CAM But don't get me wrong......I thoroughly enjoyed Infinity War and Endgame! In fact as I am still waiting for some other 1978 movies to arrive in the post.....I may even indulge in a bit of Endgame tonight on UHD! But they do not leave a lasting impression on me the same way STM & SII did back in the day. And I don't think it is a rose tinted thing or of being of a certain age. There is nothing in Endgame or Infinity War that has not been seen before in some other capacity. In art.... timing IS everything. If there was a unique aspect to these 2 flicks...….IMHO it was the saturation of characters.....I will concede....that had never been done before. Even EndGame's finale reminded me of ROTK......but unlike ROTK....at least Endgame had a decent villain. I think I get what you mean- while I have giant love for the Avengers, STM/SII also has a more lasting impression- as proof, I'm not on any Avengers forums making posts! STM and SII (as wall as Star Wars New Hope) I fell in love with first and there was little to compare to them for YEARS- and it was a lot of 'never before seen done before' moments as you say. With Infinity Wars/Endgame- it's a different kind of love affair- it's like a big budget last act for three major characters that we'd gotten the chance to know over 10 years. The impact is similar to what we might have gotten if we had a series of Reeve Superman films- and then had 'the death of Superman'--- While they 'killed off' Superman in BvS, Cavill's Superman hadn't been ingrained in people's heads for 10 years, (also MOS being so divisive with its version of Supes and SR not having been that long before with a different actor as Superman) so the 'death' one movie later really much impact that it could have had. ROTK I think had the problem/benefit of being constricted by its source material. Jackson did some adjustments, but I think without straying too far from the source material, those movies were probably as good as they could have been considering their desire to be faithful... (I totally agree it's a weak villain though- too abstract) |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 16, 2020 18:44:57 GMT -5
Totally agree CAM with regards to the lack of maturation of Cavill's Supes over the arc of 2 films.....so when he did die it just felt like a meh?! moment...or at least it did to me(and to you !). One other argument that has popped into my head is that STM,SII and SIII are actually(or could be) stand alone films in a manner that Infinity and Endgame are not. In fact when I watched Endgame I had not seen any of the Antman films(still have not!) so there was bit of a personal detachment for me when Scott seeked out his daughter/family at the beginning. But it was filmed in a way that made it palatable even for someone like me who is not necessarily familiar with all the in and outs of the MCU. I still have not seen Captain Marvel either....so when she showed up at the end to take on Thanos it just felt contrived...for me. In a stand alone flick you don't have these discrepancies. Tell you the truth I was a bit disappointed with the climax too......the scene where Gmorrah knees Quill in the nuts...whilst a full on battle is occurring kind of took me out of the movie...…I would much rather take that ice cream blowing into a pedestrian's face from SII! Maybe we can discuss this stuff in another new thread. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 16, 2020 19:22:25 GMT -5
Totally agree CAM with regards to the lack of maturation of Cavill's Supes over the arc of 2 films.....so when he did die it just felt like a meh?! moment...or at least it did to me(and to you !). One other argument that has popped into my head is that STM,SII and SIII are actually(or could be) stand alone films in a manner that Infinity and Endgame are not. In fact when I watched Endgame I had not seen any of the Antman films(still have not!) so there was bit of a personal detachment for me when Scott seeked out his daughter/family at the beginning. But it was filmed in a way that made it palatable even for someone like me who is not necessarily familiar with all the in and outs of the MCU. I still have not seen Captain Marvel either....so when she showed up at the end to take on Thanos it just felt contrived...for me. In a stand alone flick you don't have these discrepancies. Tell you the truth I was a bit disappointed with the climax too......the scene where Gmorrah knees Quill in the nuts...whilst a full on battle is occurring kind of took me out of the movie...…I would much rather take that ice cream blowing into a pedestrian's face from SII! Maybe we can discuss this stuff in another new thread. They killed him just way too soon period. They really shouldn’t have killed him at all. Not only was his character arc poor but the audience didn’t have enough time to develop a proper connection to him. Filmmakers didn’t destroy the Enterprise or mjolnir or kill Spock or Wolverine 2 films and 3 years in. They played on the audiences emotional investment and years and years of expectations. Worst of all no one believed Cavill’s Superman was going to stay dead. At least with the death of Superman comic they were able to fool a lot of people in the media and the causal audience because the character had been around so long and people weren’t expecting it so they had no idea what was going to happen next. WB foolishly even used “Dawn of Justice” as the BvS subtitle so we all knew what was coming next for the movies. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 17, 2020 17:45:10 GMT -5
Totally agree CAM with regards to the lack of maturation of Cavill's Supes over the arc of 2 films.....so when he did die it just felt like a meh?! moment...or at least it did to me(and to you !). One other argument that has popped into my head is that STM,SII and SIII are actually(or could be) stand alone films in a manner that Infinity and Endgame are not. In fact when I watched Endgame I had not seen any of the Antman films(still have not!) so there was bit of a personal detachment for me when Scott seeked out his daughter/family at the beginning. But it was filmed in a way that made it palatable even for someone like me who is not necessarily familiar with all the in and outs of the MCU. I still have not seen Captain Marvel either....so when she showed up at the end to take on Thanos it just felt contrived...for me. In a stand alone flick you don't have these discrepancies. Tell you the truth I was a bit disappointed with the climax too......the scene where Gmorrah knees Quill in the nuts...whilst a full on battle is occurring kind of took me out of the movie...…I would much rather take that ice cream blowing into a pedestrian's face from SII! Maybe we can discuss this stuff in another new thread. Another thread might be better later on, once I stop getting lazy about new threads... The thing with the Marvel movies is: I think from the outset, it was sort of like the Star Wars franchise: except for the origin stories, none of them are really standalones- but rely on (and one is rewarded on) being familiar with watching all the other movies in the series. Because I felt it worked, I really liked that. It's a similar thing with jumping into series finales where one doesn't follow the series nor the characters and then something happens that loses its context and significance because of lack of familiarity with the characters history on-screen. For sure the 'endings' of Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and (sortof) Thor in Endgame have more power depending on how many movies one has seen prior to it with tidbits of their backstory here and there. I was okay with Gamora kneeing Quill and the punchline- there were other deleted scenes that are on youtube that I thought were more distracting and I'm glad were deleted. I read somewhere that Endgame did get previews (shocking that no spoilers came out, but then again, even with the bootlegs available the day of, that fans were respectful worldwide to not plaster the endings everywhere for a long time)--- and probably the previews helped them figure out/refine the final cut... Makes one wonder.... if STM and SII had gotten test viewings, too-- if that might have ended up with stronger versions at the end? Hard to know.... |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 18, 2020 6:15:26 GMT -5
@ CAM
It's interesting with the original SW trilogy.
SW is a totally stand alone flick.(it has a set up and resolution)
To a lesser degree so is ROTJ(at least in terms of a resolution)
It's actually Empire which has neither a set up or a resolution.
Empire works beautifully if you are already familiar with the characters( of course it builds on their backgrounds as the picture progresses).
And of course it's ending only works if you are mentally prepared to accept that there will be another movie/story to come that will resolve those loose ends.
I actually wonder if I would have enjoyed SII as much as i did back in May 81'...….. if i had not seen STM just prior(as part of that double bill).
SII partially deconstructed Supe's...it made him mortal for a while.....and it then subjugated him to a few punch ups in the climax.
That only worked for me because STM essentially portrayed him(and beautifully so) as pretty much invincible......so when he did get a bit of a bashing in SII.....it felt like something.
It's pretty much where a lot of the contemporary stuff fails....be it Rey from the new SW films or Cavil's Supes…..they rise and fall and rise again all within the arc of one movie......it's too much too soon to be meaningful.
But it does make a lot of money and that is the bottom line.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jul 18, 2020 11:07:48 GMT -5
@ CAM It's interesting with the original SW trilogy. SW is a totally stand alone flick.(it has a set up and resolution) To a lesser degree so is ROTJ(at least in terms of a resolution) It's actually Empire which has neither a set up or a resolution. Empire works beautifully if you are already familiar with the characters( of course it builds on their backgrounds as the picture progresses). And of course it's ending only works if you are mentally prepared to accept that there will be another movie/story to come that will resolve those loose ends. I actually wonder if I would have enjoyed SII as much as i did back in May 81'...….. if i had not seen STM just prior(as part of that double bill). SII partially deconstructed Supe's...it made him mortal for a while.....and it then subjugated him to a few punch ups in the climax. That only worked for me because STM essentially portrayed him(and beautifully so) as pretty much invincible......so when he did get a bit of a bashing in SII.....it felt like something. It's pretty much where a lot of the contemporary stuff fails....be it Rey from the new SW films or Cavil's Supes…..they rise and fall and rise again all within the arc of one movie......it's too much too soon to be meaningful. But it does make a lot of money and that is the bottom line. I saw STM in 1978. Just once, but it was enough to establish Superman in my mind as invincible and a one of a kind. Then when I saw S2 in 1981, the idea of there being three more like him just blew my mind. It's perfect that the villains only appeared in the second one. That 3-year gap between movies really helped too, since it allowed Superman to seep into everyone's consciousness. MoS got that wrong by cramming everything into one overstuffed film. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 18, 2020 16:28:32 GMT -5
@ CAM It's interesting with the original SW trilogy. SW is a totally stand alone flick.(it has a set up and resolution) To a lesser degree so is ROTJ(at least in terms of a resolution) It's actually Empire which has neither a set up or a resolution. Empire works beautifully if you are already familiar with the characters( of course it builds on their backgrounds as the picture progresses). And of course it's ending only works if you are mentally prepared to accept that there will be another movie/story to come that will resolve those loose ends. I actually wonder if I would have enjoyed SII as much as i did back in May 81'...….. if i had not seen STM just prior(as part of that double bill). SII partially deconstructed Supe's...it made him mortal for a while.....and it then subjugated him to a few punch ups in the climax. That only worked for me because STM essentially portrayed him(and beautifully so) as pretty much invincible......so when he did get a bit of a bashing in SII.....it felt like something. It's pretty much where a lot of the contemporary stuff fails....be it Rey from the new SW films or Cavil's Supes…..they rise and fall and rise again all within the arc of one movie......it's too much too soon to be meaningful. But it does make a lot of money and that is the bottom line. I saw STM in 1978. Just once, but it was enough to establish Superman in my mind as invincible and a one of a kind. Then when I saw S2 in 1981, the idea of there being three more like him just blew my mind. It's perfect that the villains only appeared in the second one. That 3-year gap between movies really helped too, since it allowed Superman to seep into everyone's consciousness. MoS got that wrong by cramming everything into one overstuffed film. The funny thing is, if STM had opened up in the 2nd rate theatres with 5 people in line (like SIV), I'd still be in the front rows savoring every frame.... but the fact that my first viewingw was with a sold-out theatre crowd wrapped around the block just made the experience even more special. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 18, 2020 16:54:56 GMT -5
@ CAM It's interesting with the original SW trilogy. SW is a totally stand alone flick.(it has a set up and resolution) To a lesser degree so is ROTJ(at least in terms of a resolution) It's actually Empire which has neither a set up or a resolution. Empire works beautifully if you are already familiar with the characters( of course it builds on their backgrounds as the picture progresses). And of course it's ending only works if you are mentally prepared to accept that there will be another movie/story to come that will resolve those loose ends. I actually wonder if I would have enjoyed SII as much as i did back in May 81'...….. if i had not seen STM just prior(as part of that double bill). SII partially deconstructed Supe's...it made him mortal for a while.....and it then subjugated him to a few punch ups in the climax. That only worked for me because STM essentially portrayed him(and beautifully so) as pretty much invincible......so when he did get a bit of a bashing in SII.....it felt like something. It's pretty much where a lot of the contemporary stuff fails....be it Rey from the new SW films or Cavil's Supes…..they rise and fall and rise again all within the arc of one movie......it's too much too soon to be meaningful. But it does make a lot of money and that is the bottom line. Interesting thoughts- I do think there can be arcs that fit properly in one movie that can have meaning- but it's more on execution I think. Seeing any Superman film outside of the origin story I think would require at least basic familiarity with Superman/Clark/Daily planet.... which was not a given necessarily dependent on age/whatnot. So there's that to have in perspective too. In regards to Empire with no setup or resolution, you're right- As much flack as Lucas gets (some of which may or may not be deserved- well, not releasing the originals is deserved)- He is right in that he did take a lot of chances (relatively speaking) with allowing certain things to happen in the sequel: #1: Having the 'big battle' be at the front rather than at the end, like the first one #2: Having the ending be a cliffhanger - a big risk #3: Having it be (at that time) darker than the first I remember being on the edge of my seat for EMpire.... then being PISSED that it was a cliffhanger and would have to wait a few years for the sequel! While I'm not at all crazy about the resolution with ROTJ (Having luke/leia be twins was awful along with the Ewoks imo)- at least he can fairly say that his choices seem to show that he wasn't taking the easiest cash grab for it all. I imagine if Lucas 'played it safe'- (by Hollywood standards) #1: The second one would have been a standalone with a happy ending #2: The big battle and the general formula would have been to plan the pattern of the movie to be identical to the original #3: Vader would not have been the dad- (though the resolution for this was extremely weak in ROTJ for my tastes) But I digress- STM/SII was special in that it was intended to be one long vision (when it was one director)- from what I had read in the movie magazines about the production during the time. Since Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers 'accidentally' became two films shot side by side- According to contracts written, STM/SII was supposed to be shot in one swoop (so to speak) - hence, the lawsuits and renegotiations that were possible when the delays happened after the first one got released & Donner was let go. Prior to that, wasn't meant to be standalone from what I'd read- but SIII certainly was supposed to (and was) it's own thing... |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 19, 2020 9:57:48 GMT -5
@ CAM It's interesting with the original SW trilogy. SW is a totally stand alone flick.(it has a set up and resolution) To a lesser degree so is ROTJ(at least in terms of a resolution) It's actually Empire which has neither a set up or a resolution. Empire works beautifully if you are already familiar with the characters( of course it builds on their backgrounds as the picture progresses). And of course it's ending only works if you are mentally prepared to accept that there will be another movie/story to come that will resolve those loose ends. I actually wonder if I would have enjoyed SII as much as i did back in May 81'...….. if i had not seen STM just prior(as part of that double bill). SII partially deconstructed Supe's...it made him mortal for a while.....and it then subjugated him to a few punch ups in the climax. That only worked for me because STM essentially portrayed him(and beautifully so) as pretty much invincible......so when he did get a bit of a bashing in SII.....it felt like something. It's pretty much where a lot of the contemporary stuff fails....be it Rey from the new SW films or Cavil's Supes…..they rise and fall and rise again all within the arc of one movie......it's too much too soon to be meaningful. But it does make a lot of money and that is the bottom line. Interesting thoughts- I do think there can be arcs that fit properly in one movie that can have meaning- but it's more on execution I think. Seeing any Superman film outside of the origin story I think would require at least basic familiarity with Superman/Clark/Daily planet.... which was not a given necessarily dependent on age/whatnot. So there's that to have in perspective too. In regards to Empire with no setup or resolution, you're right- As much flack as Lucas gets (some of which may or may not be deserved- well, not releasing the originals is deserved)- He is right in that he did take a lot of chances (relatively speaking) with allowing certain things to happen in the sequel: #1: Having the 'big battle' be at the front rather than at the end, like the first one #2: Having the ending be a cliffhanger - a big risk #3: Having it be (at that time) darker than the first I remember being on the edge of my seat for EMpire.... then being PISSED that it was a cliffhanger and would have to wait a few years for the sequel! While I'm not at all crazy about the resolution with ROTJ (Having luke/leia be twins was awful along with the Ewoks imo)- at least he can fairly say that his choices seem to show that he wasn't taking the easiest cash grab for it all. I imagine if Lucas 'played it safe'- (by Hollywood standards) #1: The second one would have been a standalone with a happy ending #2: The big battle and the general formula would have been to plan the pattern of the movie to be identical to the original #3: Vader would not have been the dad- (though the resolution for this was extremely weak in ROTJ for my tastes) But I digress- STM/SII was special in that it was intended to be one long vision (when it was one director)- from what I had read in the movie magazines about the production during the time. Since Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers 'accidentally' became two films shot side by side- According to contracts written, STM/SII was supposed to be shot in one swoop (so to speak) - hence, the lawsuits and renegotiations that were possible when the delays happened after the first one got released & Donner was let go. Prior to that, wasn't meant to be standalone from what I'd read- but SIII certainly was supposed to (and was) it's own thing... Totally agree with all points you made there CAM I like your hypothesis on how SW could have evolved if Lucas had compromised. Some say that he did in fact do just that. ROTJ gets the biggest stick for it's use of the Ewoks. But people to tend to forget that ROTJ featured Yoda's death which in my opinion is the most touching and painful moment in the entire trilogy. Yes I had the same reaction to you when watching the end of Empire.....in fact I was so emotionally unbalanced(so to speak) digesting the "I am your father" revelation that I did not quite grasp the fact that the panning away from the medical freighter shot(with Luke and Leia looking on) was the ending of the movie.....lol In fact I had seen SW & Empire back to back just a month or so before seeing the STM and SII double bill. The 2 best double bills of my life! Totally agree that the execution is key to defining how well an arc plays out during the course of a movie.....and that seems to be a problem of lot of the stuff we have at the moment....here's looking at you MOS |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 19, 2020 14:52:53 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts- I do think there can be arcs that fit properly in one movie that can have meaning- but it's more on execution I think. Seeing any Superman film outside of the origin story I think would require at least basic familiarity with Superman/Clark/Daily planet.... which was not a given necessarily dependent on age/whatnot. So there's that to have in perspective too. In regards to Empire with no setup or resolution, you're right- As much flack as Lucas gets (some of which may or may not be deserved- well, not releasing the originals is deserved)- He is right in that he did take a lot of chances (relatively speaking) with allowing certain things to happen in the sequel: #1: Having the 'big battle' be at the front rather than at the end, like the first one #2: Having the ending be a cliffhanger - a big risk #3: Having it be (at that time) darker than the first I remember being on the edge of my seat for EMpire.... then being PISSED that it was a cliffhanger and would have to wait a few years for the sequel! While I'm not at all crazy about the resolution with ROTJ (Having luke/leia be twins was awful along with the Ewoks imo)- at least he can fairly say that his choices seem to show that he wasn't taking the easiest cash grab for it all. I imagine if Lucas 'played it safe'- (by Hollywood standards) #1: The second one would have been a standalone with a happy ending #2: The big battle and the general formula would have been to plan the pattern of the movie to be identical to the original #3: Vader would not have been the dad- (though the resolution for this was extremely weak in ROTJ for my tastes) But I digress- STM/SII was special in that it was intended to be one long vision (when it was one director)- from what I had read in the movie magazines about the production during the time. Since Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers 'accidentally' became two films shot side by side- According to contracts written, STM/SII was supposed to be shot in one swoop (so to speak) - hence, the lawsuits and renegotiations that were possible when the delays happened after the first one got released & Donner was let go. Prior to that, wasn't meant to be standalone from what I'd read- but SIII certainly was supposed to (and was) it's own thing... Totally agree with all points you made there CAM I like your hypothesis on how SW could have evolved if Lucas had compromised. Some say that he did in fact do just that. ROTJ gets the biggest stick for it's use of the Ewoks. But people to tend to forget that ROTJ featured Yoda's death which in my opinion is the most touching and painful moment in the entire trilogy. Yes I had the same reaction to you when watching the end of Empire.....in fact I was so emotionally unbalanced(so to speak) digesting the "I am your father" revelation that I did not quite grasp the fact that the panning away from the medical freighter shot(with Luke and Leia looking on) was the ending of the movie.....lol In fact I had seen SW & Empire back to back just a month or so before seeing the STM and SII double bill. The 2 best double bills of my life! Totally agree that the execution is key to defining how well an arc plays out during the course of a movie.....and that seems to be a problem of lot of the stuff we have at the moment....here's looking at you MOS There was an article/interview with Gary Kurtz that said how ROTJ was originally intended to have these different elements: #1: Luke and Leia NOT brother and sister... more on that later #2: Han dying before the end of the movie #3: Luke leaves after the victory to look for his missing sister #4: Princess Leia becomes Queen Leia for the new government To me, that fits the more adult tone of the second film and wraps it up properly I thought. I don't know if it was Lucas' compromising or just where he felt things should go, given a million options he had. Whether Kurtz' interview was fiction or truth- I like his summary of how it should have ended far better than the actual ending of ROTJ. Still great stuff in it, but.... the brother/sister thing seemed way too convenient for me. |
|
