|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 14, 2022 9:32:49 GMT -5
What about trying the opposite direction?
$10-$20 million budget. No star rates. You get to budget ONE big fx sequence and that’s it.
What would you do?
Would it be impossible for it to make money?
But then.... the Joker made a billion by being a character piece....
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on Jul 14, 2022 9:44:25 GMT -5
What about trying the opposite direction? $10-$20 million budget. No star rates. You get to budget ONE big fx sequence and that’s it. What would you do? Would it be impossible for it to make money? But then.... the Joker made a billion by being a character piece.... Result: Superman IV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 14, 2022 11:07:11 GMT -5
What about trying the opposite direction? $10-$20 million budget. No star rates. You get to budget ONE big fx sequence and that’s it. What would you do? Would it be impossible for it to make money? But then.... the Joker made a billion by being a character piece.... Result: Superman IV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If done wrong, yeah, but I'm saying with a great script- could you make Superman interesting and compelling enough with minor action if you took away the bag of sfx spectacle (or a good chunk of it?). While STM looked like buckets and buckets of money was spent on it- so did MOS imo--- but the difference was how the money and fx were spent. Donner did it like STM was the story that HAD to be told- with the perfect vistas for even something like a scene where a father's being buried at a cemetary that was just as gigantic a moment to Superman showing one human being what it's like to fly above the Statue of Liberty. Snyder knows how to make a beautiful frame, but they're souless and dark. Worked for 300 or dark material, but together with Goyer's aesthetics, it was like Superman meets Sucker Punch... which was dreary as heck, with the same level of bad drama. Some people do love MOS, and prefer it to STM, but.... I like dark with the Dark Knight (which is one of the best superhero films ever imo), but to me, that level of darkness and hopelessness is very anti-Superman as I view him. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 14, 2022 11:10:27 GMT -5
If Donner had a low budget- then, rather than look like SIV, I could see him reshaping the script to be more like his quiet intimate dramas which were incredibly successful as well.
Maybe there wouldn't be sweeping vistas if it couldn't be afforded, but quiet moments in a de-spectacled Superman script that would still be affecting. So, if WB feels stuck with 'bigger bigger bigger' and not getting it- maybe more personal and intimate could be the way to go.
"Spiderman: Homecoming" wasn't low budget, but I could see it being shrunken down budget wise and still work- because of how the story was shaped.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 15, 2022 9:13:22 GMT -5
Sorry CAM....could not resist a dig at my personal cinematic nemesis that is SIV!
But that's a heck of challenge you have laid down there!
I'll have a stab at it and I am going to use The Bourne Identity(2002),Escape From New York(1981) and Earthquake(1974) as my movie making templates.
We are introduced to Clark as an already depowered Supes.
Perhaps he relinquished his powers because of his love for Lois or maybe some other reason.
There can be very quick flashbacks as to how and why that happened.
There is a bad guy in town wreaking havoc(Zod,Darkseid,Brainiac---or whoever--otherworldly for sure though) but we don't get to see him/them in action.
Instead ,what we do see , is the vast destruction that is left behind.
I grant you, scenes of this type could raise the movie's budget but if Carpenter could pull it off with Escape From New York, then that's the way to go with this one.
As Clark makes his way across the apocalyptic plains of destroyed cities and small towns he is reminded more and more of why he has to become Supes again.
Due to the complete breakdown of society, there are no planes, trains or buses!......so he is on foot as he makes his way from a burnt out Metropolis to the Arctic.
Along the way , he performs altruistically, saving someone trapped in rubble or hanging off the side of collapsed structures ect ect.....but because he has no powers he has to resort to ingenious methods to perform said saves.
That can be juxtaposed with very quick flashbacks of him saving people when he was Supes, underlining the contrast.
Maybe he encounters criminal gangs or corrupt military/police personal who have risen from the underground to fill the vacuum within these broken down societies.
This enables Clark to take good solid beatings along the way(ala' what we got in the diner scene from SII) amplifying and accentuating his vulnerability.
Hopefully makes the audience root for the character.
By the end of the movie, he eventually makes it to the Fortress and becomes Supes.
This can be climaxed with a ground breaking flying sequence(a good chunk of that budget will be allocated to this alone) as he makes his way to the confrontation with whoever the bad guy is(and wherever he is!).
Movie ends here.
No need to show the fight itself.
We have all seen enough CGI trash to last us a lifetime already.
Hopefully, just seeing Clark get to the Fortress and become Supes against the odds and amidst all the adversity should be enough to satisfy the audience emotionally.
So it's definitely dark and a touch too apocalyptic for a Supes movie(but post Snyder- anything is game -lol).......but that element of hope and altruism should hopefully provide an emotional undercurrent to the piece.
At least that's the theory - lol
Hey I tried! Lol
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jul 15, 2022 9:43:38 GMT -5
If Donner had a low budget- then, rather than look like SIV, I could see him reshaping the script to be more like his quiet intimate dramas which were incredibly successful as well. Maybe there wouldn't be sweeping vistas if it couldn't be afforded, but quiet moments in a de-spectacled Superman script that would still be affecting. So, if WB feels stuck with 'bigger bigger bigger' and not getting it- maybe more personal and intimate could be the way to go. "Spiderman: Homecoming" wasn't low budget, but I could see it being shrunken down budget wise and still work- because of how the story was shaped. Hehe.....I am sure a good chunk of that budget went to Garfield,Maguire Defoe et al! I did not watch Homecoming in the cinema......got it on 4kUHD instead. When it comes to fantasy/comic book stuff in recent times though......it's one of the VERY few times I have finished a movie with a smile on my face. And surprisingly, I actually thought for the first time in his trilogy, Holland carried a Spidey film with the qualities expected of the leading man. But for me personally , it only worked because of the familiarity with all the other Spideys and villains from the other 20 years worth of flicks. Would be interesting to ask an 8 year old , who has not been exposed to any of the previous movies(or just someone who has never seen any Spiderman flicks period) what he/she felt like when all the set piece scenes happened in this film. I suspect it may be varied. But in terms of shrinking the budget.....I am not sure how that would play out as this movie by definition, demands a grand prix finale(which we got), with all the CG Spideys and Villains doing their thing. I fear some of the edge maybe taken off the movie as a whole, if the climax was curtailed somewhat due to budgetery constraints. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jul 15, 2022 21:49:46 GMT -5
What about trying the opposite direction? $10-$20 million budget. No star rates. You get to budget ONE big fx sequence and that’s it. What would you do? Would it be impossible for it to make money? But then.... the Joker made a billion by being a character piece.... If done well I’d be down for it. It would force whoever is making it to be creative and original. You couldn’t tell the same Superman stories we’ve seen on screen for forty plus years. With a bit get that small it sound absolutely make money. That wouldn’t be an issue. Curiosity alone would bring in enough people to turn a nice profit. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jul 16, 2022 11:30:07 GMT -5
What about trying the opposite direction? $10-$20 million budget. No star rates. You get to budget ONE big fx sequence and that’s it. What would you do? Would it be impossible for it to make money? But then.... the Joker made a billion by being a character piece.... If done well I’d be down for it. It would force whoever is making it to be creative and original. You couldn’t tell the same Superman stories we’ve seen on screen for forty plus years. With a bit get that small it sound absolutely make money. That wouldn’t be an issue. Curiosity alone would bring in enough people to turn a nice profit. Oddly in ways SR was that character piece- and arguably could have had the budget trimmed down severely. Singer had done films that were lower budget before. I don't think SR went overbudget, but from the bts - it seemed like they were locked into a too-soon theatre release that probably made things cost a lot more than than they had to. |
|
