|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 30, 2022 15:23:40 GMT -5
Well...
The last minute ditch-effort attempt to try to get closer to 'classic' Superman on film (not talking about the tv shows)- was WB hiring Joss Whedon to redo Justice League....
But now-
What would you do at this point if you were in charge of the chaos theory- WB/Discovery studio overseeing the movie franchises?-
IF you had to balance new viewership, past/present audience awareness/etc.?
(( Bearing that in mind, I'm foregoing my own fan-ish desires for a Superman Returns continuation as it might make me happy, but I doubt it would be a smart move biz-wise to have a direct sequel to a now 16 year old movie... though I'd bring back Routh as a younger generation would be familiar with him with the streaming service and the CW infinite crisis series...))
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jan 30, 2022 17:36:03 GMT -5
Well... The last minute ditch-effort attempt to try to get closer to 'classic' Superman on film (not talking about the tv shows)- was WB hiring Joss Whedon to redo Justice League.... But now- What would you do at this point if you were in charge of the chaos theory- WB/Discovery studio overseeing the movie franchises?- IF you had to balance new viewership, past/present audience awareness/etc.? (( Bearing that in mind, I'm foregoing my own fan-ish desires for a Superman Returns continuation as it might make me happy, but I doubt it would be a smart move biz-wise to have a direct sequel to a now 16 year old movie... though I'd bring back Routh as a younger generation would be familiar with him with the streaming service and the CW infinite crisis series...)) I'd reboot Superman and forget about the disgrace that was MoS. I wouldn't mind Routh in the role, except for the fact that it would be confusing. A total newcomer and unknown is needed to play Superman. And it needs a proper director, someone who understands how to create magic like STM. Not the kind of retards who ruined Star Wars and James Bond with crap sequels. Right now, I don't know anyone who could pull it off. Maybe Mel Gibson spent enough time with Richard Donner to recapture the magic. I just don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 1, 2022 1:48:32 GMT -5
Well... The last minute ditch-effort attempt to try to get closer to 'classic' Superman on film (not talking about the tv shows)- was WB hiring Joss Whedon to redo Justice League.... But now- What would you do at this point if you were in charge of the chaos theory- WB/Discovery studio overseeing the movie franchises?- IF you had to balance new viewership, past/present audience awareness/etc.? (( Bearing that in mind, I'm foregoing my own fan-ish desires for a Superman Returns continuation as it might make me happy, but I doubt it would be a smart move biz-wise to have a direct sequel to a now 16 year old movie... though I'd bring back Routh as a younger generation would be familiar with him with the streaming service and the CW infinite crisis series...)) I'd reboot Superman and forget about the disgrace that was MoS. I wouldn't mind Routh in the role, except for the fact that it would be confusing. A total newcomer and unknown is needed to play Superman. And it needs a proper director, someone who understands how to create magic like STM. Not the kind of retards who ruined Star Wars and James Bond with crap sequels. Right now, I don't know anyone who could pull it off. Maybe Mel Gibson spent enough time with Richard Donner to recapture the magic. I just don't know. Yeah.... I think with looking at the quick reboots of Batman and Spiderman- that it's hard to imagine how to best make Superman feel fresh without tossing away the fundamentals of Supes as we know him--- and be competitive with Marvel's Cinematic Universe for the last 20+ years. WB/DC realllly blew it with Man of Steel. But they put too much faith in Nolan as a producer, who pretty much was hands off. PIty. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 1, 2022 1:56:08 GMT -5
I'd reboot Superman and forget about the disgrace that was MoS. I wouldn't mind Routh in the role, except for the fact that it would be confusing. A total newcomer and unknown is needed to play Superman. And it needs a proper director, someone who understands how to create magic like STM. Not the kind of retards who ruined Star Wars and James Bond with crap sequels. Right now, I don't know anyone who could pull it off. Maybe Mel Gibson spent enough time with Richard Donner to recapture the magic. I just don't know. Yeah.... I think with looking at the quick reboots of Batman and Spiderman- that it's hard to imagine how to best make Superman feel fresh without tossing away the fundamentals of Supes as we know him--- and be competitive with Marvel's Cinematic Universe for the last 20+ years. WB/DC realllly blew it with Man of Steel. But they put too much faith in Nolan as a producer, who pretty much was hands off. PIty. Not only did MoS ruin the Superman character, it also wasted the chance for an origin story. Audiences don't have patience for long origin stories. It's rare to get a chance to show Krypton then Smallville and then Metropolis. The last time it was done was STM, and then there was a 35 year gap until MoS. So I don't think we will have the opportunity to see it done again. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 1, 2022 23:27:26 GMT -5
Well... The last minute ditch-effort attempt to try to get closer to 'classic' Superman on film (not talking about the tv shows)- was WB hiring Joss Whedon to redo Justice League.... But now- What would you do at this point if you were in charge of the chaos theory- WB/Discovery studio overseeing the movie franchises?- IF you had to balance new viewership, past/present audience awareness/etc.? (( Bearing that in mind, I'm foregoing my own fan-ish desires for a Superman Returns continuation as it might make me happy, but I doubt it would be a smart move biz-wise to have a direct sequel to a now 16 year old movie... though I'd bring back Routh as a younger generation would be familiar with him with the streaming service and the CW infinite crisis series...)) I'd reboot Superman and forget about the disgrace that was MoS. I wouldn't mind Routh in the role, except for the fact that it would be confusing. A total newcomer and unknown is needed to play Superman. And it needs a proper director, someone who understands how to create magic like STM. Not the kind of retards who ruined Star Wars and James Bond with crap sequels. Right now, I don't know anyone who could pull it off. Maybe Mel Gibson spent enough time with Richard Donner to recapture the magic. I just don't know. It depends on what they’re getting away from or getting closer to. Personally I think the best bet is use a mix of good ideas from the characters entire history. That’s what most good superhero movies do including STM. It wasn’t just based on the silver age. The MCU is based on various eras and continuities. So were Raimi’s Spider-Man films. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 1, 2022 23:31:18 GMT -5
Yeah.... I think with looking at the quick reboots of Batman and Spiderman- that it's hard to imagine how to best make Superman feel fresh without tossing away the fundamentals of Supes as we know him--- and be competitive with Marvel's Cinematic Universe for the last 20+ years. WB/DC realllly blew it with Man of Steel. But they put too much faith in Nolan as a producer, who pretty much was hands off. PIty. Not only did MoS ruin the DC universe, it also wasted the chance for a shared universe story. Audiences don't have patience for long origin stories. It's rare to get a chance to show Krypton then Smallville and then Metropolis. The last time it was done was STM, and then there was a 35 year gap until MoS. So I don't think we will have the opportunity to see it done again. Fixed. It takes a real crap director to not just blow it with Superman but the entire justice league. Spider-Man NWH has DOUBLED what BVS made. It’s mind boggling. I agree that they may as well hit the ground running. The latest Spider-Man and Batman movies prove people don’t need another origin. Between Smallville and MOS I know I’m not dying to see it again any time soon. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 2, 2022 2:58:23 GMT -5
Any new Superman movie really needs to stand out.
In 1978, STM stood out from other movies at the time. It had the advantage of not having other superhero movies to compete against, but it still had other movies to compete against. Thanks to Donner and his crew, it stood out against anything from the late 1970s.
Nowadays, it is totally different. We have so many superhero movies that they all blur into one. It's always the same formulaic stuff plus CGI. None of them stand out. I can't even distinguish between Marvel and DC anymore!
If a new Superman movie wants to stand out, then it needs to be different. First of all, the CGI needs to go. A new Superman movie needs practical effects and real sets.
Secondly, it needs a story that stands out. I'm bored with the whole "someone wants to destroy the world" plot ending with a huge superhero vs supervillain battle.
It also needs a musical score that stands out from all the blaring noise. Hans Zimmer used to be very creative, but now his music sounds generic and the same. He jumped the shark in the mid 2000s.
Casino Royale succeeded in standing out from the pack in 2006. Not only did it stand out against the other action movies of the era, but it also stood out against the previous crap Bond films, which had turned into a joke. This is the kind of creativity that we need. (It's a shame that Daniel Craig's Bond films later turned crap too, but that doesn't diminish CR.)
Superman Returns did try something fresh, with the idea of Superman being gone. But somehow, it just didn't work.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that more action, more CGI, more global threats and an updated costume are not the answer.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 2, 2022 10:46:16 GMT -5
Any new Superman movie really needs to stand out. In 1978, STM stood out from other movies at the time. It had the advantage of not having other superhero movies to compete against, but it still had other movies to compete against. Thanks to Donner and his crew, it stood out against anything from the late 1970s. Nowadays, it is totally different. We have so many superhero movies that they all blur into one. It's always the same formulaic stuff plus CGI. None of them stand out. I can't even distinguish between Marvel and DC anymore! If a new Superman movie wants to stand out, then it needs to be different. First of all, the CGI needs to go. A new Superman movie needs practical effects and real sets. Secondly, it needs a story that stands out. I'm bored with the whole "someone wants to destroy the world" plot ending with a huge superhero vs supervillain battle. It also needs a musical score that stands out from all the blaring noise. Hans Zimmer used to be very creative, but now his music sounds generic and the same. He jumped the shark in the mid 2000s. Casino Royale succeeded in standing out from the pack in 2006. Not only did it stand out against the other action movies of the era, but it also stood out against the previous crap Bond films, which had turned into a joke. This is the kind of creativity that we need. (It's a shame that Daniel Craig's Bond films later turned crap too, but that doesn't diminish CR.) Superman Returns did try something fresh, with the idea of Superman being gone. But somehow, it just didn't work. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that more action, more CGI, more global threats and an updated costume are not the answer. Just make better movies that don’t suck. Movies whose only appeal isn’t just a bunch of cgi action. That’s all Snyder’s movies had going for them and why they sucked. The movies that are doing well at least have some character and story appeal. The MCU movies are getting pop culture references in other stuff. When was the last time that happened to any DCEU film? Oh yeah…never. It means they haven’t made any kind of impact outside or the Snyder cult. The most memorable stuff in the Snyder films is the worst parts people make of. “SAVE MARTHA!” Meanwhile Marvel gets mainstream talk about Thanos snapping his fingers to win. It really is hilarious. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 2, 2022 18:11:58 GMT -5
Any new Superman movie really needs to stand out. In 1978, STM stood out from other movies at the time. It had the advantage of not having other superhero movies to compete against, but it still had other movies to compete against. Thanks to Donner and his crew, it stood out against anything from the late 1970s. Nowadays, it is totally different. We have so many superhero movies that they all blur into one. It's always the same formulaic stuff plus CGI. None of them stand out. I can't even distinguish between Marvel and DC anymore! If a new Superman movie wants to stand out, then it needs to be different. First of all, the CGI needs to go. A new Superman movie needs practical effects and real sets. Secondly, it needs a story that stands out. I'm bored with the whole "someone wants to destroy the world" plot ending with a huge superhero vs supervillain battle. It also needs a musical score that stands out from all the blaring noise. Hans Zimmer used to be very creative, but now his music sounds generic and the same. He jumped the shark in the mid 2000s. Casino Royale succeeded in standing out from the pack in 2006. Not only did it stand out against the other action movies of the era, but it also stood out against the previous crap Bond films, which had turned into a joke. This is the kind of creativity that we need. (It's a shame that Daniel Craig's Bond films later turned crap too, but that doesn't diminish CR.) Superman Returns did try something fresh, with the idea of Superman being gone. But somehow, it just didn't work. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that more action, more CGI, more global threats and an updated costume are not the answer. Totally agreed with the above. You may recall I did a 1978 movie marathon about a year and a half back over the course of a week or so.....watching about 7 or 8 movies that came out that year ,in the highest quality possible(either Blu ray or 4K). Everything you highlighted above pretty much exemplifies the differences between STM and the contemporary competition. One of the misnomers from old school Supes and Star Wars fans is that the 70s were innocent(be it in cinematic or societal /cultural terms). Now I get why many would say that, seeing as a hefty bunch of them were still kids at the time. But of course, politically , the 70s were anything but "innocent". And cinematically- even in 1978 , there were some real classic , gritty "downers". I am talking specifically about Dear Hunter , Coming Home , Days Of Heaven and King Of The Gypsies. And we have not even mentioned Halloween and Dawn Of The Dead. Classics for sure-but they ain't gonna make you feel good anytime soon! Dear Hunter has preserved it's well earned fame. Coming Home , despite being bestowed with critical acclaim at the time, has since largely been forgotten(which is a shame). Days Of Heaven and King Of The Gypsies are still awaiting their "Blade Runner" type re-appraisal(although both were critically aknowledged at the time of theatrical release---they bombed commercially). And that can't be by accident. King Of The Gypsies went head to head with STM in December 78' and came a cropper!  King is absolutely the opposite of STM. It's downbeat , hard edged and small scale but still a little jewel of a flick. It was shot in NYC and has that hazy photography that adorns STM. They feel like far removed cinematic brother and sister flicks in a way. I envy the cinema goers who actually had the opportunity to go from one screen to the other in the same multiplex and watch either one of those flicks back in 78'.That would have been quite a trip! But yeah---one of the magical elements of STM is that it was a cinematic uplifter! Totally different scenario nowadays ofcourse. Maybe the time when a Supes movie could be groundbreaking has passed. That was a once in a lifetime occasion.And it belongs exclusively to STM. Right time, right place. All we can ask for now is a good flick. But it should not be afraid to be an uplifter. STM actually suceeded against the odds in a sense that it showed that a movie could have an almost cliche'd positive vibe , when all the best contemporary competitors were great......... but depressing. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 3, 2022 4:00:51 GMT -5
True- well said.
If anything was the starting point for all the big budget superhero films- it may or may not have eventually happened when Star Wars' succe$$ cracked open Hollywood's interest in investing in anything scifi or fantasy related... but it's funny/sad how even Superman's success took awhile to get Batman made- which didn't explode in multiple superhero films happening- but probably still was another piece of evidence that superhero films could make money--- and then it took Spiderman and X-men's success to get people to believe in Marvel Studios--- THEN the rest was history...
But...
It just makes STM even more cherished I think because of the timing, as you mentioned.
It might have been profitable under a lesser director than Donner- but there's so much that Donner got right during a time when so much was impossible - that it really was a knockout punch so to speak.... which, again, reminds me of how incredibly frustrating that he didn't get a chance to deliver SII to complete the vision during that window of time, or have a succeeding director complete it with respect the way it should have.
But, I digress.
Just as Star Wars the original was a breakthrough that was first in many ways, so was STM--- and even the best Superman film now wouldn't be what Donner's STM was- it couldn't.
The next best thing I thought was what Singer sort of attempted- a continuation of it, but the problem I think was that even SII was severely compromised by Lester's damage- so building a semi-sequel on top of that is a bit confusing.... but I admire that Singer even tried and succeeded - up to a point.
But, now....
It'd be hard to imagine a way it could be groundbreaking.
Avengers was groundbreaking in uniting three separate solo superhero films into one.
X-men: Days of Future Past was groundbreaking for uniting two different generations of a superhero franchise with the same cast.
Avengers: Infinity War/Endgame was groundbreaking in killing off lead superheroes and/or closing out chapters for them permanently.
Spiderman: No Way Home was groundbreaking for being the first superhero feature film to incorporate and connect different cast members from multiple versions of a franchise together (which REALLY has to have pissed off the makers of Flashpoint for getting there first in feature film).
I imagine WB/DC is thinking 'different from what's come before' now as their entry way to making a new SUperman film--- but to me, the best path would be something that's fully planned out (enough) over multiple films like how Feige set up his phases with Marvel and not toss out everything if one film disappoints.
But.... It's hard to envision. WB/DC just has too many options for properties and seems to always drag their feet when it comes to SUperman. Oh well.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 3, 2022 6:09:12 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable!
Everything else just blurs into one.
A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare.
And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie!
It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 3, 2022 8:42:37 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable! Everything else just blurs into one. A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare. And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie! It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was. MOS tried to be different in that it was a sci fi first encounter/alien invasion movie. Even with the look of it. It still failed and blurred in with the rest of the pack because it was a poorly made movie. WB needs to make a great Superman film that captures the publics attention and becomes part of the zeitgeist. That’s what’s given Marvel it’s unprecedented success especially after the original Avengers film did that in 2012. Make a great film first then the rest of it falls into place. That starts with strong characters and strong stories which the DCEU hasn’t had. Marvel had a real clear idea of who Tony Stark was and people couldn’t get enough of him. Meanwhile Cavills Superman was just dull, boring, and unlikable. That’s where they failed first. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 3, 2022 9:59:22 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable! Everything else just blurs into one. A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare. And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie! It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was. MOS tried to be different in that it was a sci fi first encounter/alien invasion movie. Even with the look of it. It still failed and blurred in with the rest of the pack because it was a poorly made movie. WB needs to make a great Superman film that captures the publics attention and becomes part of the zeitgeist. That’s what’s given Marvel it’s unprecedented success especially after the original Avengers film did that in 2012. Make a great film first then the rest of it falls into place. That starts with strong characters and strong stories which the DCEU hasn’t had. Marvel had a real clear idea of who Tony Stark was and people couldn’t get enough of him. Meanwhile Cavills Superman was just dull, boring, and unlikable. That’s where they failed first. I will give MoS a bit of credit for trying to make a first contact movie. That is at least original, but it was done very badly. An example of a movie that does it well was Contact (1997) with Jodie Foster. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 3, 2022 10:50:56 GMT -5
I will give MoS a bit of credit for trying to make a first contact movie. That is at least original, but it was done very badly. An example of a movie that does it well was Contact (1997) with Jodie Foster. Hey I loved that pitch. I was all in for it. But as usual like some stupid dog Snyder got distracted by a lot of other shiny objects. He forgot all about the real world alien invasion movie and made a dumb loud disaster movie where stuff blows up. There was no follow through on the initial idea. Just like when the movie made the point that Superman’s existence would change the world and our views on everything from religion to our place to in the universe. By the end of the movie they forgot about all that. Metropolis went through 9/11 times ten but no one seemed to be bothered by it by the end of the film. Then in BvS the city being rebuilt was mostly glossed over. It would take years and years to deal with all that destruction but they hand waved it in seconds. The audience simply couldn’t swallow that much bullish!t. Remember in MOS it was pushed that Superman was the first superhero the world had ever seen? Yet three years later we find out wonder woman had been around for 100 years and Batman had been around for 20 years. It’s all f*cking garbage. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 3, 2022 17:45:46 GMT -5
Metallo ,ATP and CAM Fine points all. Just wanted to reiterate that whilst STM is essentially an uplifting flick ,at least compared to it's 1978 rivals (Deer Hunter,Coming Home, Days Of Heaven and King Of The Gypsies) , there are some moments which are pretty hard hitting-destruction of Krypton , Pa Kent's demise and Lois's death. And let's not forget the poor ol' cop who gets thrown under the train outside Luthor's lair! So , in that sense, some of those "hard edged" elements of STM are definitely cut from the same cloth as the other aformentioned flicks from 78'. But whilst the other flicks were uniform in their tone-although Deer Hunter has a fairly ebuliant first part(DeNiro and chums enjoying the wedding party before being sent out to Nam) before descending into emotional and physical tragedy, STM has that 3 part structure , each of which is totally distinct(from the cinematography to the pacing to the acting). MoS , despite being an origin story, still felt totally uniform from the first frame to the last. Even Raimi's 2002 Spidey had that uniformity despite also being a quasi origin flick(ditto for Garfield's and Holland's Spidey 1s). Holland's origin was a bit of a cheat seeing as it was covered(allbeit briefly) in Civil War. The First Avenger,Thor 1,Iron Man 1,Black Panther 1 ect are also structured evenly throughout their respective flicks. Nolan's Batman Begins, despite the flashbacks and flashfowards(lol), is stylistically equilibrated from beginning to end. Personally can't speak for Ant Man 1 , The Eternals , Shang Shi or Black Widow as I have still not seen them. My best guess though, is that they too have uniform structures. So STM is truly unique when it comes to that 3 section compartimentalisation. But it could only be done once. It was and can never be duplicated. Now that's truly capturing lightning in a bottle!.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 3, 2022 20:48:38 GMT -5
Metallo ,ATP and CAM Fine points all. Just wanted to reiterate that whilst STM is essentially an uplifting flick ,at least compared to it's 1978 rivals (Deer Hunter,Coming Home, Days Of Heaven and King Of The Gypsies) , there are some moments which are pretty hard hitting-destruction of Krypton , Pa Kent's demise and Lois's death. And let's not forget the poor ol' cop who gets thrown under the train outside Luthor's lair! So , in that sense, some of those "hard edged" elements of STM are definitely cut from the same cloth as the other aformentioned flicks from 78'. But whilst the other flicks were uniform in their tone-although Deer Hunter has a fairly ebuliant first part(DeNiro and chums enjoying the wedding party before being sent out to Nam) before descending into emotional and physical tragedy, STM has that 3 part structure , each of which is totally distinct(from the cinematography to the pacing to the acting). MoS , despite being an origin story, still felt totally uniform from the first frame to the last. Even Raimi's 2002 Spidey had that uniformity despite also being a quasi origin flick(ditto for Garfield's and Holland's Spidey 1s). Holland's origin was a bit of a cheat seeing as it was covered(allbeit briefly) in Civil War. The First Avenger,Thor 1,Iron Man 1,Black Panther 1 ect are also structured evenly throughout their respective flicks. Nolan's Batman Begins, despite the flashbacks and flashfowards(lol), is stylistically equilibrated from beginning to end. Personally can't speak for Ant Man 1 , The Eternals , Shang Shi or Black Widow as I have still not seen them. My best guess though, is that they too have uniform structures. So STM is truly unique when it comes to that 3 section compartimentalisation. But it could only be done once. It was and can never be duplicated. Now that's truly capturing lightning in a bottle!. Superman’s origin story being split into three parts is right from the comics. Even the first episode of George Reeves series used the distinct three part structure of Krypton/Smallville/Metropolis which STM basically copied and expanded for a film. Superman the animated series used the same format for its premier movie. Batmans origin would be similar but we’ve never really seen it done super close to the comics. Batman Begins came closest. Not nearly as much time is spent with the Wayne’s and Bruce’s upbringing and most adaptations gloss over his overseas training entirely which would be the second “act.” Even Bruce Wayne often has three distinct personas like Clark Kent. It’s the whole idea of a trinity of sorts. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 3, 2022 20:58:25 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable! Everything else just blurs into one. A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare. And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie! It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was. MOS tried to be different in that it was a sci fi first encounter/alien invasion movie. Even with the look of it. It still failed and blurred in with the rest of the pack because it was a poorly made movie. WB needs to make a great Superman film that captures the publics attention and becomes part of the zeitgeist. That’s what’s given Marvel it’s unprecedented success especially after the original Avengers film did that in 2012. Make a great film first then the rest of it falls into place. That starts with strong characters and strong stories which the DCEU hasn’t had. Marvel had a real clear idea of who Tony Stark was and people couldn’t get enough of him. Meanwhile Cavills Superman was just dull, boring, and unlikable. That’s where they failed first. MOS could have worked great as a fresh new retelling- and it's very exciting in parts, just as the failed Watchmen movie was- but ultimately, the script was broken from the beginning by Goyer. Snyder's choices most of the time just made something broken worse. I loved the trailer, but the result has too many missteps to really embrace. A fan cut could help, but it's really chopping out a lot and there's so many great alternative choices now by the MCU, I'd rather re-watch one of the better MCU films instead with my time. Pity. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 3, 2022 21:10:56 GMT -5
Metallo ,ATP and CAM Fine points all. Just wanted to reiterate that whilst STM is essentially an uplifting flick ,at least compared to it's 1978 rivals (Deer Hunter,Coming Home, Days Of Heaven and King Of The Gypsies) , there are some moments which are pretty hard hitting-destruction of Krypton , Pa Kent's demise and Lois's death. And let's not forget the poor ol' cop who gets thrown under the train outside Luthor's lair! So , in that sense, some of those "hard edged" elements of STM are definitely cut from the same cloth as the other aformentioned flicks from 78'. But whilst the other flicks were uniform in their tone-although Deer Hunter has a fairly ebuliant first part(DeNiro and chums enjoying the wedding party before being sent out to Nam) before descending into emotional and physical tragedy, STM has that 3 part structure , each of which is totally distinct(from the cinematography to the pacing to the acting). MoS , despite being an origin story, still felt totally uniform from the first frame to the last. Even Raimi's 2002 Spidey had that uniformity despite also being a quasi origin flick(ditto for Garfield's and Holland's Spidey 1s). Holland's origin was a bit of a cheat seeing as it was covered(allbeit briefly) in Civil War. The First Avenger,Thor 1,Iron Man 1,Black Panther 1 ect are also structured evenly throughout their respective flicks. Nolan's Batman Begins, despite the flashbacks and flashfowards(lol), is stylistically equilibrated from beginning to end. Personally can't speak for Ant Man 1 , The Eternals , Shang Shi or Black Widow as I have still not seen them. My best guess though, is that they too have uniform structures. So STM is truly unique when it comes to that 3 section compartimentalisation. But it could only be done once. It was and can never be duplicated. Now that's truly capturing lightning in a bottle!. Superman’s origin story being split into three parts is right from the comics. Even the first episode of George Reeves series used the distinct three part structure of Krypton/Smallville/Metropolis which STM basically copied and expanded for a film. Superman the animated series used the same format for its premier movie. Batmans origin would be similar but we’ve never really seen it done super close to the comics. Batman Begins came closest. Not nearly as much time is spent with the Wayne’s and Bruce’s upbringing and most adaptations gloss over his overseas training entirely which would be the second “act.” Even Bruce Wayne often has three distinct personas like Clark Kent. It’s the whole idea of a trinity of sorts. I actually was not a fan initially of the change in tones for STM. Loved the seriousness of the Krypton and Smallville scenes. The Metropolis shift I thought a bit jarring as it really kind of jumps right to Lois's point of view (and ours to a degree) of how wonderful and funny it would be to have a Superman in our world & I didn't care for Lex's campiness- in fact... I HATED Luthor as used car salesman initially- but in seeing the theatrical SII, I saw how Luthor was a great counterbalance to (or what should have been under Donner at least) the dark evil tone of the Phantom ZOne criminals. Even though Lester ruined a lot, he couldn't ruin the Donner footage that showed how all those shifts in tone and character were going to meld together perfectly for part II- in seeing SII, I was fine with Luthor's silliness in STM. As a whole, everything would have worked perfectly in balance for part I & II- which is part of why I have so much anger towards Lester's uprooting that balance towards silliness with the PZ criminals and even moreso with the Metro battle. Many seem to love the scene with the memory kiss, but it's framed and placed in such an ugly location- when you put it side by side with Donner's farewell on the beautifully lit balcony, the different aesthetics of each director really come to the forefront. Anyhow- most of Donner's films have had one tone for the most part. STM/SII really seemed to be a bit of an 'experiment' with drastically different tones in one film- but I could see from the script and the DOnner bits how it would have worked perfectly if he had finished it. In Donner's resume maybe the later Lethal Weapon films go overboard (particularly 3 & 4) with overboard broad humor that breaks the 4th wall at times(Joe Pesci's character as an example was fine in 2, but forced in 3 and especially 4), but the first two feel pretty consistent with a balanced sense of humor throughout alongside the darkness of the stories. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 3, 2022 21:14:00 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable! Everything else just blurs into one. A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare. And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie! It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was. There's SO much love for Unbreakable... but I'm of the few that really hated it. Part of it might have been Bruce WIllis' casting in it, as I felt he was totally wrong for it- but the direction as well didn't make me believe. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 4, 2022 2:36:06 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable! Everything else just blurs into one. A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare. And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie! It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was. There's SO much love for Unbreakable... but I'm of the few that really hated it. Part of it might have been Bruce WIllis' casting in it, as I felt he was totally wrong for it- but the direction as well didn't make me believe. I really didn't like it either when I saw it first. In fact, I spent about 10 years thinking it was crap! It's only more recently that I have grown to appreciate it. It will never be a classic like STM, but at least it tried something novel. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 4, 2022 11:11:46 GMT -5
There's SO much love for Unbreakable... but I'm of the few that really hated it. Part of it might have been Bruce WIllis' casting in it, as I felt he was totally wrong for it- but the direction as well didn't make me believe. I really didn't like it either when I saw it first. In fact, I spent about 10 years thinking it was crap! It's only more recently that I have grown to appreciate it. It will never be a classic like STM, but at least it tried something novel. I’ve always liked Unbreakable. The first problem was it came after Sixth Sense and because it wasn’t as good as that it got a lot of unwarranted criticism. The second problem was I think it was made 10 or 20 years too soon. It was so ahead of its time. We’ve seen comic book stories deconstruct comic books and superheroes but I think Unbreakable was the first major film to do it and do it well. If it had come along after the superhero movie genre had exploded—say post Dark Knight or Post Avengers or even now—more people would have been interested in it and understood the themes and tropes it was exploring. It’s honestly a better Watchmen film than the actual Watchmen film. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 4, 2022 11:19:06 GMT -5
The only superhero movie from the past 20 years or so that really stands out is Unbreakable! Everything else just blurs into one. A new Superman movie really needs to be different from all the other Marvel and DC fare. And the only way to do this, is for it NOT to be a superhero movie! It needs to be more of a drama and a fantasy movie. That's what STM was. It's also what Close Encounters of the Third Kind Was. There's SO much love for Unbreakable... but I'm of the few that really hated it. Part of it might have been Bruce WIllis' casting in it, as I felt he was totally wrong for it- but the direction as well didn't make me believe. I always liked Willis’s casting because he works so well as an everyman thrust into extraordinary situations…like a lot of characters before they became superheroes. He also has the look of an old style golden age superhero. He’s not the matinee idol chiseled body type or the pretty boy but he looks like a macho guy. He was more of the Joe Shuster athletic football player type than the John Byrne bodybuilder type we’ve seen from the 80s on. He’s got the kind of face Alex Ross draws: older guys with some lines on their face rather than the more youthful look heroes have now. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 5, 2022 4:26:50 GMT -5
I really didn't like it either when I saw it first. In fact, I spent about 10 years thinking it was crap! It's only more recently that I have grown to appreciate it. It will never be a classic like STM, but at least it tried something novel. I’ve always liked Unbreakable. The first problem was it came after Sixth Sense and because it wasn’t as good as that it got a lot of unwarranted criticism. The second problem was I think it was made 10 or 20 years too soon. It was so ahead of its time. We’ve seen comic book stories deconstruct comic books and superheroes but I think Unbreakable was the first major film to do it and do it well. If it had come along after the superhero movie genre had exploded—say post Dark Knight or Post Avengers or even now—more people would have been interested in it and understood the themes and tropes it was exploring. It’s honestly a better Watchmen film than the actual Watchmen film. Unbreakable was definitely ahead of its time. But I also think that is part of what made it so good. Back then, the fact that it was a superhero film made it came as a bigger surprise. Stallone is coming out with something called "Samaritan" that looks very similar. It will be interesting to see how this is received. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Feb 5, 2022 13:26:47 GMT -5
I’ve always liked Unbreakable. The first problem was it came after Sixth Sense and because it wasn’t as good as that it got a lot of unwarranted criticism. The second problem was I think it was made 10 or 20 years too soon. It was so ahead of its time. We’ve seen comic book stories deconstruct comic books and superheroes but I think Unbreakable was the first major film to do it and do it well. If it had come along after the superhero movie genre had exploded—say post Dark Knight or Post Avengers or even now—more people would have been interested in it and understood the themes and tropes it was exploring. It’s honestly a better Watchmen film than the actual Watchmen film. Unbreakable was definitely ahead of its time. But I also think that is part of what made it so good. Back then, the fact that it was a superhero film made it came as a bigger surprise. Stallone is coming out with something called "Samaritan" that looks very similar. It will be interesting to see how this is received. Yeah when you watch it cold it’s not clear that it’s a superhero story of any kind. You discover that as it goes along. Split had the same thing going for it. It wasn’t obviously a supervillains origin story or even clearly tied to Unbreakable. Glass kind of ruined that by dropping the ball on the trilogy. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Feb 5, 2022 15:15:39 GMT -5
Glass was crap.
Unbreakable didn't need a sequel
|
|
