Jude Law as Superman and Colin Farrell as Batman

[Metallo]

Years ago they were rumored to be the top choices for the characters in Wolfgang Peterson’s Batman vs Superman movie and these videos seemingly confirm they were at least considering it.

[dejan]

Metallo

hehe thanks for those......have never seen them before.

1st thing that struck me:

Don't blame Donner for forgetting who Snyder is......Farell could barely remember him either.

Nice also to see Jude Law hum a few bars from the Donner/Reeve/Williams's films......hey he could have hummed a few bars from the Hans Zimmer's score!(and there probably would not have been an audience reaction!).  

As for the actors themselves......it's interesting.

Reeve and Routh (and to a lesser extent Cavill) were unknowns at the time that they were selected to play Supes.
Jude Law on the other hand was quite well known by the time Supes was being proposed to him as a viable project.
So his own reaction to thinking that the world would not accept him as Supes may have some credence. Having said that, I personally think he is a far more refined actor than Cavill or Routh......so would definitely have been interesting to see him in the part. And with Nolan / Bane type sleight of hand techniques it might have been a down sight more convincing than what we got with Routh or Cavill.
Ditto for Farell. 
Of course there are so many other variables(script, chemistry with fellow actors, editing, cinematography, effects, direction ect ect) that it may be a pointless parlor game to hypothesize what it would have been like 

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 3, 2021 17:04:39 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

hehe thanks for those......have never seen them before.

1st thing that struck me:

Don't blame Donner for forgetting who Snyder is......Farell could barely remember him either.

Nice also to see Jude Law hum a few bars from the Donner/Reeve/Williams's films......hey he could have hummed a few bars from the Hans Zimmer's score!(and there probably would not have been an audience reaction!).  

As for the actors themselves......it's interesting.

Reeve and Routh (and to a lesser extent Cavill) were unknowns at the time that they were selected to play Supes.
Jude Law on the other hand was quite well known by the time Supes was being proposed to him as a viable project.
So his own reaction to thinking that the world would not accept him as Supes may have some credence. Having said that, I personally think he is a far more refined actor than Cavill or Routh......so would definitely have been interesting to see him in the part. And with Nolan / Bane type sleight of hand techniques it might have been a down sight more convincing than what we got with Routh or Cavill.
Ditto for Farell. 
Of course there are so many other variables(script, chemistry with fellow actors, editing, cinematography, effects, direction ect ect) that it may be a pointless parlor game to hypothesize what it would have been like 

Jude always kind of struck me as a bit TOO 'skinny' to play Supes.... but I guess they said the same about Reeve?

Collin Farrell I guess would have been 'okay' as Batman- but I think there are other actors that feel more 'dark' or 'edgy' that I might feel would have been more 'right' for it. (Ray Liotta when he was younger I think would have been a fantastic Bruce Wayne myself)

But- very true.... variables count!

[Metallo]

I think Law and Farrell are both fine actors but were both just way too well known for those characters and the casting was never quite right. Felt like the same kind of stereotypical Hollywood casting that gave us Nic Cage as Superman. Something a studio exec would go for rather than a good casting director. Get a hot star... who cares if it makes sense.

It’s funny that they’ve both ended up in comic book movies only it’s as villains. Farrell did play Bullseye around that same time now he’s in an actual Batman film—except as the Penguin! Law of course was in Captain Marvel.

They were both better fits as bad guys imo. There was also the rumor that Bryan Singer offered Law the role of Zod and that makes way more sense to me. If Superman does get rebooted I’d offer him Zod again. I can’t wait to see what Farrell does with Penguin.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 4, 2021 8:46:07 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I think Law and Farrell are both fine actors but were both just way too well known for those characters and the casting was never quite right. Felt like the same kind of stereotypical Hollywood casting that gave us Nic Cage as Superman. Something a studio exec would go for rather than a good casting director. Get a hot star... who cares if it makes sense.

It’s funny that they’ve both ended up in comic book movies only it’s as villains. Farrell did play Bullseye around that same time now he’s in an actual Batman film—except as the Penguin! Law of course was in Captain Marvel.

They were both better fits as bad guys imo. There was also the rumor that Bryan Singer offered Law the role of Zod and that makes way more sense to me. If Superman does get rebooted I’d offer him Zod again. I can’t wait to see what Farrell does with Penguin.

Generally speaking, I think a 'known' actor can play a supporting part better even if they have a little baggage.

For the main heroes, more often than not, I think the 'known' aspects works against them.

Tony Stark in the comics I never really saw as RDJ- but Stark was kind of a second-or-third level Bruce Wayne personality-wise imo but with a drinking problem - and so I was fine when it melded with RDJ's very strong personality.

Now, when RDJ talks in public, I think of Tony Stark, bizzarely.

[Metallo]

I think it depends on the character/actor combo. Superman and Batman are such huge iconic characters they sell themselves. You don’t need a name actor to get people interested. A character like Iron Man was far lesser known and less popular to the general public before the movie. It’s not like there had been other iron man movies and tv shows before. A smattering of cartoon appearances was about it.

Downey wasn’t a huge name at the time he was cast but he wasn’t a total unknown either. Downey was respected for his talents but he wasn’t going to completely swallow up the character the way Tom Cruise would have and make it a Tom Cruise movie first. Iron Man was a case where actor and character kind of met in the middle and it worked out for the best.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 5, 2021 9:06:18 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I think it depends on the character/actor combo. Superman and Batman are such huge iconic characters they sell themselves. You don’t need a name actor to get people interested. A character like Iron Man was far lesser known and less popular to the general public before the movie. It’s not like there had been other iron man movies and tv shows before. A smattering of cartoon appearances was about it.

Downey wasn’t a huge name at the time he was cast but he wasn’t a total unknown either. Downey was respected for his talents but he wasn’t going to completely swallow up the character the way Tom Cruise would have and make it a Tom Cruise movie first. Iron Man was a case where actor and character kind of met in the middle and it worked out for the best.

Agreed... it really is incredibly subjective though, too as to what is convincing enough so that you only see the character if enough of the actor matches up to what one feels is ‘dead on’ for a character. Part of it is also certain mannerisms that some actors carry with them to every performance that either line up or take away from the believability of them in a given role.

To me, Emily Blunt disppears in many roles to me, whereas actors like Scarlett Johansen and Ben Affleck take a bit of work to see them as thier superhero counterparts.

[dejan]

@cam and metallo

Imagine in a hypothetical scenario ,if history had been different and and that there had only ever been an   SIV!(and just to add insult to injury imagine it being called STM!)......then imagine SR  and MOS  appearing as they eventually did all those years later  without any alterations.....in such a scenario, I personally would have  had a much harder time justifying Reeve over the other guys(I know that may sound controversial!).

The point I am making is that one cannot divorce the portrayal from the other elements that contribute to the efficacy of the film(s) as a whole.

Actually Reeve's own appearance fluctuated(within reason) throughout the course of all 4 films(and in the case of STM throughout the film itself!).

It is courtesy of the immense skill of the editors, directors, make up artists, cinematographers ect....that the audience did  not notice these discrepancies......thus allowing Reeve's performance to retain a semblance of  integrity and consistency across SI,II, & III .

And it is because of the lack of quality regarding the aforementioned factors outlined above that Reeve's portrayal of Supes in SIV fell below his usually (and exceptional) high standards(IMHO).

So as a priming point it will be fundamental to have a strong actor recite the role......but it's also gonna count for diddley squat if other  elements fall by the way side!

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 6, 2021 0:38:49 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam and metallo

Imagine in a hypothetical scenario ,if history had been different and and that there had only ever been an   SIV!(and just to add insult to injury imagine it being called STM!)......then imagine SR  and MOS  appearing as they eventually did all those years later  without any alterations.....in such a scenario, I personally would have  had a much harder time justifying Reeve over the other guys(I know that may sound controversial!).

The point I am making is that one cannot divorce the portrayal from the other elements that contribute to the efficacy of the film(s) as a whole.

Actually Reeve's own appearance fluctuated(within reason) throughout the course of all 4 films(and in the case of STM throughout the film itself!).

It is courtesy of the immense skill of the editors, directors, make up artists, cinematographers ect....that the audience did  not notice these discrepancies......thus allowing Reeve's performance to retain a semblance of  integrity and consistency across SI,II, & III .

And it is because of the lack of quality regarding the aforementioned factors outlined above that Reeve's portrayal of Supes in SIV fell below his usually (and exceptional) high standards(IMHO).

So as a priming point it will be fundamental to have a strong actor recite the role......but it's also gonna count for diddley squat if other  elements fall by the way side!

Absolutely! I don't remember who said it, but I totally agree that a bad editor alone can make a good performance look terrible.... hence, my own giving Donner the benefit of the doubt with the parts of the Donner cut footage that seems to underwhelm...

[Metallo]

Feb 6, 2021 0:38:49 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam and metallo

Imagine in a hypothetical scenario ,if history had been different and and that there had only ever been an   SIV!(and just to add insult to injury imagine it being called STM!)......then imagine SR  and MOS  appearing as they eventually did all those years later  without any alterations.....in such a scenario, I personally would have  had a much harder time justifying Reeve over the other guys(I know that may sound controversial!).

The point I am making is that one cannot divorce the portrayal from the other elements that contribute to the efficacy of the film(s) as a whole.

Actually Reeve's own appearance fluctuated(within reason) throughout the course of all 4 films(and in the case of STM throughout the film itself!).

It is courtesy of the immense skill of the editors, directors, make up artists, cinematographers ect....that the audience did  not notice these discrepancies......thus allowing Reeve's performance to retain a semblance of  integrity and consistency across SI,II, & III .

And it is because of the lack of quality regarding the aforementioned factors outlined above that Reeve's portrayal of Supes in SIV fell below his usually (and exceptional) high standards(IMHO).

So as a priming point it will be fundamental to have a strong actor recite the role......but it's also gonna count for diddley squat if other  elements fall by the way side!

Reeves portrayal in and of itself is fine in that movie. At worst you could claim the material and direction isn’t as good but he’s certainly not bad. Of course you could claim the same thing about III. with the exception of the evil Superman stuff it’s not up to the standard of the first two. The work is good but the support isn’t there.

I’d still take Reeve in IV over Routh or Cavill. I think you can divorce a great performance from the terrible movie it might happen to be in. Marc Strong in green lantern is a perfect example. Most people agree he was perfect in that it’s just that the movie was a colossal disappointment. Liev Schrieber was ideal as Victor Creed in X-men origins Wolverine but the movie is hot garbage. Doesn’t make sense. The problem is most people don’t know it because they didn’t bother to SEE the movie and if they did they were too distracted by all the awfulness. Good performances in films like that just tend to get overlooked entirely.

The opposite is just as true. Great material and directing can’t help if the role is painfully miscast. Lots of examples of that in big movies especially lately. There’s something off about Rachel Dawes in both Batman movies she appears on. Katie Holmes in particular stuck out like a sore thumb in Batman Begins.

[dejan]

Metallo

Good points.

Yes I too would still take Reeve's overall SIV portrayal over Routh or Cavill but the gap gets closer if SIV is isolated from the other 3 films.
The fight on the moon in SIV is so badly choreographed that even Jackie Chan would have struggled to look good in it!!
But despite having had had his hands tied behind his back, Reeve still has to shoulder part of the blame for how that whole sequence panned out(along with the rest of the cast and crew).
Of course the changes in technology over the last 30 years are such that a lot of bad live footage can be salvaged in post production. That option was not there for SIV. 

Yes I had  forgotten about Holmes in Begins( and Gyllenhal in TDK).
In fact there was a touch of hoopla that Holmes was not selected to come back for TDK in 2007......but it was very mild......probably because she was not the main fulcrum of the movie, but still an essential foil for Bale's Batman/Wayne none the less.
The dynamic of the relationship (Bale/Homes) bore some resemblance to the Maguire/Dunsten combo(in terms of the main protagonist hiding the superhero disguise from the female character).
But Raimi had more of an old fashioned(much like Donner) romantic streak which worked very well for Spidey 2 in particular. In fact it drives that movie.
Nolan has yet to display any efficacy with regards to pure romance in any of his flicks(one may argue they don't need it!). They are quite cold in that department. And unfortunately that romantic coldness was expressed in MOS.

And it maybe cliche' but Supes needs that romantic foil.

It's interesting you brought up SIII.....because it too suffered due to the fact there was no substantial relationship for Reeve/Supes to play off with(be it Lois or Lana).

So yeah a new reboot needs a good portrayal encapsulated within all the other essential ingredients that make an exceptional Supes movie. And like STM it needs that central love relationship from which everything else can spring off from.....IMHO ofcourse!


 

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 6, 2021 10:34:54 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 6, 2021 0:38:49 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam and metallo

Imagine in a hypothetical scenario ,if history had been different and and that there had only ever been an   SIV!(and just to add insult to injury imagine it being called STM!)......then imagine SR  and MOS  appearing as they eventually did all those years later  without any alterations.....in such a scenario, I personally would have  had a much harder time justifying Reeve over the other guys(I know that may sound controversial!).

The point I am making is that one cannot divorce the portrayal from the other elements that contribute to the efficacy of the film(s) as a whole.

Actually Reeve's own appearance fluctuated(within reason) throughout the course of all 4 films(and in the case of STM throughout the film itself!).

It is courtesy of the immense skill of the editors, directors, make up artists, cinematographers ect....that the audience did  not notice these discrepancies......thus allowing Reeve's performance to retain a semblance of  integrity and consistency across SI,II, & III .

And it is because of the lack of quality regarding the aforementioned factors outlined above that Reeve's portrayal of Supes in SIV fell below his usually (and exceptional) high standards(IMHO).

So as a priming point it will be fundamental to have a strong actor recite the role......but it's also gonna count for diddley squat if other  elements fall by the way side!

Reeves portrayal in and of itself is fine in that movie. At worst you could claim the material and direction isn’t as good but he’s certainly not bad. Of course you could claim the same thing about III. with the exception of the evil Superman stuff it’s not up to the standard of the first two. The work is good but the support isn’t there.

I’d still take Reeve in IV over Routh or Cavill. I think you can divorce a great performance from the terrible movie it might happen to be in. Marc Strong in green lantern is a perfect example. Most people agree he was perfect in that it’s just that the movie was a colossal disappointment. Liev Schrieber was ideal as Victor Creed in X-men origins Wolverine but the movie is hot garbage. Doesn’t make sense. The problem is most people don’t know it because they didn’t bother to SEE the movie and if they did they were too distracted by all the awfulness. Good performances in films like that just tend to get overlooked entirely.

The opposite is just as true. Great material and directing can’t help if the role is painfully miscast. Lots of examples of that in big movies especially lately. There’s something off about Rachel Dawes in both Batman movies she appears on. Katie Holmes in particular stuck out like a sore thumb in Batman Begins.

I agree on Holmes in Batman Begins .... I don't mind Katie Holmes in some other films, but she didn't have any chemistry with Bale (though arguably Gyllenhall didn't really seem to, either, but fit better as an assistant d.a. than Holmes would have)- and- felt like she was in the wrong film. Pity how it does weaken Batman Begins quite a bit. Good thing it works great outside of her miscasting.

[Metallo]

Feb 6, 2021 15:21:39 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

Good points.

Yes I too would still take Reeve's overall SIV portrayal over Routh or Cavill but the gap gets closer if SIV is isolated from the other 3 films.
The fight on the moon in SIV is so badly choreographed that even Jackie Chan would have struggled to look good in it!!
But despite having had had his hands tied behind his back, Reeve still has to shoulder part of the blame for how that whole sequence panned out(along with the rest of the cast and crew).
Of course the changes in technology over the last 30 years are such that a lot of bad live footage can be salvaged in post production. That option was not there for SIV. 

Yes I had  forgotten about Holmes in Begins( and Gyllenhal in TDK).
In fact there was a touch of hoopla that Holmes was not selected to come back for TDK in 2007......but it was very mild......probably because she was not the main fulcrum of the movie, but still an essential foil for Bale's Batman/Wayne none the less.
The dynamic of the relationship (Bale/Homes) bore some resemblance to the Maguire/Dunsten combo(in terms of the main protagonist hiding the superhero disguise from the female character).
But Raimi had more of an old fashioned(much like Donner) romantic streak which worked very well for Spidey 2 in particular. In fact it drives that movie.
Nolan has yet to display any efficacy with regards to pure romance in any of his flicks(one may argue they don't need it!). They are quite cold in that department. And unfortunately that romantic coldness was expressed in MOS.

And it maybe cliche' but Supes needs that romantic foil.

It's interesting you brought up SIII.....because it too suffered due to the fact there was no substantial relationship for Reeve/Supes to play off with(be it Lois or Lana).

So yeah a new reboot needs a good portrayal encapsulated within all the other essential ingredients that make an exceptional Supes movie. And like STM it needs that central love relationship from which everything else can spring off from.....IMHO ofcourse!


 

I think you can only put so much of the blame on Reeve. He may have been a second unit director but while he didn’t have much experience he also had little time or budget. Even for an experienced director you’ve got to have the time to plan and stage sequences like that along with good choreographers or lead stunt men who I’m sure he didn’t hire. Same stuff happened on MOTU. Gary Goddard WAS A fine director but he simply couldn’t make the final battle between Skeletor and He-man work because the production was out of money and the producers didn’t want to allot the time or money to finish the sequence. Goddard had to make due the best he good. Same thing happened again on Captain America. For movies of that type Golan failed again and again to support his filmmakers when they desperately need it more than most. You’d have to be an exceptional filmmaker to make conditions like that work with virtually nothing to use.

I’d agree on Nolan romance is one of his weak spots. A lot of people didn’t mind Holmes being replaced. Most of any complaining came from people who don’t like recasting at all but Gyllenhaal was a trade up as the superior actress. The character was just still poorly developed and there wasn’t much chemistry there with Bale.

Raimi did handle the romance in the Spider-man films better because it is the driving force behind the first film but I’d argue even Dunst was miscast. The Amazing Spider-Man movies may have been far inferior to Raimis but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was much better than the chemistry between Maguire and Dunst and Emma Stone was a much better piece of casting. It’s another example where performances are good in poor movies.

[dejan]

Metallo

I noticed I contradicted myself by insisting that any Supes film needs a love story.........SIV had it!
And it still  could not salvage that train wreck of a movie.

On a personal level , I just wish Reeve had honored his own statements made repeatedly between 1981 to 1983 that SIII would be his last Supes outing.
Going with Golan & Globus was a mistake of epic proportions , irrespective of whatever budget was assigned initially.
Putting aside the effects, it's poorly directed ,poorly photographed ,poorly written and quite frankly poorly recited(and IMHO that includes Reeve to an extent).Indeed, several journals were not shy to pan Reeve's performance,  and at the time,  that was an unfortunate  first with regards to his Supes portrayals.
To be fair there were also a few critics who liked his performance so fair's fair!.......hey it's still Chris Reeve! 

But I do personally hold Reeve responsible for saying yes with regards to initiating a chain reaction that was was always going to explode in failure. All he had to do was say no when all the temptations were swirling around him to induce him to come back in the first place. Once everything was set in motion, Reeve became nothing more than just another cog in the chain that was destined to get blocked!.

So no doubt, a Supes portrayal with visceral integrity will be a key component of any reboot.
But like any functional  orchestra, it's going to necessitate that all the players synchronize in unity to a give a convincing ,cohesive and efficacious movie as a whole. I know that is easier said than done!.

I agree with you that Dunst may have been miscast.
For Spidey 1 ,I personally felt the Maguire and Dunst  relationship was a bit forced and inorganic.
Somehow they managed to turn it round in 2004 for the sequel and make something out of it.
Only to revert back to the misalignment in chemistry (that effected part 1) in part 3(and a distorted script made it worse!).

What you said about Emma Stone is true!
And what we don't want is a great Supes performance in a crap movie!

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 6, 2021 16:45:02 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 6, 2021 15:21:39 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

Good points.

Yes I too would still take Reeve's overall SIV portrayal over Routh or Cavill but the gap gets closer if SIV is isolated from the other 3 films.
The fight on the moon in SIV is so badly choreographed that even Jackie Chan would have struggled to look good in it!!
But despite having had had his hands tied behind his back, Reeve still has to shoulder part of the blame for how that whole sequence panned out(along with the rest of the cast and crew).
Of course the changes in technology over the last 30 years are such that a lot of bad live footage can be salvaged in post production. That option was not there for SIV. 

Yes I had  forgotten about Holmes in Begins( and Gyllenhal in TDK).
In fact there was a touch of hoopla that Holmes was not selected to come back for TDK in 2007......but it was very mild......probably because she was not the main fulcrum of the movie, but still an essential foil for Bale's Batman/Wayne none the less.
The dynamic of the relationship (Bale/Homes) bore some resemblance to the Maguire/Dunsten combo(in terms of the main protagonist hiding the superhero disguise from the female character).
But Raimi had more of an old fashioned(much like Donner) romantic streak which worked very well for Spidey 2 in particular. In fact it drives that movie.
Nolan has yet to display any efficacy with regards to pure romance in any of his flicks(one may argue they don't need it!). They are quite cold in that department. And unfortunately that romantic coldness was expressed in MOS.

And it maybe cliche' but Supes needs that romantic foil.

It's interesting you brought up SIII.....because it too suffered due to the fact there was no substantial relationship for Reeve/Supes to play off with(be it Lois or Lana).

So yeah a new reboot needs a good portrayal encapsulated within all the other essential ingredients that make an exceptional Supes movie. And like STM it needs that central love relationship from which everything else can spring off from.....IMHO ofcourse!


 

I think you can only put so much of the blame on Reeve. He may have been a second unit director but while he didn’t have much experience he also had little time or budget. Even for an experienced director you’ve got to have the time to plan and stage sequences like that along with good choreographers or lead stunt men who I’m sure he didn’t hire. Same stuff happened on MOTU. Gary Goddard WAS A fine director but he simply couldn’t make the final battle between Skeletor and He-man work because the production was out of money and the producers didn’t want to allot the time or money to finish the sequence. Goddard had to make due the best he good. Same thing happened again on Captain America. For movies of that type Golan failed again and again to support his filmmakers when they desperately need it more than most. You’d have to be an exception filmmaker to make conditions like that work with virtually nothing to use.

I’d agree on Nolan romance is one of his weak spots. A lot of people didn’t mind Holmes being replaced. Most of any complaining came from people who don’t like recasting at all but Gyllenhaal was a trade up as the superior actress. The character was just still poorly developed and there wasn’t much chemistry there with Bale.

Raimi did handle the romance in the Spider-man films better because it is the driving force behind the first film but I’d argue even Dunst was miscast. The Amazing Spider-Man movies may have been far inferior to Raimis but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was much better than the chemistry between Maguire and Dunst and Emma Stone was a much better piece of casting. It’s another example where performances are good in poor movies.

I agree that if the time and money isn't supporting someone (or the actors) as a director- it's hard to know how much one can blame the director for the final results.

It's part of why I wish Reeve had gone into more detail on the behind the scenes of Superman IV- but it's understandable if it's too sort a point... but even moreso I wish Sydney Furie did a commentary to explain in detail how the process was in compromising left and right and so that we could see what he had to go through and if one might have agreed with some of his decisions if many things had his hands tied. We know money was slashed, what else was taken away? Time to rehearse? Shorter days to shoot, and, so, imperfect performances might have had to have been accepted in certain scenes? Etc.--

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 7, 2021 17:58:16 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

I noticed I contradicted myself by insisting that any Supes film needs a love story.........SIV had it!
And it still  could not salvage that train wreck of a movie.

On a personal level , I just wish Reeve had honored his own statements made repeatedly between 1981 to 1983 that SIII would be his last Supes outing.
Going with Golan & Globus was a mistake of epic proportions , irrespective of whatever budget was assigned initially.
Putting aside the effects, it's poorly directed ,poorly photographed ,poorly written and quite frankly poorly recited(and IMHO that includes Reeve to an extent).Indeed, several journals were not shy to pan Reeve's performance,  and at the time,  that was an unfortunate  first with regards to his Supes portrayals.
To be fair there were also a few critics who liked his performance so fair's fair!.......hey it's still Chris Reeve! 

But I do personally hold Reeve responsible for saying yes with regards to initiating a chain reaction that was was always going to explode in failure. All he had to do was say no when all the temptations were swirling around him to induce him to come back in the first place. Once everything was set in motion, Reeve became nothing more than just another cog in the chain that was destined to get blocked!.

So no doubt, a Supes portrayal with visceral integrity will be a key component of any reboot.
But like any functional  orchestra, it's going to necessitate that all the players synchronize in unity to a give a convincing ,cohesive and efficacious movie as a whole. I know that is easier said than done!.

I agree with you that Dunst may have been miscast.
For Spidey 1 ,I personally felt the Maguire and Dunst  relationship was a bit forced and inorganic.
Somehow they managed to turn it round in 2004 for the sequel and make something out of it.
Only to revert back to the misalignment in chemistry (that effected part 1) in part 3(and a distorted script made it worse!).

What you said about Emma Stone is true!
And what we don't want is a great Supes performance in a crap movie!

To be fair.... if you were in Reeve's position at that time (he did not have a huge success in films outside of Superman and Somewhere in Time was only a cult hit) not financially secure as an actor at that point & someone offered you $5 million and a possibility for a return to greatness - would you say no?

Personally, while SIV was a gut punch for terribleness- SIII and the last act of SII was a bigger gut punch for me. There are portions of SIV I enjoy and like and could see from the script that it tried to take certain elements of Superman seriously and committed to it.... but the editing and the money really undermined it.

On the flip side, I do find it interesting to note that there were/are fans of SIV for whom SIV was the first Reeve Superman film they experienced on the big screen as a kid- who might not have cared about the substandard fx and not as picky about parts of the story that should have stayed in to make sense.

In the end, while I was bummed that SIV tanked the revival (though I hate to say it, but the way it was written/directed, Margot did seem a bit too old as well as some of the other actors to have had a new set of movies follow this with that same cast)of the Reeve Superman series- Personally, I'm still glad that the Reeve movies finished on SIV than SIII. (If you look at it as a low budget fan film with Reeve or a rehearsal for a 'real' Superman film, it doesn't seem nearly as bad.) If Reeve Superman films ended with SIII, I always would have wondered 'what if' Reeve gave it one more try. So, there's that...

[Metallo]

Feb 7, 2021 17:58:16 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

I noticed I contradicted myself by insisting that any Supes film needs a love story.........SIV had it!
And it still  could not salvage that train wreck of a movie.

On a personal level , I just wish Reeve had honored his own statements made repeatedly between 1981 to 1983 that SIII would be his last Supes outing.
Going with Golan & Globus was a mistake of epic proportions , irrespective of whatever budget was assigned initially.
Putting aside the effects, it's poorly directed ,poorly photographed ,poorly written and quite frankly poorly recited(and IMHO that includes Reeve to an extent).Indeed, several journals were not shy to pan Reeve's performance,  and at the time,  that was an unfortunate  first with regards to his Supes portrayals.
To be fair there were also a few critics who liked his performance so fair's fair!.......hey it's still Chris Reeve! 

But I do personally hold Reeve responsible for saying yes with regards to initiating a chain reaction that was was always going to explode in failure. All he had to do was say no when all the temptations were swirling around him to induce him to come back in the first place. Once everything was set in motion, Reeve became nothing more than just another cog in the chain that was destined to get blocked!.

So no doubt, a Supes portrayal with visceral integrity will be a key component of any reboot.
But like any functional  orchestra, it's going to necessitate that all the players synchronize in unity to a give a convincing ,cohesive and efficacious movie as a whole. I know that is easier said than done!.

I agree with you that Dunst may have been miscast.
For Spidey 1 ,I personally felt the Maguire and Dunst  relationship was a bit forced and inorganic.
Somehow they managed to turn it round in 2004 for the sequel and make something out of it.
Only to revert back to the misalignment in chemistry (that effected part 1) in part 3(and a distorted script made it worse!).

What you said about Emma Stone is true!
And what we don't want is a great Supes performance in a crap movie!

You weren’t really wrong. You said the love story should be the center of the film. In IV it was an afterthought with Lois and Lacy. The relationship with Clark and Lana was more interesting and better handled but it got lost in the shuffle of the mediocre a plot.

I had no problem with Reeve coming back for IV. If he’d said no Cannon or the Salkinds would have just done a fourth film with another actor. The temptation would have been too much. The Salkinds were going to do a version of Superman V with Gerard Christopher but they just ran out of time.

I think at that time he tried to give Cannon the benefit of the doubt. With the kind of money they threw at him and their promise to finance Street Smart it probably eased his concerns. Why would anyone put their foot forward with that that kind of money or they weren’t going to follow through? He just didn’t realize Cannon were in over their heads. A lot of people fell for their con though. Stallone did too!

With Spider-Man 2 they just had a brilliant and near perfect story. Dunst was still the wrong choice and she and Maguire still didn’t quite click but the film was so good it covered up any flaws there. The material elevated everything.

[Metallo]

Feb 7, 2021 23:54:09 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 6, 2021 16:45:02 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I think you can only put so much of the blame on Reeve. He may have been a second unit director but while he didn’t have much experience he also had little time or budget. Even for an experienced director you’ve got to have the time to plan and stage sequences like that along with good choreographers or lead stunt men who I’m sure he didn’t hire. Same stuff happened on MOTU. Gary Goddard WAS A fine director but he simply couldn’t make the final battle between Skeletor and He-man work because the production was out of money and the producers didn’t want to allot the time or money to finish the sequence. Goddard had to make due the best he good. Same thing happened again on Captain America. For movies of that type Golan failed again and again to support his filmmakers when they desperately need it more than most. You’d have to be an exception filmmaker to make conditions like that work with virtually nothing to use.

I’d agree on Nolan romance is one of his weak spots. A lot of people didn’t mind Holmes being replaced. Most of any complaining came from people who don’t like recasting at all but Gyllenhaal was a trade up as the superior actress. The character was just still poorly developed and there wasn’t much chemistry there with Bale.

Raimi did handle the romance in the Spider-man films better because it is the driving force behind the first film but I’d argue even Dunst was miscast. The Amazing Spider-Man movies may have been far inferior to Raimis but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was much better than the chemistry between Maguire and Dunst and Emma Stone was a much better piece of casting. It’s another example where performances are good in poor movies.

I agree that if the time and money isn't supporting someone (or the actors) as a director- it's hard to know how much one can blame the director for the final results.

It's part of why I wish Reeve had gone into more detail on the behind the scenes of Superman IV- but it's understandable if it's too sort a point... but even moreso I wish Sydney Furie did a commentary to explain in detail how the process was in compromising left and right and so that we could see what he had to go through and if one might have agreed with some of his decisions if many things had his hands tied. We know money was slashed, what else was taken away? Time to rehearse? Shorter days to shoot, and, so, imperfect performances might have had to have been accepted in certain scenes? Etc.--

They were apparently just not even filming certain things and cutting our parts of the script too, CAM. I’m pretty sure Jon Cryer has talked about that recently. Whole sequences would be cut to save on time and money. Explains why some stuff doesn’t even make sense in the deleted scenes.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 8, 2021 17:03:59 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 7, 2021 17:58:16 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

I noticed I contradicted myself by insisting that any Supes film needs a love story.........SIV had it!
And it still  could not salvage that train wreck of a movie.

On a personal level , I just wish Reeve had honored his own statements made repeatedly between 1981 to 1983 that SIII would be his last Supes outing.
Going with Golan & Globus was a mistake of epic proportions , irrespective of whatever budget was assigned initially.
Putting aside the effects, it's poorly directed ,poorly photographed ,poorly written and quite frankly poorly recited(and IMHO that includes Reeve to an extent).Indeed, several journals were not shy to pan Reeve's performance,  and at the time,  that was an unfortunate  first with regards to his Supes portrayals.
To be fair there were also a few critics who liked his performance so fair's fair!.......hey it's still Chris Reeve! 

But I do personally hold Reeve responsible for saying yes with regards to initiating a chain reaction that was was always going to explode in failure. All he had to do was say no when all the temptations were swirling around him to induce him to come back in the first place. Once everything was set in motion, Reeve became nothing more than just another cog in the chain that was destined to get blocked!.

So no doubt, a Supes portrayal with visceral integrity will be a key component of any reboot.
But like any functional  orchestra, it's going to necessitate that all the players synchronize in unity to a give a convincing ,cohesive and efficacious movie as a whole. I know that is easier said than done!.

I agree with you that Dunst may have been miscast.
For Spidey 1 ,I personally felt the Maguire and Dunst  relationship was a bit forced and inorganic.
Somehow they managed to turn it round in 2004 for the sequel and make something out of it.
Only to revert back to the misalignment in chemistry (that effected part 1) in part 3(and a distorted script made it worse!).

What you said about Emma Stone is true!
And what we don't want is a great Supes performance in a crap movie!

You weren’t really wrong. You said the love story should be the center of the film. In IV it was an afterthought with Lois and Lacy. The relationship with Clark and Lana was more interesting and better handled but it got lost in the shuffle of the mediocre a plot.

I had no problem with Reeve coming back for IV. If he’d said no Cannon or the Salkinds would have just done a fourth film with another actor. The temptation would have been too much. The Salkinds were going to do a version of Superman V with Gerard Christopher but they just ran out of time.

I think at that time he tried to give Cannon the benefit of the doubt. With the kind of money they threw at him and their promise to finance Street Smart it probably eased his concerns. Why would anyone put their foot forward with that that kind of money or they weren’t going to follow through? He just didn’t realize Cannon were in over their heads. A lot of people fell for their con though. Stallone did too!

With Spider-Man 2 they just had a brilliant and near perfect story. Dunst was still the wrong choice and she and Maguire still didn’t quite click but the film was so good it covered up any flaws there. The material elevated everything.

I wasn't really super-crazy about Maguire nor Dunst in the beginning, but to me they seemed to match, even if neither really looked like their comic book counterparts to me.

Dunst in interviews and bts footage seems like a fun and charming person that probably made Raimi think of her for the role.

I agree that Spiderman 2 was INCREDIBLY good. Such a pity that the third one was just so unnecessarily bad by Sony rushing Raimi to meet the release date before it was really ready & other misfortunes during filming.

[Metallo]

Maguire was a pretty spot on early 60s/silver age Peter Parker. His Spidey was lacking more than anything. Dunst doesn’t really fit any version of MJ. I’d be fine with that if he’d Mary Jane was great in its own right but I don’t think it is.

They weren’t awful together but the chemistry wasn’t great either. I think it was Raimi and the material making them work well together more than anything. Raimi was telling the kind of first love/unrequited love story most of us can relate to and he told it well. He was probably putting a lot of his own experiences growing up in there.

By the time of Spider-Man 3 they were together and that lack of chemistry showed because there was no anticipation or strong story there to tell. Dunst also seemed to be kinda over the whole thing by 3 and as we’ve learned over the years Maguire wasn’t always the easiest guy to deal with. Neither was Raimi by that point hence the falling out with Danny Elfman.

[dejan]

Feb 8, 2021 0:56:19 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 7, 2021 17:58:16 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

I noticed I contradicted myself by insisting that any Supes film needs a love story.........SIV had it!
And it still  could not salvage that train wreck of a movie.

On a personal level , I just wish Reeve had honored his own statements made repeatedly between 1981 to 1983 that SIII would be his last Supes outing.
Going with Golan & Globus was a mistake of epic proportions , irrespective of whatever budget was assigned initially.
Putting aside the effects, it's poorly directed ,poorly photographed ,poorly written and quite frankly poorly recited(and IMHO that includes Reeve to an extent).Indeed, several journals were not shy to pan Reeve's performance,  and at the time,  that was an unfortunate  first with regards to his Supes portrayals.
To be fair there were also a few critics who liked his performance so fair's fair!.......hey it's still Chris Reeve! 

But I do personally hold Reeve responsible for saying yes with regards to initiating a chain reaction that was was always going to explode in failure. All he had to do was say no when all the temptations were swirling around him to induce him to come back in the first place. Once everything was set in motion, Reeve became nothing more than just another cog in the chain that was destined to get blocked!.

So no doubt, a Supes portrayal with visceral integrity will be a key component of any reboot.
But like any functional  orchestra, it's going to necessitate that all the players synchronize in unity to a give a convincing ,cohesive and efficacious movie as a whole. I know that is easier said than done!.

I agree with you that Dunst may have been miscast.
For Spidey 1 ,I personally felt the Maguire and Dunst  relationship was a bit forced and inorganic.
Somehow they managed to turn it round in 2004 for the sequel and make something out of it.
Only to revert back to the misalignment in chemistry (that effected part 1) in part 3(and a distorted script made it worse!).

What you said about Emma Stone is true!
And what we don't want is a great Supes performance in a crap movie!

To be fair.... if you were in Reeve's position at that time (he did not have a huge success in films outside of Superman and Somewhere in Time was only a cult hit) not financially secure as an actor at that point & someone offered you $5 million and a possibility for a return to greatness - would you say no?

Personally, while SIV was a gut punch for terribleness- SIII and the last act of SII was a bigger gut punch for me. There are portions of SIV I enjoy and like and could see from the script that it tried to take certain elements of Superman seriously and committed to it.... but the editing and the money really undermined it.

On the flip side, I do find it interesting to note that there were/are fans of SIV for whom SIV was the first Reeve Superman film they experienced on the big screen as a kid- who might not have cared about the substandard fx and not as picky about parts of the story that should have stayed in to make sense.

In the end, while I was bummed that SIV tanked the revival (though I hate to say it, but the way it was written/directed, Margot did seem a bit too old as well as some of the other actors to have had a new set of movies follow this with that same cast)of the Reeve Superman series- Personally, I'm still glad that the Reeve movies finished on SIV than SIII. (If you look at it as a low budget fan film with Reeve or a rehearsal for a 'real' Superman film, it doesn't seem nearly as bad.) If Reeve Superman films ended with SIII, I always would have wondered 'what if' Reeve gave it one more try. So, there's that...

Fair points as always cam.

Reeve was correct about one thing after the release of SIII.........that the franchise had run it's course.....there was nothing left to do in cinematic terms(sure as a template, the comics offered infinite possibilities /stories to tell....but they did not  always translate well to the big screen).
And whilst SIII did not achieve the heights of I & II(either in corporate or artistic terms) it was still a piece of unique cinematic entertainment within the context of 1983(or the late 70s/early 80s).

As an intriguing hypothesis:
If there had been a fan insurrection in the mid 80s(as opposed to the early - mid 2000s).......a Donner cut could have been forged at that point(circa 1985-86-87)!---between LadyHawke and Lethal Weapon.
Just imagine that in the mid 80s......Donner's SII footage would have been easier to salvage seeing as it would have been  relatively closer to the time period where it had been archived(late 70s).
By allowing another 20 years to go by(i.e 2005).....I am sure some of  that SII footage just got lost/dumped.

But in the mid 80s key actors and production staff were still around to theoretically contribute additional/ new footage!
Just imagine Brando ,Hackman, Reeve and Kidder coming back circa 1985-86 to film the scenes they never got to complete in that original 77-78 shoot!

And whilst the actors had aged(by 1986) since that original shooting schedule(77-78)......I would much rather have had those continuity anomalies that would have perforated a hypothetical mid 80s Donner SII cut......than was the travesty that ended up being SIV!

Hmmm.....maybe that is worth a thread of it's own............a hypothetical 1986/87 SII Donner cut(with a full budget and returning actors to boot!).

[Metallo]

Feb 13, 2021 13:03:30 GMT -5 dejan said:

Feb 8, 2021 0:56:19 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

To be fair.... if you were in Reeve's position at that time (he did not have a huge success in films outside of Superman and Somewhere in Time was only a cult hit) not financially secure as an actor at that point & someone offered you $5 million and a possibility for a return to greatness - would you say no?

Personally, while SIV was a gut punch for terribleness- SIII and the last act of SII was a bigger gut punch for me. There are portions of SIV I enjoy and like and could see from the script that it tried to take certain elements of Superman seriously and committed to it.... but the editing and the money really undermined it.

On the flip side, I do find it interesting to note that there were/are fans of SIV for whom SIV was the first Reeve Superman film they experienced on the big screen as a kid- who might not have cared about the substandard fx and not as picky about parts of the story that should have stayed in to make sense.

In the end, while I was bummed that SIV tanked the revival (though I hate to say it, but the way it was written/directed, Margot did seem a bit too old as well as some of the other actors to have had a new set of movies follow this with that same cast)of the Reeve Superman series- Personally, I'm still glad that the Reeve movies finished on SIV than SIII. (If you look at it as a low budget fan film with Reeve or a rehearsal for a 'real' Superman film, it doesn't seem nearly as bad.) If Reeve Superman films ended with SIII, I always would have wondered 'what if' Reeve gave it one more try. So, there's that...

Fair points as always cam.

Reeve was correct about one thing after the release of SIII.........that the franchise had run it's course.....there was nothing left to do in cinematic terms(sure as a template, the comics offered infinite possibilities /stories to tell....but they did not  always translate well to the big screen).
And whilst SIII did not achieve the heights of I & II(either in corporate or artistic terms) it was still a piece of unique cinematic entertainment within the context of 1983(or the late 70s/early 80s).

As an intriguing hypothesis:
If there had been a fan insurrection in the mid 80s(as opposed to the early - mid 2000s).......a Donner cut could have been forged at that point(circa 1985-86-87)!---between LadyHawke and Lethal Weapon.
Just imagine that in the mid 80s......Donner's SII footage would have been easier to salvage seeing as it would have been  relatively closer to the time period where it had been archived(late 70s).
By allowing another 20 years to go by(i.e 2005).....I am sure some of  that SII footage just got lost/dumped.

But in the mid 80s key actors and production staff were still around to theoretically contribute additional/ new footage!
Just imagine Brando ,Hackman, Reeve and Kidder coming back circa 1985-86 to film the scenes they never got to complete in that original 77-78 shoot!

And whilst the actors had aged(by 1986) since that original shooting schedule(77-78)......I would much rather have had those continuity anomalies that would have perforated a hypothetical mid 80s Donner SII cut......than was the travesty that ended up being SIV!

Hmmm.....maybe that is worth a thread of it's own............a hypothetical 1986/87 SII Donner cut(with a full budget and returning actors to boot!).

I think there was plenty left to do with the franchise creatively after Superman III. The problem is it was run by people and worked on by writers who didn’t have a clue what to do with it. It may have run it’s course based on the audience losing interest but AGAIN that was on the producers and writers who didn’t have a clue what to do with it! It’d almost be funny if it didn’t end up killing what could have been a great film series.

To be fair to the Salkinds the movie industry as a whole just wasn’t made to think so outside the box creatively when it came to comic book films back then. It would take another 30 years before they finally began to figure it out and even then it was only some of them. Fox and Sony were clueless half the time. So is WB.

If they’d had someone like Kevin Feige running the film series back then we’d probably be at least 20 movies deep in a Reeve centric DC film universe and we’d be seeing things we couldn’t even imagine. Heck the guy may have never gotten on that horse because he was too busy working and he’d still be playing Superman now for all we know.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 13, 2021 13:03:30 GMT -5 dejan said:

Feb 8, 2021 0:56:19 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

To be fair.... if you were in Reeve's position at that time (he did not have a huge success in films outside of Superman and Somewhere in Time was only a cult hit) not financially secure as an actor at that point & someone offered you $5 million and a possibility for a return to greatness - would you say no?

Personally, while SIV was a gut punch for terribleness- SIII and the last act of SII was a bigger gut punch for me. There are portions of SIV I enjoy and like and could see from the script that it tried to take certain elements of Superman seriously and committed to it.... but the editing and the money really undermined it.

On the flip side, I do find it interesting to note that there were/are fans of SIV for whom SIV was the first Reeve Superman film they experienced on the big screen as a kid- who might not have cared about the substandard fx and not as picky about parts of the story that should have stayed in to make sense.

In the end, while I was bummed that SIV tanked the revival (though I hate to say it, but the way it was written/directed, Margot did seem a bit too old as well as some of the other actors to have had a new set of movies follow this with that same cast)of the Reeve Superman series- Personally, I'm still glad that the Reeve movies finished on SIV than SIII. (If you look at it as a low budget fan film with Reeve or a rehearsal for a 'real' Superman film, it doesn't seem nearly as bad.) If Reeve Superman films ended with SIII, I always would have wondered 'what if' Reeve gave it one more try. So, there's that...

Fair points as always cam.

Reeve was correct about one thing after the release of SIII.........that the franchise had run it's course.....there was nothing left to do in cinematic terms(sure as a template, the comics offered infinite possibilities /stories to tell....but they did not  always translate well to the big screen).
And whilst SIII did not achieve the heights of I & II(either in corporate or artistic terms) it was still a piece of unique cinematic entertainment within the context of 1983(or the late 70s/early 80s).

As an intriguing hypothesis:
If there had been a fan insurrection in the mid 80s(as opposed to the early - mid 2000s).......a Donner cut could have been forged at that point(circa 1985-86-87)!---between LadyHawke and Lethal Weapon.
Just imagine that in the mid 80s......Donner's SII footage would have been easier to salvage seeing as it would have been  relatively closer to the time period where it had been archived(late 70s).
By allowing another 20 years to go by(i.e 2005).....I am sure some of  that SII footage just got lost/dumped.

But in the mid 80s key actors and production staff were still around to theoretically contribute additional/ new footage!
Just imagine Brando ,Hackman, Reeve and Kidder coming back circa 1985-86 to film the scenes they never got to complete in that original 77-78 shoot!

And whilst the actors had aged(by 1986) since that original shooting schedule(77-78)......I would much rather have had those continuity anomalies that would have perforated a hypothetical mid 80s Donner SII cut......than was the travesty that ended up being SIV!

Hmmm.....maybe that is worth a thread of it's own............a hypothetical 1986/87 SII Donner cut(with a full budget and returning actors to boot!).

mmmm.... again, I appreciate the respectful debate.... but if anything the MCU has proven is that there's a TON of comic book material- if handled properly, can make for endless films, crossovers, and spinoffs- but quality control being the key!

(As a great example- the Alien & Terminator franchises versus Marvel's cinematic and now Feige-controlled tv universe)

I will say, though, that for GREAT story arcs/whatnot, I think there were a limited amount of Superman-centric stories that were big budget-worthy in the comics on its own (introducing Supergirl, Brainiac, the Legion, etc.)--- but I saw maybe 7 or 8 films.... not 2 or 3 and done!

If- however- DC had exerted control that everything had to remain the status quo by the end of each movie, then I think it might have been trickier if there was going to be too much micromanagement creatively at that time- to continue the series.

BUT- if WB/DC were 'hands off, do whatever you want'- it would have been fascinating if Donner and Mank had taken up WB's offer to jump back on board and try to right the ship--- but just like Lois having to have a memory wipe of moments here and there, the audience would have to be (and we have been) forgiving of the time-reversal power, the memory kiss power, etc. to go along for the ride as I thought it was a bit of a compromised franchise from the moment of the time reversal creatively...

But- no franchise is perfect. Singer returning to X-men showed just how a franchise could have missteps and still be saved.... (Though at this point, even if Marvel didn't have X-men back, it's hard to see how X-men could return to greatness after Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix...)

With regard to a 'what if' Donner and company came back to do a special edition back in the 80's.... ABSOLUTELY it would have been cool- even if the actors would have been visibly much older, I would have been more than fine with at least them trying to get it fixed the way it should have.

[Metallo]

It wasn’t until the mid 1980s that DC really began to build up a bunch of truly great modern comic book stories to draw from for their movies. There had been a few before then but most of them were pretty cheesy. Once they began to stockpile stories like The Judas Contract, The Great Darkness Saga, The Saga of Swamp Thing, Dark Knight Returns, etc it was clear they were entering a new era of mature modern storytelling. They didn’t begin to heavily draw from stories like that for their films and tv shows until the 21st century though.

Feige always thinks ahead at least five years when he begins to work on anything. And he has it pretty well mapped out as a basic story before they begin. The details get filled in later. Most of the other producers just don’t do that. If the Salkinds had gotten with some of the top writers at DC in the mid 80s to consult more they could have done something similar but they just didn’t have that mindset. It was more like picking and choosing bits from comics and taking it film by film.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 13, 2021 17:35:52 GMT -5 Metallo said:

It wasn’t until the mid 1980s that DC really began to build up a bunch of truly great modern comic book stories to draw from for their movies. There had been a few before then but most of them were pretty cheesy. Once they began to stockpile stories like The Judas Contract, The Great Darkness Saga, The Saga of Swamp Thing, Dark Knight Returns, etc it was clear they were entering a new era of mature modern storytelling. They didn’t begin to heavily draw from stories like that for their films and tv shows until the 21st century though.

Feige always thinks ahead at least five years when he begins to work on anything. And he has it pretty well mapped out as a basic story before they begin. The details get filled in later. Most of the other producers just don’t do that. If the Salkinds had gotten with some of the top writers at DC in the mid 80s to consult more they could have done something similar but they just didn’t have that mindset. It was more like picking and choosing bits from comics and taking it film by film.

More and more I give the Salkinds credit for getting STM off the ground when I think of the context of nobody else in the world even really giving a superhero movie serious consideration at that time. Donner of course made STM immortal creatively, but without Ilya having a wild idea and pushing it to his dad, it's hard to imagine how the MCU or even many of the other superhero films prior to the MCU getting off the ground without STM and its success existing.

Star Wars may have opened the door for big budget fantasy and scifi in movies, but it didn't necessarily mean that the studios were going to be willing to take any chance of a big budget superhero film without STM's success.

As it is, even WITH STM's success, we only saw the Batman franchise and hardly anything else until Spiderman and X-men later on.

Without STM--- would even Batman ever have been made as a big budget film?