atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on May 8, 2021 3:01:55 GMT -5
8 years later, and still nobody has identified who the Reeve Only People are.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2021 15:18:38 GMT -5
8 years later, and still nobody has identified who the Reeve Only People are. I think the Reeve only people are the ones who bought the Hot Toys, dvds, blu rays, etc. over the last 40 years...  |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on May 8, 2021 18:40:05 GMT -5
8 years later, and still nobody has identified who the Reeve Only People are. I think the Reeve only people are the ones who bought the Hot Toys, dvds, blu rays, etc. over the last 40 years... Reeve Only People And Proud!  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 10, 2021 9:47:26 GMT -5
8 years later, and still nobody has identified who the Reeve Only People are. Time flies. The Reeve only people are apparently the majority of the movie going public. Or at least they’re good movie only people. We’re also five years on from BvS. Seems like it was one big waste of time because it wrecked the franchise. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on May 10, 2021 16:13:01 GMT -5
8 years later, and still nobody has identified who the Reeve Only People are. Time flies. The Reeve only people are apparently the majority of the movie going public. Or at least they’re good movie only people. We’re also five years on from BvS. Seems like it was one big waste of time because it wrecked the franchise. Well, Superman Returns and Man Of Steel are essentially old movies now! And at the time that the above ,respectfully came out, some of their fans(not all) considered STM,SII and III like antiques! So SR and MOS fans......welcome to the Reeve Only People club  ! How does it feel to be fans of old movies!? One thing I would not hesitate to say......is that "our" old movies are better than yours!(IMHO of course---lol) It's now 15 years since SR hit the cinemas. I re-watched it recently and still feel underwhelmed by it. It's 8 years for MOS and as I said before in other threads......when I sat there in the theater in 2013.....everything I saw on screen, just reminded me of some of the other sludge I saw that year(Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Desolation Of Smaug).....as well as other recent films at that point(Avatar, Transformers : Dark Side Of The Moon, Potter-Deathly Hallows, Avengers ect ec ). That's one of the main the problems(there are others) with the last 20 years of Superman films......they can't stand out from the contemporary crowd. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 10, 2021 21:31:03 GMT -5
Time flies. The Reeve only people are apparently the majority of the movie going public. Or at least they’re good movie only people. We’re also five years on from BvS. Seems like it was one big waste of time because it wrecked the franchise. Well, Superman Returns and Man Of Steel are essentially old movies now! And at the time that the above ,respectfully came out, some of their fans(not all) considered STM,SII and III like antiques! So SR and MOS fans......welcome to the Reeve Only People club ! How does it feel to be fans of old movies!? One thing I would not hesitate to say......is that "our" old movies are better than yours!(IMHO of course---lol) It's now 15 years since SR hit the cinemas. I re-watched it recently and still feel underwhelmed by it. It's 8 years for MOS and as I said before in other threads......when I sat there in the theater in 2013.....everything I saw on screen, just reminded me of some of the other sludge I saw that year(Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Desolation Of Smaug).....as well as other recent films at that point(Avatar, Transformers : Dark Side Of The Moon, Potter-Deathly Hallows, Avengers ect ec ). That's one of the main the problems(there are others) with the last 20 years of Superman films......they can't stand out from the contemporary crowd. I agree on MOS. I’ve been saying for years that it’s derivative of other better films. It’s like Goyer binge watched a lot of movies for inspiration and just threw some of the big ideas into a blender. Being an old movie is one thing but being an old movie that didn’t even make much of an impact is even worse. I like a lot about SR but it and MoS just seemed to be for nothing. SR at least introduced the world to the idea of a Superman movie with modern film technology at its disposal. That was a unique experience. MOS didn’t do anything new beyond digital destruction porn and other films have done that better. The Avengers had already delivered an epic city destroying superhero battle and alien invasion. MOS felt like reheated leftovers. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2021 7:58:32 GMT -5
Well, Superman Returns and Man Of Steel are essentially old movies now! And at the time that the above ,respectfully came out, some of their fans(not all) considered STM,SII and III like antiques! So SR and MOS fans......welcome to the Reeve Only People club ! How does it feel to be fans of old movies!? One thing I would not hesitate to say......is that "our" old movies are better than yours!(IMHO of course---lol) It's now 15 years since SR hit the cinemas. I re-watched it recently and still feel underwhelmed by it. It's 8 years for MOS and as I said before in other threads......when I sat there in the theater in 2013.....everything I saw on screen, just reminded me of some of the other sludge I saw that year(Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Desolation Of Smaug).....as well as other recent films at that point(Avatar, Transformers : Dark Side Of The Moon, Potter-Deathly Hallows, Avengers ect ec ). That's one of the main the problems(there are others) with the last 20 years of Superman films......they can't stand out from the contemporary crowd. I agree on MOS. I’ve been saying for years that it’s derivative of other better films. It’s like Goyer binge watched a lot of movies for inspiration and just threw some of the big ideas into a blender. Being an old movie is one thing but being an old movie that didn’t even make much of an impact is even worse. I like a lot about SR but it and MoS just seemed to be for nothing. SR at least introduced the world to the idea of a Superman movie with modern film technology at its disposal. That was a unique experience. MOS didn’t do anything new beyond digital destruction porn and other films have done that better. The Avengers had already delivered an epic city destroying superhero battle and alien invasion. MOS felt like reheated leftovers. SR added a unique level (at the time) of taking an established superhero character and giving him an evolution beyond the comics- him having the kid was done in extremely moving way- that could have been laughable or just plain bad. The problem was: SR was terrible in providing the spectacle or maximizing the 'cool action' factor by removing the superhero battle that one of the screenwriters pushed on, but Singer pushed back on. (Such a pity) After that- with the MCU evolving, it's fantastic that Feige got a great balance of drama with depth mixed with fresh feeling character development and action. It's great to have someone with such great vision in that position of great power at Marvel Studios.... (Don't ever die, Kevin Feige!) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2021 12:38:01 GMT -5
SR added a unique level (at the time) of taking an established superhero character and giving him an evolution beyond the comics- him having the kid was done in extremely moving way- that could have been laughable or just plain bad. The problem was: SR was terrible in providing the spectacle or maximizing the 'cool action' factor by removing the superhero battle that one of the screenwriters pushed on, but Singer pushed back on. (Such a pity) After that- with the MCU evolving, it's fantastic that Feige got a great balance of drama with depth mixed with fresh feeling character development and action. It's great to have someone with such great vision in that position of great power at Marvel Studios.... (Don't ever die, Kevin Feige!) I’ve always given SR credit for being the first on screen adaptation to try to take the stigma off evolving the character even further by making him a father. Lois & Clark brought the marriage to the screen but Superman Returns was the first to take the hit in changing the status quo with a kid. It took a lot of flak for that because we fanboys don’t often like change. Now they’ve done it with Smallvilles Clark being a family man and Superman & Lois gets to do a deep dive long term exploration of the subject. But Superman Returns broached it first on screen. Yeah yeah they got a baby in Lois & Clark’s finale but at the time we weren’t even sure where it came from and the series was cancelled. The reaction didn’t matter. I think if SR had given Lex just one superpowered/enhanced heavy in his gang (maybe using a combo of the kryptonite and the crystals somehow) and had had him fight Superman there’s a chance we’d all be here talking about Superman Returns 4 or 5 right now. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 14, 2021 15:46:37 GMT -5
I just saw Superman Returns for the first time in years.
I have to say: with all the mixed emotions we all had years ago, I can now enjoy the film.
The one thing that kinda stood out to me as a negative was that the climax lacked a satisfactory Superman-Luther resolution. Luther stabs him but they never face each other again for the rest of the film.
Otherwise, I liked the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2021 17:30:56 GMT -5
SR added a unique level (at the time) of taking an established superhero character and giving him an evolution beyond the comics- him having the kid was done in extremely moving way- that could have been laughable or just plain bad. The problem was: SR was terrible in providing the spectacle or maximizing the 'cool action' factor by removing the superhero battle that one of the screenwriters pushed on, but Singer pushed back on. (Such a pity) After that- with the MCU evolving, it's fantastic that Feige got a great balance of drama with depth mixed with fresh feeling character development and action. It's great to have someone with such great vision in that position of great power at Marvel Studios.... (Don't ever die, Kevin Feige!) I’ve always given SR credit for being the first on screen adaptation to try to take the stigma off evolving the character even further by making him a father. Lois & Clark brought the marriage to the screen but Superman Returns was the first to take the hit in changing the status quo with a kid. It took a lot of flak for that because we fanboys don’t often like change. Now they’ve done it with Smallvilles Clark being a family man and Superman & Lois gets to do a deep dive long term exploration of the subject. But Superman Returns broached it first on screen. Yeah yeah they got a baby in Lois & Clark’s finale but at the time we weren’t even sure where it came from and the series was cancelled. The reaction didn’t matter. I think if SR had given Lex just one superpowered/enhanced heavy in his gang (maybe using a combo of the kryptonite and the crystals somehow) and had had him fight Superman there’s a chance we’d all be here talking about Superman Returns 4 or 5 right now. Michael Dougherty said that he fought to have a superfight put in--- I imagine that instead of Supes being beaten up by human thugs, he could have been fighting a crystal-enhanced creature or even a form of Brainiac- and THEN fallen to the ground & get stabbed by Luthor/tossed into the water... there seemed to be a perfect spot to plug a superfight in! But, oh well.... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2021 17:33:11 GMT -5
I just saw Superman Returns for the first time in years. I have to say: with all the mixed emotions we all had years ago, I can now enjoy the film. The one thing that kinda stood out to me as a negative was that the climax lacked a satisfactory Superman-Luther resolution. Luther stabs him but they never face each other again for the rest of the film. Otherwise, I liked the film. I always thought it suprising and interesting that the 'final resolution' didn't have to do with the hero and villain, but Supes' being given hope to live through finding out Jason was his son. Definitely not 'formula'--- and more like an indie film resolution. But.... definitely unsatisfying for superhero film expectations. That's why I said at first: "I love it--- but I can see how nobody else would." |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on May 15, 2021 16:53:37 GMT -5
I’ve always given SR credit for being the first on screen adaptation to try to take the stigma off evolving the character even further by making him a father. Lois & Clark brought the marriage to the screen but Superman Returns was the first to take the hit in changing the status quo with a kid. It took a lot of flak for that because we fanboys don’t often like change. Now they’ve done it with Smallvilles Clark being a family man and Superman & Lois gets to do a deep dive long term exploration of the subject. But Superman Returns broached it first on screen. Yeah yeah they got a baby in Lois & Clark’s finale but at the time we weren’t even sure where it came from and the series was cancelled. The reaction didn’t matter. I think if SR had given Lex just one superpowered/enhanced heavy in his gang (maybe using a combo of the kryptonite and the crystals somehow) and had had him fight Superman there’s a chance we’d all be here talking about Superman Returns 4 or 5 right now. Michael Dougherty said that he fought to have a superfight put in--- I imagine that instead of Supes being beaten up by human thugs, he could have been fighting a crystal-enhanced creature or even a form of Brainiac- and THEN fallen to the ground & get stabbed by Luthor/tossed into the water... there seemed to be a perfect spot to plug a superfight in! But, oh well.... Of course STM did not have one single fight scene either!.....apart from Supes throwing Luther from the box(that encased the Kryptonite) onto the couch! So, IMHO , the absence of combat is not correlated to a lack of quality. Also, the beauty of STM, is that it allowed the audience to revel in the powers that were bestowed on Supes(flight being the principle factor).....and to react to the heroic deeds that perpetuated throughout the last 3rd of the movie. This was a form of spectacle that was practically unprecedented in cinema up until that point(78'). But by 2006, we already had the flying Neo and Agent Smith, the Nazguls in LOTR, Harry Potter on his broomstick(lol!), pod racing and heck......even Spidey swinging from one building to the next in the Raimi flicks(which resembled flight!). So people walking into a cinema in 2006 were well used to seeing stuff fly. Which meant that SR had to rely on another attribute. Allow me to explain. In 06', SR was squarely in the shadows of Pirates-Dead Man's Chest. Now, IMHO, as a movie, Dead Man's Chest is average to mediocre at best.....but for all it's flaws ,it did have a charismatic lead in Depp.....which is exactly what SR lacked. It's precisely because of this handicap, that SR was already in deficit from the get go. Also, the idea of Supes being a pap is/was a great notion. Nothing wrong with it. But appending that particular storyline onto the narrative that derived from the Donner era was the wrong way to implement such a scenario. What they needed to do was to reboot from scratch(storywise).....to allow Routh to grow into his role, and just as importantly.....to solidify his relationship with Bosworth's Lois. Only then, would just such a story have had the narrative weight to have some kind of emotional/substantial significance. Just imagine that history had been different....and the Salkinds/Newmans had decided to make a Superman III that featured just such a storyline......Kidder's Lois giving birth to Clark's child. It technically was possible, because in Lester's SII, whilst Clark's may have erased Lois's memory..... she still could have been pregnant from a depowered Clark?! Think of all the dramatic possibilities emanating from that storyline! But a hypothetical SIII with such a storyline would have featured 2 actors(Reeve& Kidder) who almost had a telepathic understanding. The fact that they were both experienced parents in real life by that point would have added to their ability to convey all the necessary emotions that are attached to such a scenario. That's where Bosworth and Routh fell apart(as well as Singer's directing) in SR. It was a good idea executed poorly because neither the cast or crew had the story telling skills and nuances to make it believable. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 16, 2021 1:05:24 GMT -5
Michael Dougherty said that he fought to have a superfight put in--- I imagine that instead of Supes being beaten up by human thugs, he could have been fighting a crystal-enhanced creature or even a form of Brainiac- and THEN fallen to the ground & get stabbed by Luthor/tossed into the water... there seemed to be a perfect spot to plug a superfight in! But, oh well.... Of course STM did not have one single fight scene either!.....apart from Supes throwing Luther from the box(that encased the Kryptonite) onto the couch! So, IMHO , the absence of combat is not correlated to a lack of quality. Also, the beauty of STM, is that it allowed the audience to revel in the powers that were bestowed on Supes(flight being the principle factor).....and to react to the heroic deeds that perpetuated throughout the last 3rd of the movie. This was a form of spectacle that was practically unprecedented in cinema up until that point(78'). But by 2006, we already had the flying Neo and Agent Smith, the Nazguls in LOTR, Harry Potter on his broomstick(lol!), pod racing and heck......even Spidey swinging from one building to the next in the Raimi flicks(which resembled flight!). So people walking into a cinema in 2006 were well used to seeing stuff fly. Which meant that SR had to rely on another attribute. Allow me to explain. In 06', SR was squarely in the shadows of Pirates-Dead Man's Chest. Now, IMHO, as a movie, Dead Man's Chest is average to mediocre at best.....but for all it's flaws ,it did have a charismatic lead in Depp.....which is exactly what SR lacked. It's precisely because of this handicap, that SR was already in deficit from the get go. Also, the idea of Supes being a pap is/was a great notion. Nothing wrong with it. But appending that particular storyline onto the narrative that derived from the Donner era was the wrong way to implement such a scenario. What they needed to do was to reboot from scratch(storywise).....to allow Routh to grow into his role, and just as importantly.....to solidify his relationship with Bosworth's Lois. Only then, would just such a story have had the narrative weight to have some kind of emotional/substantial significance. Just imagine that history had been different....and the Salkinds/Newmans had decided to make a Superman III that featured just such a storyline......Kidder's Lois giving birth to Clark's child. It technically was possible, because in Lester's SII, whilst Clark's may have erased Lois's memory..... she still could have been pregnant from a depowered Clark?! Think of all the dramatic possibilities emanating from that storyline! But a hypothetical SIII with such a storyline would have featured 2 actors(Reeve& Kidder) who almost had a telepathic understanding. The fact that they were both experienced parents in real life by that point would have added to their ability to convey all the necessary emotions that are attached to such a scenario. That's where Bosworth and Routh fell apart(as well as Singer's directing) in SR. It was a good idea executed poorly because neither the cast or crew had the story telling skills and nuances to make it believable. As usual, dejan, another brilliant and insightful post. First of all, I have to agree that the lack of a supervillain fight is a red herring. As you said, STM didn't have a supervillain fight either. It is not a necessary part of a good superhero movie. You know which recent Superman movies did have supervillain fights? That's right: MoS, BvS and Justice League. And they were all crap movies that blend into each other. In the 21st century, if a superhero movie wants to stand out, it actually needs LESS action and more drama. That's partly why I think 2000's Unbreakable is so good. Now onto the second point. I definitely agree that SR should have rebooted the story first, before introducing the idea of a child. There was not enough investment in the characters. Making a sequel or follow-up after decades is a risky business. I can think of two examples that got it right. The first is the Creed movie. The second is the Cobra Kai series. Both are "love letters" to 1980s movies, and they both could easily have been a joke and failed. That they didn't fail is due to great writing, but also because the main actors from the original movies were still around. There was still enough of an investment in the characters played by Stallone and by William Zabka and Ralph Macchio to carry the stories. (Cobra Kai is beginning to jump the shark in the latest season, but that's off the topic!) SR tried to add too much onto a story that most of the audience had probably forgotten, and without the original actors to help give it weight. In 2006, we also got Casino Royale. That was an example of how to do a proper reboot. It's not perfect (subsequent viewings feel a little bit overstuffed), but nobody can deny that it worked. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 16, 2021 2:52:35 GMT -5
Michael Dougherty said that he fought to have a superfight put in--- I imagine that instead of Supes being beaten up by human thugs, he could have been fighting a crystal-enhanced creature or even a form of Brainiac- and THEN fallen to the ground & get stabbed by Luthor/tossed into the water... there seemed to be a perfect spot to plug a superfight in! But, oh well.... Of course STM did not have one single fight scene either!.....apart from Supes throwing Luther from the box(that encased the Kryptonite) onto the couch! So, IMHO , the absence of combat is not correlated to a lack of quality. Also, the beauty of STM, is that it allowed the audience to revel in the powers that were bestowed on Supes(flight being the principle factor).....and to react to the heroic deeds that perpetuated throughout the last 3rd of the movie. This was a form of spectacle that was practically unprecedented in cinema up until that point(78'). But by 2006, we already had the flying Neo and Agent Smith, the Nazguls in LOTR, Harry Potter on his broomstick(lol!), pod racing and heck......even Spidey swinging from one building to the next in the Raimi flicks(which resembled flight!). So people walking into a cinema in 2006 were well used to seeing stuff fly. Which meant that SR had to rely on another attribute. Allow me to explain. In 06', SR was squarely in the shadows of Pirates-Dead Man's Chest. Now, IMHO, as a movie, Dead Man's Chest is average to mediocre at best.....but for all it's flaws ,it did have a charismatic lead in Depp.....which is exactly what SR lacked. It's precisely because of this handicap, that SR was already in deficit from the get go. Also, the idea of Supes being a pap is/was a great notion. Nothing wrong with it. But appending that particular storyline onto the narrative that derived from the Donner era was the wrong way to implement such a scenario. What they needed to do was to reboot from scratch(storywise).....to allow Routh to grow into his role, and just as importantly.....to solidify his relationship with Bosworth's Lois. Only then, would just such a story have had the narrative weight to have some kind of emotional/substantial significance. Just imagine that history had been different....and the Salkinds/Newmans had decided to make a Superman III that featured just such a storyline......Kidder's Lois giving birth to Clark's child. It technically was possible, because in Lester's SII, whilst Clark's may have erased Lois's memory..... she still could have been pregnant from a depowered Clark?! Think of all the dramatic possibilities emanating from that storyline! But a hypothetical SIII with such a storyline would have featured 2 actors(Reeve& Kidder) who almost had a telepathic understanding. The fact that they were both experienced parents in real life by that point would have added to their ability to convey all the necessary emotions that are attached to such a scenario. That's where Bosworth and Routh fell apart(as well as Singer's directing) in SR. It was a good idea executed poorly because neither the cast or crew had the story telling skills and nuances to make it believable. STM didn't need to have a superfight at the end- but generally a giant 'peak' scene at the end of SOME SORT to give a sense of catharsis. STM's scene with Lois' death/ Supes' primal scream/ decisive action to disobay his father was that 'peak' scene that otherwise would have just relied on the 'cliffhanger' with Zod and the Criminals being free to give that final 'juice' to the film.... which would have been interesting if STM had stuck to its initial plan to do just that- but it would have reinforced the idea of STM mainly being HALF of a story rather than one mostly self-contained one. I thought Routh was fine in SR- there might be one line delivery or two that I thought was a bit odd... but he sounded amazingly like Reeve- he gave off Reeve's vibes (to me) to an incredible degree. The story itself was very melancholy and dark- but dark in terms of a character with a broken heart and trying to find his way back... whereas MOS was dark and fairly heartless, a touch sadistic, and tone-deaf (who needed a scene of Supes using his heat vision on a screaming Lois???). You make a good point- I would NOT have liked a Superman III with a pregnant Lois with Reeve and Kidder back then.... but (and I know I'm not in the popular opinion on this) Singer I felt made it work somehow and moving with Routh and Bosworth- to my amazement. I have friends that looked as young as Bosworth looked that had kids, so that never was an impediment to my belief in that scenario. At the same time--- the opportunity to have fx and a budget for a Superman movie means being able to see shite that you'd WANT to see Superman do. Lifting things and picking up things is... okay.... but there's a primal inner kid that wants to see fantasy heroes battle and punch villains, robots, monsters, etc.--- the barrier in the past was budget and fx technology--- so in that sense, there was a MAJOR missed opportunity. (In MOS's case- there was battle, but it was just loud and noisy and annoying.... not even choreographed in a way to be exhiliarating... even beyond not caring about the characters on screen. The otherwise awful directors' cut of Sucker Punch at least had an awesome action scene in the middle) In viewing Superman IV, I really feel that though Kidder and Reeve were a great match in STM/SII--- physically they looked like the age difference between them got far more pronounced and I can't 1000 percent fault Reeve for feeling he needed a younger actress to play Lois opposite him by that time (the makeup and tone they had for Margot didn't help- trying to have her act the same as STM seemed a bit 'off' when she did look much older then).... so I'm not sure if I would have wanted them to use the plot for SR for SIV with Kidder and Reeve either, but.... again... for me, Singer isn't a perfect director and some bits of SR flop, but the love story is one thing that I really felt worked on a suprising level to me. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 16, 2021 3:01:33 GMT -5
Hmnn.... I actually hated Unbreakable, feeling that the drama didn't work (Partly the story, partly Bruce Willis' smirk throughout the film).... but I have friends who adore that film and not SR... again, agree to have different feelings on films- oh well... (shrug)
I totally agree that SR's making of a sequel decades later was TOTALLY risky creatively and business-wise.... but that's why I always felt that Singer never got (and still doesn't I think) enough credit to try to emulate Donner and Reeve's version of Superman.
If you think about it- it's EXTREMELY 'humble' to do that in Hwood- (I think)
If you 'win', then Donner and Reeve get full credit. If you 'lose', then you're just ripping them off and not being original.
But- if you're a true fan, then you don't care if you don't gain points but just want to see Donner/Reeve's version back on the bigscreen and continued as best as one can without the original actors available!
Which is kind of what happened....
Casino Royale was fine, but... outside of "Skyfall", I can't say I've fallen in love with any of the Daniel Craig sequels to revisit it.
On the other hand, I found myself revisiting some of the Roger Moore, Dalton, and Pierce outings. I guess in dark times you want lighter material?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 16, 2021 3:32:03 GMT -5
Hmnn.... I actually hated Unbreakable, feeling that the drama didn't work (Partly the story, partly Bruce Willis' smirk throughout the film).... but I have friends who adore that film and not SR... again, agree to have different feelings on films- oh well... (shrug) I totally agree that SR's making of a sequel decades later was TOTALLY risky creatively and business-wise.... but that's why I always felt that Singer never got (and still doesn't I think) enough credit to try to emulate Donner and Reeve's version of Superman. If you think about it- it's EXTREMELY 'humble' to do that in Hwood- (I think) If you 'win', then Donner and Reeve get full credit. If you 'lose', then you're just ripping them off and not being original. But- if you're a true fan, then you don't care if you don't gain points but just want to see Donner/Reeve's version back on the bigscreen and continued as best as one can without the original actors available! Which is kind of what happened.... Casino Royale was fine, but... outside of "Skyfall", I can't say I've fallen in love with any of the Daniel Craig sequels to revisit it. On the other hand, I found myself revisiting some of the Roger Moore, Dalton, and Pierce outings. I guess in dark times you want lighter material? Casino Royale was good,but the other Daniel Craig films have been awful. I wouldn't be surprised if his last one is also the end of the franchise. The Bond films have also lost what made them special, and just blend in to the background of a dozen other franchises now. As for Superman Returns, I don't think Singer was wrong to try emulate Donner's films and build off those. But for several reasons, it didn't work properly. He does still deserve credit for it though,but I think he was the wrong director. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 16, 2021 3:36:27 GMT -5
Oh, and I actually hated Unbreakable when I first saw it! I thought it was boring and a disappointing let down after The Sixth Sense.
It has only really grown on me in the past 10 years or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 16, 2021 10:38:10 GMT -5
Oh, and I actually hated Unbreakable when I first saw it! I thought it was boring and a disappointing let down after The Sixth Sense. It has only really grown on me in the past 10 years or so. I think the problem for me was lack of belief mid-way point.... and then to have Willis as 'super-hoodie man'- that you root for felt cynical with his casting (to me). Loved Sixth Sense and Willis was fine in that one and in Die Hard, though.... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2021 12:52:48 GMT -5
Of course STM did not have one single fight scene either!.....apart from Supes throwing Luther from the box(that encased the Kryptonite) onto the couch! So, IMHO , the absence of combat is not correlated to a lack of quality. Also, the beauty of STM, is that it allowed the audience to revel in the powers that were bestowed on Supes(flight being the principle factor).....and to react to the heroic deeds that perpetuated throughout the last 3rd of the movie. This was a form of spectacle that was practically unprecedented in cinema up until that point(78'). But by 2006, we already had the flying Neo and Agent Smith, the Nazguls in LOTR, Harry Potter on his broomstick(lol!), pod racing and heck......even Spidey swinging from one building to the next in the Raimi flicks(which resembled flight!). So people walking into a cinema in 2006 were well used to seeing stuff fly. Which meant that SR had to rely on another attribute. Allow me to explain. In 06', SR was squarely in the shadows of Pirates-Dead Man's Chest. Now, IMHO, as a movie, Dead Man's Chest is average to mediocre at best.....but for all it's flaws ,it did have a charismatic lead in Depp.....which is exactly what SR lacked. It's precisely because of this handicap, that SR was already in deficit from the get go. Also, the idea of Supes being a pap is/was a great notion. Nothing wrong with it. But appending that particular storyline onto the narrative that derived from the Donner era was the wrong way to implement such a scenario. What they needed to do was to reboot from scratch(storywise).....to allow Routh to grow into his role, and just as importantly.....to solidify his relationship with Bosworth's Lois. Only then, would just such a story have had the narrative weight to have some kind of emotional/substantial significance. Just imagine that history had been different....and the Salkinds/Newmans had decided to make a Superman III that featured just such a storyline......Kidder's Lois giving birth to Clark's child. It technically was possible, because in Lester's SII, whilst Clark's may have erased Lois's memory..... she still could have been pregnant from a depowered Clark?! Think of all the dramatic possibilities emanating from that storyline! But a hypothetical SIII with such a storyline would have featured 2 actors(Reeve& Kidder) who almost had a telepathic understanding. The fact that they were both experienced parents in real life by that point would have added to their ability to convey all the necessary emotions that are attached to such a scenario. That's where Bosworth and Routh fell apart(as well as Singer's directing) in SR. It was a good idea executed poorly because neither the cast or crew had the story telling skills and nuances to make it believable. As usual, dejan, another brilliant and insightful post. First of all, I have to agree that the lack of a supervillain fight is a red herring. As you said, STM didn't have a supervillain fight either. It is not a necessary part of a good superhero movie. You know which recent Superman movies did have supervillain fights? That's right: MoS, BvS and Justice League. And they were all crap movies that blend into each other. In the 21st century, if a superhero movie wants to stand out, it actually needs LESS action and more drama. That's partly why I think 2000's Unbreakable is so good. Now onto the second point. I definitely agree that SR should have rebooted the story first, before introducing the idea of a child. There was not enough investment in the characters. Making a sequel or follow-up after decades is a risky business. I can think of two examples that got it right. The first is the Creed movie. The second is the Cobra Kai series. Both are "love letters" to 1980s movies, and they both could easily have been a joke and failed. That they didn't fail is due to great writing, but also because the main actors from the original movies were still around. There was still enough of an investment in the characters played by Stallone and by William Zabka and Ralph Macchio to carry the stories. (Cobra Kai is beginning to jump the shark in the latest season, but that's off the topic!) SR tried to add too much onto a story that most of the audience had probably forgotten, and without the original actors to help give it weight. In 2006, we also got Casino Royale. That was an example of how to do a proper reboot. It's not perfect (subsequent viewings feel a little bit overstuffed), but nobody can deny that it worked. I don’t think it NEEDED one but they certainly needed to up the action and excitement. The film was less exciting than STM and came off as more dour than any of the Reeve films. I think a proper fight would have helped because audiences expectations have changed. We can probably trace the beginnings of that back to Superman II. I don’t think MOS and Justice League were hurt because of super powered battles but they didn’t work because those battles were overblown cgi spectacle that sucked and failed to pull people in. The fight in MOS became cinematic noise. Doomsday is just a dumb cgi monster. Same with Steppenwolf and his faceless horde of drones. Meanwhile you look at the Avengers films and there’s story and character purpose behind the big cgi action sequences. People got emotionally involved. Thanos is a big cgi character but he’s more interesting than any Zack Snyder character and his performance is driven by a good actor. They also remembered to keep the vulnerable human Element when he fought Cap iron man and Thor. Everyone speculated wether iron man wound die or not. Nobody gave a toss when Superman died in BvS. As for Unbreakable it’s a brilliant deconstruction of the genre. Too bad Night crapped the bed with the ending of Glass. Splits revelation was perfect and I see what he was going for with Glass but the execution was shoddy. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2021 13:00:49 GMT -5
Michael Dougherty said that he fought to have a superfight put in--- I imagine that instead of Supes being beaten up by human thugs, he could have been fighting a crystal-enhanced creature or even a form of Brainiac- and THEN fallen to the ground & get stabbed by Luthor/tossed into the water... there seemed to be a perfect spot to plug a superfight in! But, oh well.... Of course STM did not have one single fight scene either!.....apart from Supes throwing Luther from the box(that encased the Kryptonite) onto the couch! So, IMHO , the absence of combat is not correlated to a lack of quality. Also, the beauty of STM, is that it allowed the audience to revel in the powers that were bestowed on Supes(flight being the principle factor).....and to react to the heroic deeds that perpetuated throughout the last 3rd of the movie. This was a form of spectacle that was practically unprecedented in cinema up until that point(78'). But by 2006, we already had the flying Neo and Agent Smith, the Nazguls in LOTR, Harry Potter on his broomstick(lol!), pod racing and heck......even Spidey swinging from one building to the next in the Raimi flicks(which resembled flight!). So people walking into a cinema in 2006 were well used to seeing stuff fly. Which meant that SR had to rely on another attribute. Allow me to explain. In 06', SR was squarely in the shadows of Pirates-Dead Man's Chest. Now, IMHO, as a movie, Dead Man's Chest is average to mediocre at best.....but for all it's flaws ,it did have a charismatic lead in Depp.....which is exactly what SR lacked. It's precisely because of this handicap, that SR was already in deficit from the get go. Also, the idea of Supes being a pap is/was a great notion. Nothing wrong with it. But appending that particular storyline onto the narrative that derived from the Donner era was the wrong way to implement such a scenario. What they needed to do was to reboot from scratch(storywise).....to allow Routh to grow into his role, and just as importantly.....to solidify his relationship with Bosworth's Lois. Only then, would just such a story have had the narrative weight to have some kind of emotional/substantial significance. Just imagine that history had been different....and the Salkinds/Newmans had decided to make a Superman III that featured just such a storyline......Kidder's Lois giving birth to Clark's child. It technically was possible, because in Lester's SII, whilst Clark's may have erased Lois's memory..... she still could have been pregnant from a depowered Clark?! Think of all the dramatic possibilities emanating from that storyline! But a hypothetical SIII with such a storyline would have featured 2 actors(Reeve& Kidder) who almost had a telepathic understanding. The fact that they were both experienced parents in real life by that point would have added to their ability to convey all the necessary emotions that are attached to such a scenario. That's where Bosworth and Routh fell apart(as well as Singer's directing) in SR. It was a good idea executed poorly because neither the cast or crew had the story telling skills and nuances to make it believable. Never said it did. But it shows a lack of any real resolution. I think audiences expectations had evolved. Partly thanks to a film series you’re a fan of: Spider-Man. Those films were built around the conflict between Spidey and Octavius or Osborn. People expected a final confrontation. You can’t really get that in SR. At most he can capture Luthor but he doesn’t even do that. As it is their confrontation feels like a pale shadow of what STM had already done better. Singers never been all there great with action so I can see why he stayed away from that. But even on his X-men films he knew with a character like wolverine he needed a satisfying confrontation with heavies like Sabertooth or Deathstrike. There’s something cathartic to seeing them get what’s coming to them. I think audiences would have forgiven a lot of the flaws in SR if it had been more thrilling. As it is there’s nothing to distract from those flaws. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2021 13:07:04 GMT -5
Hmnn.... I actually hated Unbreakable, feeling that the drama didn't work (Partly the story, partly Bruce Willis' smirk throughout the film).... but I have friends who adore that film and not SR... again, agree to have different feelings on films- oh well... (shrug) I totally agree that SR's making of a sequel decades later was TOTALLY risky creatively and business-wise.... but that's why I always felt that Singer never got (and still doesn't I think) enough credit to try to emulate Donner and Reeve's version of Superman. If you think about it- it's EXTREMELY 'humble' to do that in Hwood- (I think) If you 'win', then Donner and Reeve get full credit. If you 'lose', then you're just ripping them off and not being original. But- if you're a true fan, then you don't care if you don't gain points but just want to see Donner/Reeve's version back on the bigscreen and continued as best as one can without the original actors available! Which is kind of what happened.... Casino Royale was fine, but... outside of "Skyfall", I can't say I've fallen in love with any of the Daniel Craig sequels to revisit it. On the other hand, I found myself revisiting some of the Roger Moore, Dalton, and Pierce outings. I guess in dark times you want lighter material? Casino Royale was good,but the other Daniel Craig films have been awful. I wouldn't be surprised if his last one is also the end of the franchise. The Bond films have also lost what made them special, and just blend in to the background of a dozen other franchises now. As for Superman Returns, I don't think Singer was wrong to try emulate Donner's films and build off those. But for several reasons, it didn't work properly. He does still deserve credit for it though,but I think he was the wrong director. I liked Skyfall. It’s not CR but it’s got more excitement whereas CR is a smarter film. The other ones though....not really worth watching. It’s the same problem as Brosnan run. A great start but diminishing creative returns. Broccoli and Wilson will never let the Bond films die as long as they are around. They’ll reboot wether this one does well or not. most of STM’s influence on SR is purely superficial. The surface level stuff you think of first. Tonally it’s a very different movie. Even much of the aesthetic is different. That’s why I roll my eyes when people say it didn’t work because it just rehashed STM. No it didn’t. If rehashed certain elements and story structure but it’s a different kind of film. For better or worse. . |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 17, 2021 13:55:43 GMT -5
As usual, dejan, another brilliant and insightful post. First of all, I have to agree that the lack of a supervillain fight is a red herring. As you said, STM didn't have a supervillain fight either. It is not a necessary part of a good superhero movie. You know which recent Superman movies did have supervillain fights? That's right: MoS, BvS and Justice League. And they were all crap movies that blend into each other. In the 21st century, if a superhero movie wants to stand out, it actually needs LESS action and more drama. That's partly why I think 2000's Unbreakable is so good. Now onto the second point. I definitely agree that SR should have rebooted the story first, before introducing the idea of a child. There was not enough investment in the characters. Making a sequel or follow-up after decades is a risky business. I can think of two examples that got it right. The first is the Creed movie. The second is the Cobra Kai series. Both are "love letters" to 1980s movies, and they both could easily have been a joke and failed. That they didn't fail is due to great writing, but also because the main actors from the original movies were still around. There was still enough of an investment in the characters played by Stallone and by William Zabka and Ralph Macchio to carry the stories. (Cobra Kai is beginning to jump the shark in the latest season, but that's off the topic!) SR tried to add too much onto a story that most of the audience had probably forgotten, and without the original actors to help give it weight. In 2006, we also got Casino Royale. That was an example of how to do a proper reboot. It's not perfect (subsequent viewings feel a little bit overstuffed), but nobody can deny that it worked. I don’t think it NEEDED one but they certainly needed to up the action and excitement. The film was less exciting than STM and came off as more dour than any of the Reeve films. I think a proper fight would have helped because audiences expectations have changed. We can probably trace the beginnings of that back to Superman II. I don’t think MOS and Justice League were hurt because of super powered battles but they didn’t work because those battles were overblown cgi spectacle that sucked and failed to pull people in. The fight in MOS became cinematic noise. Doomsday is just a dumb cgi monster. Same with Steppenwolf and his faceless horde of drones. Meanwhile you look at the Avengers films and there’s story and character purpose behind the big cgi action sequences. People got emotionally involved. Thanos is a big cgi character but he’s more interesting than any Zack Snyder character and his performance is driven by a good actor. They also remembered to keep the vulnerable human Element when he fought Cap iron man and Thor. Everyone speculated wether iron man wound die or not. Nobody gave a toss when Superman died in BvS. As for Unbreakable it’s a brilliant deconstruction of the genre. Too bad Night crapped the bed with the ending of Glass. Splits revelation was perfect and I see what he was going for with Glass but the execution was shoddy. Agree totally about Split and Glass. What a wasted opportunity. I only recognise Unbreakable as canon. As for SR, yes it wasn't that thrilling, and yes it felt dour and subdued. But I think that was more to do with the acting,directing, editing and music anf overuse of cgi. Not with the kind of action scenes. SR had the plane rescue, the bank robbery, loads of rescues in Metropolis and more. On paper, each of those scenes should have been amazing, but they were poorly done. Compare the helicopter scene in STM with the underwhelming plane rescue in SR! All the ingredients were there. Just that the cake was badly mixed and half baked. A supervillain fight, I feel, would have been just as dour and meh as the other action scenes already were. My opinion only ! |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 17, 2021 14:18:17 GMT -5
I loved Casino Royale and Skyfall. Quantum was “entertaining” but not as good. Spectre gets my vote for one of the weakest installments. It has a great pre credits sequence but it gets duller and duller despite that fantastic cast.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 17, 2021 14:35:20 GMT -5
I loved Casino Royale and Skyfall. Quantum was “entertaining” but not as good. Spectre gets my vote for one of the weakest installments. It has a great pre credits sequence but it gets duller and duller despite that fantastic cast. I thought Skyfall was okayish up until we see Silva introduce himself. After that, it turned crap. Spectre was total crap from beginning to end. Honestly, the older I get, the more I think TLD and LTK are the only ones that are worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 17, 2021 14:41:11 GMT -5
Really? I loved Silva! Probably my favorite villain! Lol
|
|
!