|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 26, 2021 15:23:36 GMT -5
If 2006 was supposed to be "The Year of Superman", why are Casino Royale and Rocky Balboa the movie highlights of that year? Well... I fully admit that when I left seeing "Superman Returns" the first time in the theatre I thought: "I love this film.... but I don't think anyone else will." I loved the spirit of Donner's Superman and the Daily Planet 'family' being miraculously continued, the balls to have Superman have a kid, and that part be moving, and not corny- though the Lex Luthor material was lacking- and the superheroics were incredibly lacking. I thought it was going to die box office wise and perhaps critically---- So- suprise that a number of critics liked it. Not so suprised that a giant chunk of fans didn't care for it. The action and spectacle was not designed in a way to 'wow'. John Campea on youtube had an interesting description of Superman Returns as a great movie, but a terrible superhero movie- which I think is fair. Anyhow- Also, I listen to for curiosity's sake but am never that influenced by critical reaction unless it's a film that I really wasn't that interested in going to in the first place..... then, okay, maybe I'll check it out or not.... but generally I already know why I'm already interested in plunking down the serious cash for a theatre experience. "Dune" for example was considered a critical and box office disaster at the time.... but I didn't care, I thought it was incredibly daring and unique (especially during the time when every studio was trying to clone Star Wars- badly)- and still love it, regardless of critics who shifted gears when David Lynch became the Oscar-nominated and trend-setting David Lynch. So- to ME it WAS 'the year of Superman'- loved (enough of) Superman Returns and the tin box set was fantastic and at least having the Donner cut come out- even with it being disappointing... Casino Royale was 'ok' to me (not a Daniel Craig fan- I liked Skyfall the best of his though) and Rocky Balboa was also a disappointment to me (Without Adrian the story felt empty imo.... the original script for Rocky reportedly was mainly about Rocky, but not about the supporting players- but the final script nominated for an Oscar spread the wealth and made it about all the characters, particulary Rocky and Adrian--- so, the movie was okay, but I prefer 1-4)... so, that's my own take on that year... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 26, 2021 15:37:35 GMT -5
if Donner had agreed to sharing credit it would have avoided certain things but i wonder if it would have made the donner cut something that would never happen? If he had accepted, would Donner have received credit with Lester during the opening credits or would he have been listed in the end credits like that Additional Script Material By credit? Donner is also one of those types that use the “A (Director’s Name) Film” credit, which I think is pretentious. I never minded "A (Director's Name) Film"- credit.... because it means that: (1) the director is/was passionate about it and is willing to stick their name that much forward on it (presumably)- (2) in Donner's case, most everyone loved him who worked with him--- and they didn't seem to mind, so if it was looked at as pretentious, it seems like Donner made the folks who worked under him seem very appreciated for their efforts enough that there wasn't a complaint. I would have hoped that in an alternate universe, that Donner's name would have been listed first with Lester's second if he accepted credit, and not put in next to catering (with all due respect to catering!) in the end credits. If he shared credit in the beginning- (was he offered top or bottom billing one wonders? If so... that's another thing)- then the critics' praises at least might have acknowledged that it would be a bit ambiguous as to who to praise or at least split praise more equitably.... maybe.... really no way to know... But- the down side might have been no pumped up controversy and the cut scenes and screen test might have stayed in the vaults forever if there was no push for any Donner cut. Althought disappointed I'm still glad to have seen the extra bits... though I want more!  And- glad even if the RDC is horrible it's nice that Donner seemed to feel better about it being out there before he died. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 26, 2021 15:49:14 GMT -5
It's really interesting though. With age, STM is clearly the superior film. But at the time, yes, everyone was crazy about Superman 2. Maybe it was because of the sheer spectacle and scope of the fantasy. Having three villains flying and fighting Superman had never been done before. STM and SII never were really supposed to be standalones, but a unique two-film experience... SII to me is like the second act of a story, so it SHOULD be more interesting. The first one is setup. Also, SII in any form is/was always a 'good' film, but it everything lined up to be a great classic. STM never had the advantage of a great second act- because it originally was going to end on a cliffhanger with Zod! Before the rewrite where Lois dies and then Superman screams and all the voices of the past comes together- STM on a script level is... well.... pretty dull to tell the truth. He saves EVERYONE- and the big 'bang' only came with the villains becoming free/ and the teaser originally scripted for the end, much like how the Three Musketeers ended with a mini-trailer for Four Musketeers. So- I feel it's inevitable that SII was going to get more excitement, because STM is mainly setup for the romance that goes to a new level in SII- and STM also never has Superman actually hit anyone or anything - so the action on paper also is also pretty tame (the helicopter rescue is exciting primarily in the buildup and release and it being his first appearance) in STM but the way it's shot is arguably more artistic with the compositions/ music/ editing... whereas with any version of SII- the exciting part is going to be the hero confronting other similarly powered villains in fisticuffs. It HAD to be more interesting inherently! Again, SII in any version is a good movie- I just wanted it to be done with the same polish and execution as the first. For a number of folks- it was, but I'm always going to be grumpy that to me, I was let down. But the fan cuts ease the pain a bit... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 26, 2021 16:13:46 GMT -5
First of all guys, this is gonna be a long post.......but hopefully you will all defintely find it worthwhile  ..... @cam 1st) Apologies from a technical perspective---as I thought Thau directed the excellent(if slightly biased) 2006 Making Of Saga docu series. In fact it was directed by Constantine Nasr ,who did consult Thau during the making of the documentary. 2nd) That’s pretty cool that you worked in the cinema. I definitely can’t compete with how many times you saw SII theatrically! What I do know is, is that my 2 personal theatrical viewings of SII were electric(both late night showings with an adult audience). One of those of course, was the back to back viewing with STM(which was also fantastic). As opposed to my theatrical viewings of SR ,in 2006 and MOS, in 2013…….where you could have got more atmosphere in a cemetery. 3rd) There are no arguments to be had between me and you bud……..as I have absolutely no problem with the fact you don’t like Lester’s(or should I say the Theatrical) SII. I do have a problem , however, with Donner and Mank(as much as I love those guys) insinuating(or implying) that Lester’s SII was universally disliked(from a critical perspective) from the time of it’s theatrical release. ..... I like to remind people now, who wax lyrical about how Blade Runner is a masterpiece, that it was panned, big time, at the time of it’s release. I was too young to see it in the cinema in 82’(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK and I was only 9 at the time---I did get the sticker book though----and in that , it looked f***ing awesome!). When I did eventually see it on it’s UK TV premiere in 1986(aged 12), I actually thought it was rubbish. But post 1992, with the unofficial 70mm work print in circulation, Blade Runner became revitalized…….and the rest is history. Personally, for me, now, I think it’s pretty good(I certainly enjoy it more, than that first viewing in 1986)……but it’s the kind of film with enough ambiguity that you can read into it, what you will. So , whilst opinions can change, one should never forget what the initial/general opinion was(good-like SII, or bad- like Blade Runner). Hey Dejan! I may have seen SII a ton with audience members at a ton of free showings that summer, but I don't mean to suggest that your (or any one else's) experience isn't valid. Experiences will and do differ... As a balance on the viewings: * I should be clear that everyone DOES explode in the audience cheering when Superman arrives on the flagpole in SII. I always got chills and adored it. It's the Metro battle that things go silent. Though ONE guy was laughing during the ice cream hit in the crowded theatre at one showing, I recall, in a crowded silent theatre. Very memorable... and weird feeling to have such a huge auditorium filled with people with no laughter except for one guy for that long five minute(?) sequence. * One time during the shot back to Supes and Lois revealed to be sleeping in the super-bed in the fortress, one audience member shouted out: "WAS IT WORTH IT, BUDDY???"- To which the audience couldn't help but laugh. * During STM, (which I understandably didn't get to see as much as SII because it wasn't free) when I was younger and snuck behind curtains to be able to squeeze in multiple views of STM- there was a similar 'wtf' reaction when Superman spins the world around and time reverses itself. There might have been cheers somewhere in a theatre, but almost unilaterally it was a dead silence. But, still I would chat with people who watched it more than once during the initial run! On another note- I hear you on Blade Runner! I thought Blade Runner was a disappointing bore initially too! I wasn't expecting Harrison Ford to get his arse kicked for two hours. It was marketed as an action thriller closer to Logan's Run (which had a healthy dose of action but the story had bigger issues) but was more about a depressed lonely existence in this unusual environment. When I look at it as a 'music video movie' then I love it- but when I watch the rough cut on dvd without the Vangelis' moody music and temp music, it's just loud and noisy and unpleasant and slow. SR's viewing was NOT a sellout theatre. Maybe twenty people in the audience and one idiot in front of me turned on his cellphone during opening credits! Such a difference in movie crowds from STM & SII to SIV and SR.... SII's response generally was great enough overall. It's only a sliver of diehard fans that have any issues probably with any of the cuts or SII theatrical, like me. It's the credit that I feel was due to Donner that got transferred to Lester that bothered me- but Donner may have played a part by saying 'no' to shared credit. After that, Donner and Mank may well have been frustrated and angry enough to overstate things, feeling that no critics were listening to the true story nor being willing to correct it - particularly Mank's story about straightening out info with a famous newspaper critic and it never being mentioned in the papers- nor anything retracted probably drove them crazy. I don't blame them if they overstated anything out of the situation. The industry probably knew the full story on the inside, though, regardless of what was in the papers as to what happened. Regardless.... I'm like a broken record- Hollywood- give us the extended SII tv cut already!!!! And the rest of any/all deleted scenes SII & SIV!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jul 27, 2021 8:41:18 GMT -5
Thau directed the COMPLETELY bias documentaries on the 2001 DVD.
Films are a collaborative effort and not one person should take claim over an entire movie. Donner told others to make the script less campy or make the flying effects less hokey. If he did all of that himself, then you are more worthy of taking claim for an entire film that just being the director. It’s sorely there for status which was probably another thing that rubbed the Salkinds in the wrong way. It was their project and idea.
Thank you for posting this. I went back further and read their reviews of Flash Gordon. I saw a site like this a while back that discussed the Batman films when they first came out but I unfortunately lost the link. Hope I can find it again because it was a great snapshot of what the opinion was back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 27, 2021 11:43:46 GMT -5
Thau directed the COMPLETELY bias documentaries on the 2001 DVD. Here's my take on things: #1: NOTHING (Or at least VERY little) is completely objective in anything. Bias in just about everything, but HOW MUCH is Bias, HOW MUCH is truth? #2: I would point out my own feeling on the probability that WB would not want their arses sued by putting out something blatantly false. Even if there's a disclaimer at the front- a relative in law school I asked about this gave me his personal opinion that (not allowed to give legal opinon until passing the bar) that even if there's a disclaimer--- WB could still get sued if it was blatantly false. So... sure, bias... but... what percent is truthful? And what is the probability of WB wanting to open themselves to a lawsuit if completely false? What motivation would they have to do so? A guess would be if I were a studio defender to have had someone reach out to Lester and ask unofficially if he gave a darn either way about what was going to be presented in the documentary to get a feel about the probability of legal action.... and Lester (or his reps) probably just was so callous about what he did or saw it as a gig that he did decades ago to try to regain his career on Donner's back that's in the past and he could care less and then gave the studio defender a thumbs up that there wouldn't be an intent to sue. (Just guessing completely here)... so they went ahead and put it on the dvd. (A hopeful thing would be that he was so guilt-ridden that he knew it was all true and worse, and he then he said nothing, then took another swig of alcohol.... but that's too mean- and personal. I take it back. yeah, I'm still in a grouchy crachety mood. Sorry Lester) The credit seems rare- Speilberg puts it on all or most of his films. I would assume it's something contractural that the director has to negotiate for and not just be able to slap on if he felt like it. If George Lucas got fined $$$ for putting his director's credit at the end by the DGA- then I assume that it's something he had to request or fill out an application for, like the DMV. I'm not so bothered by the solo credit as I think everyone knows it's not 'just' one person directing or putting together a film. I actually like it when I see that 'a film by'- because I hate it when I spend time watching a film, it's terrible, and then I find out that the director didn't give a hoot about the film to begin with. If he/she put their name on it- then I at least know that they had their reputation to lose on it by announcing it to the world. My two cents. Or- it could well be like trying to establish a brand. Speilberg films definitely have a strong personal signature. Donner films for the most part have also had certain guidelines he followed for himself.... though he was capable of making some bad films or films with bad endings. Anyhow- The credit doesn't bother me either way. If it's a bad film or I hate the director anyways, it's five seconds of screen time, but I think especially in this internet age- people who WANT to know who did what for a film can seem to easily know now. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jul 27, 2021 13:21:44 GMT -5
Thau directed the COMPLETELY bias documentaries on the 2001 DVD. That's only his last name..he likes to be called Mister Thau. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 27, 2021 13:58:36 GMT -5
Thau directed the COMPLETELY bias documentaries on the 2001 DVD. That's only his last name..he likes to be called Mister Thau. What blows my mind is that he sounded very sincere (and he may have been) in wanting to restore and preserve Donner's vision- but the results in the RDC across the board just are mind-blowingly bad for editing for the most part. Is it better to destroy someone's work intentionally or unintentionally? I know it may not have been all Mr. Thau's choices, and he might be a perfectly fine human being, but.... there are SO many bad choices in that cut! So, so, so many....  |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jul 27, 2021 16:32:50 GMT -5
He apparently no longer works for Warners because of sexual harassment suits brought up against him. He’s also not completely honest about the affairs of The Donner Cut as he tried to blame Warners for reinserting the deleted scenes of the villains killing the East Houston boy and the soufflé scenes for the digital version. This was clearly the first assemble he did before Donner made the final decisions and it accidentally got leaked instead of the initial released version. Donner even spoke of these scenes being cut on the commentary.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 27, 2021 17:21:52 GMT -5
.... He’s also not completely honest about the affairs of The Donner Cut as he tried to blame Warners for reinserting the deleted scenes of the villains killing the East Houston boy and the soufflé scenes for the digital version. This was clearly the first assemble he did before Donner made the final decisions and it accidentally got leaked instead of the initial released version. Donner even spoke of these scenes being cut on the commentary. That is an odd one- Whether true or false, I much prefer the longer version- at least it's more coherent. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 28, 2021 9:07:43 GMT -5
Just to be clear though, I do suspect that if Donner had been able to finish S2 properly, it would also have been fantastic. Sadly, we will never know. It is pretty amazing that S2 turned out as well as it did, considering that Lester's attitude seems totally wrong for Superman. My main complaint about Lester's S2 is making the villains into parodies of how they were in STM, and adding stupid slapstick in the Metropolis battle. He did have a good sense for building up to audience pleasing moments. His "General, would you care to step outside" is better than the Donner version. And the ending is better too. So perfect to go from the diner to the White House carrying the flag. True. Usually Superman II situations end up being total disasters or forgettable. II was the more popular film for years and people still love it. Compare it to Justice League, or Suicide Squad, Green Lantern, X-men Origins, Fantastic Four, or any number of comic book movies that had behind the scenes disputes and major reworkings. Even though Lester changed the tone I think it was just close enough to still fit with Donners already strong material. The complete opposite of Justice League. It’s fascinating to compare the two. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 28, 2021 17:56:15 GMT -5
Just to be clear though, I do suspect that if Donner had been able to finish S2 properly, it would also have been fantastic. Sadly, we will never know. It is pretty amazing that S2 turned out as well as it did, considering that Lester's attitude seems totally wrong for Superman. My main complaint about Lester's S2 is making the villains into parodies of how they were in STM, and adding stupid slapstick in the Metropolis battle. He did have a good sense for building up to audience pleasing moments. His "General, would you care to step outside" is better than the Donner version. And the ending is better too. So perfect to go from the diner to the White House carrying the flag. True. Usually Superman II situations end up being total disasters or forgettable. II was the more popular film for years and people still love it. Compare it to Justice League, or Suicide Squad, Green Lantern, X-men Origins, Fantastic Four, or any number of comic book movies that had behind the scenes disputes and major reworkings. Even though Lester changed the tone I think it was just close enough to still fit with Donners already strong material. The complete opposite of Justice League. It’s fascinating to compare the two. At times, Lester's tone was close enough... but it's in levels for me for SII on how far astray he took it tonally from the original material. I just hate that he's getting so much credit for bits. It's like Donner made a mansion from the ground up, and Lester fixed up a few gaps and filled up some of the remaining rooms with useless filler- then gets credit for the whole. oy. I actually think Whedon's JL was a better match- not saying that because of my irritation at Lester, but I even attributed Sndyer footage to Whedon. But, that's a whole other ball of wax- but Snyder's vision wasn't as torn down as much as DOnner's imo... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 28, 2021 22:39:56 GMT -5
They were both working with existing material and could only change so much but I think there was a much wider gulf between Snyder and Whedon than there was between Donner and Lester. Whedon literally changed the aesthetic of the actual footage as much as he could. justice league failed because he couldn’t do enough and make it work.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 29, 2021 2:42:04 GMT -5
They were both working with existing material and could only change so much but I think there was a much wider gulf between Snyder and Whedon than there was between Donner and Lester. Whedon literally changed the aesthetic of the actual footage as much as he could. justice league failed because he couldn’t do enough and make it work. After seeing the Snyder cut- Whedon's cutting and additions just weren't all that great. There are little touches I like, but there are scenes that worked that I really thought belonged to Whedon that actually were Snyder's. The limitations of two hours and the rushed aspect just d idn't seem to help it either. I liked the initial cut of JL - but it was 'good enough' but at least Snyder's swung for the fences. I still feel MOS was a disaster under him and Goyer, but I thought BvS was a bit of an improvement (Helped by it focusing on Batfleck's character not Supes')- and that JL was Snyder's best work overall. (Helps if you see it with the sadly terrible WW84 before it) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 30, 2021 10:42:09 GMT -5
They were both working with existing material and could only change so much but I think there was a much wider gulf between Snyder and Whedon than there was between Donner and Lester. Whedon literally changed the aesthetic of the actual footage as much as he could. justice league failed because he couldn’t do enough and make it work. After seeing the Snyder cut- Whedon's cutting and additions just weren't all that great. There are little touches I like, but there are scenes that worked that I really thought belonged to Whedon that actually were Snyder's. The limitations of two hours and the rushed aspect just d idn't seem to help it either. I liked the initial cut of JL - but it was 'good enough' but at least Snyder's swung for the fences. I still feel MOS was a disaster under him and Goyer, but I thought BvS was a bit of an improvement (Helped by it focusing on Batfleck's character not Supes')- and that JL was Snyder's best work overall. (Helps if you see it with the sadly terrible WW84 before it) Whedon’s cut was too short but Snyder’s is as far too long and overly indulgent. Whedon was limited by the fact that he was doing a patch job on an existing movie with huge chunks of martial he had to use. Not do his own thing with it. At most he was trying to nudge the movie in a different creative direction but that’s like moving an iceberg. Some things I felt Whedon did better. Superman’s character arc made more sense. Snyder had little interest in him comic back as a more hopeful character. |
|
