Should there be another reboot or move forward?

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 4, 2021 8:56:14 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 3, 2021 20:10:41 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I think of Ridley Scott in the same vein as George Lucas.... I will always be grateful for some classic masterpieces they put out.... but also look away with some of the others that weren't exactly masterpieces and give him credit for some great memories and the influence some of their winners had on cinema in general...

There are a lot of similarities there. They’re part of the same generation as filmmakers. Both more concerned with the visual and technical side than the writing and characters. I do think Ridley works better with actors and can get the most out of them.

Unfortunately in their later years they’ve both been dead set on whoring out their greatest most influential creations just to squeeze out every last dime. They’ve both lost touch to some extent.

Scott even compared Alien to Star Wars when he talked about turning it into a certain kind of money making merchandise machine. The films had a lot of things in common as far as that lived in visual approach but being a mainstream crowd pleasing marketing machine is the one thing they shouldn’t have in common. I’d hate to see the Alien in a happy meal set.

Alien sadly is (imo) one of those properties that got milked to death and then some...

I was originally looking forward to the Alien revival with Sigourney Weaver and ignoring Alien 3, but after seeing Cameron's so-so revival with Terminator (he made the same mistake as Alien 3 did imo- killing off one of the main characters you were rooting for with John Connor... also pushing Sarah Connor to the side just wasn't all that interesting).... I feel like it's probably better off to rest for awhile so that we can forget all the bad sequels that followed a couple of good movies. (But at least it had ONE great sequel!)

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 7, 2021 9:27:07 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I think Spiderman 3 would have been less bad if it was split into two films but those two films still would have had problems. Sandman’s origin is still paper thin and cliched and Brock/Venom as a concept sound be terrible. There would also have to be changes to his origin. The Venom movie did a far better job of introducing the symbiote. Spider-Man 3 and 4 would have given more time to develop characters like Gwen though.

I can’t compare TDKR and a Snyder film. Nolan, even at his worst, is still better than Snyder at his best imo. Snyder may have “cool” imagery in his films but at least Nolan strives for some depth of story and character and that goes a long way with me. I just don’t care about anyone or anything in Snyder’s DC movies. Superman died and it didn’t register with me at all emotionally. Compare how Rises handled its big moments from Knightfall to how BvS handles its big moments from The Death of Superman. Nolan made a much stronger impression with his handling of a similar 90s comic book event story.

At least Rises has some strong performances and story elements. Snyder takes great actors and handcuffs them with a lack of direction. Amy Adams is one of the best actresses of her generation and yet she was pretty forgettable in BvS. Adams said if herself she was disappointed there wasn’t more there. The only one who made any kind of impression in MOS to me was Michael Shannon and even that went off the rails at the end.

I was okay with Sandman's origin... it was simple and felt like the Lee/Ditko comics imo.

Originally Kirsten Dunst was to leave Spiderman 3 mid-film and Gwen Stacey's character was to take over, which I was fine with, but the whole 'amnesia' thing - among other problems- just had too many things working agsinst Spiderman 3 to keep it from being a giant mess with some neat parts here and there.

TDKR to me was incredibly joyless and all the characters who might have had heart were off-screen or pushed away. (Alfred, Gordon's family, etc.) It had some neat ideas, but overall it really felt like Nolan did not give the script enough attention and development as the other two Batman films or ... if he's happy with the results, I think he was way too focused on the 'aha' plot twists and definitely not enough on the character development of the characters.

In any case, I hate to say it, but to me despite best intentions, this is the only Nolan film I've seen where I enjoyed Batman vs. Superman or MOS better. At least there were some neat visuals in those.
But- moot point. Part of me wishes that Nolan had an Oliver Stone's approach and felt like he could go back and fix TDKR like Stone felt he should have gone back to re-edit Alexander.

[dejan]

@ metallo

Thanks for that infographic....very revealing....and the results at the end are not surprising.
One thing to take into consideration with regards to STM is that Reeve was only in it for 2/3rds of the time....and still managed more dialogue than Routh and Cavill in their respective movies... and they participated in their flicks pretty much from the get go!

and @  metallo & cam 

I actually rewatched Spidey 3 for the first time in about 8 years(roughly!) the other night.
My personal impressions......it's still the mess it always was!
Having said that it is an uneven mess and there are some moments which are not bad.
Personally I prefer TDKR to Spidey 3......but that is not saying much!

I think we are all in agreement that Spidey 2 would be a good reference/baseline for what a Supes reboot should aspire too(in terms of quality).

Having said that.....check out(if you have not already) this iconoclastic breakdown of Spidey 2.



There are some interesting and valid observations IMHO.
What it does show is that with tight editing, fine recitals, quality directing, powerful music, good effects ect ect.......you can paper over the cracks!

Those same contradictory cracks were present in Spidey 3 too.....but without the aforementioned attributes mentioned above......those cracks were exposed for all to see.

[Metallo]

Feb 9, 2021 1:13:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 4, 2021 8:56:14 GMT -5 Metallo said:

There are a lot of similarities there. They’re part of the same generation as filmmakers. Both more concerned with the visual and technical side than the writing and characters. I do think Ridley works better with actors and can get the most out of them.

Unfortunately in their later years they’ve both been dead set on whoring out their greatest most influential creations just to squeeze out every last dime. They’ve both lost touch to some extent.

Scott even compared Alien to Star Wars when he talked about turning it into a certain kind of money making merchandise machine. The films had a lot of things in common as far as that lived in visual approach but being a mainstream crowd pleasing marketing machine is the one thing they shouldn’t have in common. I’d hate to see the Alien in a happy meal set.

Alien sadly is (imo) one of those properties that got milked to death and then some...

I was originally looking forward to the Alien revival with Sigourney Weaver and ignoring Alien 3, but after seeing Cameron's so-so revival with Terminator (he made the same mistake as Alien 3 did imo- killing off one of the main characters you were rooting for with John Connor... also pushing Sarah Connor to the side just wasn't all that interesting).... I feel like it's probably better off to rest for awhile so that we can forget all the bad sequels that followed a couple of good movies. (But at least it had ONE great sequel!)

I sort of agree. I was a big fan of the guy who was going to redo Alien 3 but his last couple of movies were a mixed bag. I’m also not a fan of the retcon sequels that ignore certain other sequels because it just makes continuity a confusing quagmire.

I think the best thing for the Alien franchise is to take some time off and come back with a new story and characters. The 40th anniversary shorts were better than anything that’s been done with the movies in decades and I think those are the kinds of stories (just expanded) that the franchise needs to be going for. Lower budget stuff that is psychologically terrifying.

[Metallo]

Feb 9, 2021 1:22:50 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 7, 2021 9:27:07 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I think Spiderman 3 would have been less bad if it was split into two films but those two films still would have had problems. Sandman’s origin is still paper thin and cliched and Brock/Venom as a concept sound be terrible. There would also have to be changes to his origin. The Venom movie did a far better job of introducing the symbiote. Spider-Man 3 and 4 would have given more time to develop characters like Gwen though.

I can’t compare TDKR and a Snyder film. Nolan, even at his worst, is still better than Snyder at his best imo. Snyder may have “cool” imagery in his films but at least Nolan strives for some depth of story and character and that goes a long way with me. I just don’t care about anyone or anything in Snyder’s DC movies. Superman died and it didn’t register with me at all emotionally. Compare how Rises handled its big moments from Knightfall to how BvS handles its big moments from The Death of Superman. Nolan made a much stronger impression with his handling of a similar 90s comic book event story.

At least Rises has some strong performances and story elements. Snyder takes great actors and handcuffs them with a lack of direction. Amy Adams is one of the best actresses of her generation and yet she was pretty forgettable in BvS. Adams said if herself she was disappointed there wasn’t more there. The only one who made any kind of impression in MOS to me was Michael Shannon and even that went off the rails at the end.

I was okay with Sandman's origin... it was simple and felt like the Lee/Ditko comics imo.

Originally Kirsten Dunst was to leave Spiderman 3 mid-film and Gwen Stacey's character was to take over, which I was fine with, but the whole 'amnesia' thing - among other problems- just had too many things working agsinst Spiderman 3 to keep it from being a giant mess with some neat parts here and there.

TDKR to me was incredibly joyless and all the characters who might have had heart were off-screen or pushed away. (Alfred, Gordon's family, etc.) It had some neat ideas, but overall it really felt like Nolan did not give the script enough attention and development as the other two Batman films or ... if he's happy with the results, I think he was way too focused on the 'aha' plot twists and definitely not enough on the character development of the characters.

In any case, I hate to say it, but to me despite best intentions, this is the only Nolan film I've seen where I enjoyed Batman vs. Superman or MOS better. At least there were some neat visuals in those.
But- moot point. Part of me wishes that Nolan had an Oliver Stone's approach and felt like he could go back and fix TDKR like Stone felt he should have gone back to re-edit Alexander.

I don’t mind simple but Sandman’s origin in the movie was just thrown together and meaningless just like Venoms. Zero work was done to explain it. It was a symptom of the films overall problems.

If that’s what they were going to do with MJ and Gwen that sounds even worse than what we got. That whole love triangle needed a proper resolution. It’s not like we got one in the final film but to have one leave halfway through while the other one gets with Peter just feels like they didn’t know what to do.

I don’t think RISES was joyless but there is a sense that the bleakness builds and builds and there’s no light at the end of the tunnel til the very end. The end of the film does give a sense of closure and peace for Bruce Wayne though. He’s free of the burden of Batman and is given a normal happy life and a woman he loves. Doesn’t really jive with the comic book character and his driven obsession but this isn’t the comic. Nolan’s Batman is a more real world take and realistically I could see Batman taking a way out for a happy life if he felt there was no more he could do or had to give.

I’m kinda glad Nolan isn’t doing an Oliver Stone or Lucas. I love a good directors cut or alternate version as much as anyone but there a part of me that respects a director who has control and final cut sticking with the version he released.

[Metallo]

Feb 9, 2021 17:43:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

@ metallo

Thanks for that infographic....very revealing....and the results at the end are not surprising.
One thing to take into consideration with regards to STM is that Reeve was only in it for 2/3rds of the time....and still managed more dialogue than Routh and Cavill in their respective movies... and they participated in their flicks pretty much from the get go!

and @  metallo & cam 

I actually rewatched Spidey 3 for the first time in about 8 years(roughly!) the other night.
My personal impressions......it's still the mess it always was!
Having said that it is an uneven mess and there are some moments which are not bad.
Personally I prefer TDKR to Spidey 3......but that is not saying much!

I think we are all in agreement that Spidey 2 would be a good reference/baseline for what a Supes reboot should aspire too(in terms of quality).

Having said that.....check out(if you have not already) this iconoclastic breakdown of Spidey 2.



There are some interesting and valid observations IMHO.
What it does show is that with tight editing, fine recitals, quality directing, powerful music, good effects ect ect.......you can paper over the cracks!

Those same contradictory cracks were present in Spidey 3 too.....but without the aforementioned attributes mentioned above......those cracks were exposed for all to see.

Don’t get me wrong Spider-Man 2 isn’t perfect and I do think it’s a little overrated but like you said I think the good parts make you not worry about any minor flaws or nitpicks. No movie is perfect but if the good outweighs the bad and builds enough good will it can go a long way.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 10, 2021 12:11:22 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 9, 2021 17:43:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

@ metallo

Thanks for that infographic....very revealing....and the results at the end are not surprising.
One thing to take into consideration with regards to STM is that Reeve was only in it for 2/3rds of the time....and still managed more dialogue than Routh and Cavill in their respective movies... and they participated in their flicks pretty much from the get go!

and @  metallo & cam 

I actually rewatched Spidey 3 for the first time in about 8 years(roughly!) the other night.
My personal impressions......it's still the mess it always was!
Having said that it is an uneven mess and there are some moments which are not bad.
Personally I prefer TDKR to Spidey 3......but that is not saying much!

I think we are all in agreement that Spidey 2 would be a good reference/baseline for what a Supes reboot should aspire too(in terms of quality).

Having said that.....check out(if you have not already) this iconoclastic breakdown of Spidey 2.



There are some interesting and valid observations IMHO.
What it does show is that with tight editing, fine recitals, quality directing, powerful music, good effects ect ect.......you can paper over the cracks!

Those same contradictory cracks were present in Spidey 3 too.....but without the aforementioned attributes mentioned above......those cracks were exposed for all to see.

Don’t get me wrong Spider-Man 2 isn’t perfect and I do think it’s a little overrated but like you said I think the good parts make you not worry about any minor flaws or nitpicks. No movie is perfect but if the good outweighs the bad and builds enough good will it can go a long way.

Very true!