|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 12, 2023 1:00:47 GMT -5
In my opinion:
Donner's best films- (non-Supes) * The Omen * Inside Moves * Ladyhawke * Scrooged * Lethal Weapon 1 & 2 * Conspiracy Theory * Goonies * 16 Blocks
Lethal Weapon 3 & 4 had some fun scenes, but I do feel they went overboard on the silliness. Radio Flyer, Maverick, and Assassins- are watchable- but suffer from poor endings.
Lester's best films- (non-Supes) * Three Musketeers * Four Musketeers
I know Lester's "Hard Day's Night" is cited as a breakthrough film, but didn't care for it myself. "Juggernaut" I thought a bit slow- not bad, but not something I'd revisit.
I am curious about "Robin and Marian", though. Other thoughts on non-Supes films these guys did?
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Feb 12, 2023 5:54:13 GMT -5
Lester’s sense of humor was stronger than Donner’s. This was reflected critically where people thought II was better than I. Another point of contention is how each director handed Richard Pryor in a PG rated comedy.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 12, 2023 17:39:01 GMT -5
Lester’s sense of humor was stronger than Donner’s. This was reflected critically where people thought II was better than I. Another point of contention is how each director handed Richard Pryor in a PG rated comedy. Donner is not a good comedy director. Lester is not a good action director.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 23, 2023 20:31:19 GMT -5
In my opinion: Donner's best films- (non-Supes) * The Omen * Inside Moves * Ladyhawke * Scrooged * Lethal Weapon 1 & 2 * Conspiracy Theory * Goonies * 16 Blocks Lethal Weapon 3 & 4 had some fun scenes, but I do feel they went overboard on the silliness. Radio Flyer, Maverick, and Assassins- are watchable- but suffer from poor endings. Lester's best films- (non-Supes) * Three Musketeers * Four Musketeers I know Lester's "Hard Day's Night" is cited as a breakthrough film, but didn't care for it myself. "Juggernaut" I thought a bit slow- not bad, but not something I'd revisit. I am curious about "Robin and Marian", though. Other thoughts on non-Supes films these guys did? Just checked out the blu ray for Robin And Marian. It's not bad but it ain't a home run either IMHO! Connery and Hepburn do have great chemistry-and Lester does a fine job guiding them through a rather shallow script. In fact this was Hepburn's return to the big screen for the first time in a number of years by that point(1976)-and the film was hyped on that fact alone leading up to it's release. In terms of action, think Excalibur(the 1981 version) but without the magical elements.....and you have good feel for this one. One of the highlights is the battle between Connery's Robin and Robert Shaw's Sheriff Of Nottingam(essentially a rematch of their classic fight in the train from Russia With Love!)-it feels real and it's bloody-Lester could definitely pull out some dark stuff--we got an inkling of that in SIII's junkyard fight. Great cinematography and editing-John Victor Smith from SII is on hand here. Production values are also good- very gritty and earthy tones-world feels lived in. Lester went from this to filming The Ritz which he also knocked off in 76'----seems to have had the knack for making 2 films in the same year-he did it again in 79' when he filmed Cuba(have seen it) and The Early Days of Butch and Sundance(never seen it). Given that info-I wonder if Lester had directed both STM and SII(sorry CAM, I know that's not gonna sit well with ya!)--could he have completed both of them within the alotted schedule-lol???!!!!!! Think I agree with you on your list of Donner films there, CAM. Although ,I personally would tie Lethal Weapon 1 with The Omen as being Donner's best outside of STM. Will add more thoughts as I make my way through all these flicks.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 23, 2023 20:53:16 GMT -5
Lester’s sense of humor was stronger than Donner’s. This was reflected critically where people thought II was better than I. Another point of contention is how each director handed Richard Pryor in a PG rated comedy. Donner is not a good comedy director. Lester is not a good action director. I hear you there CAM-but Lester did stage the junkyard fight and within the context of 83'- think that was done as well as it could be. Also , had there ever been a movie where the same actor had fought himself on screen, prior to SIII? I am gonna stick my head out on this one and say no-but I could be wrong. I recall that Woody Allen's Annie Hall from 77' had some scenes where Diane Keaton was duplicated within the same frame-but those were not action scenes. So as far as SIII is concerned , that was a pretty ground breaking thing back then, to have Reeve fight himself. Time to trawl through YouTube and find out if there are any films that predate SIII for same actor duplication in an action sequence !
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,822
|
Post by atp on Feb 23, 2023 23:15:07 GMT -5
Donner is not a good comedy director. Lester is not a good action director. I hear you there CAM-but Lester did stage the junkyard fight and within the context of 83'- think that was done as well as it could be. Also , had there ever been a movie where the same actor had fought himself on screen, prior to SIII? I am gonna stick my head out on this one and say no-but I could be wrong. I recall that Woody Allen's Annie Hall from 77' had some scenes where Diane Keaton was duplicated within the same frame-but those were not action scenes. So as far as SIII is concerned , that was a pretty ground breaking thing back then, to have Reeve fight himself. Time to trawl through YouTube and find out if there are any films that predate SIII for same actor duplication in an action sequence ! The junkyard scene was the first Reeve Only People fight on film
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 24, 2023 20:48:16 GMT -5
In my opinion: Donner's best films- (non-Supes) * The Omen * Inside Moves * Ladyhawke * Scrooged * Lethal Weapon 1 & 2 * Conspiracy Theory * Goonies * 16 Blocks Lethal Weapon 3 & 4 had some fun scenes, but I do feel they went overboard on the silliness. Radio Flyer, Maverick, and Assassins- are watchable- but suffer from poor endings. Lester's best films- (non-Supes) * Three Musketeers * Four Musketeers I know Lester's "Hard Day's Night" is cited as a breakthrough film, but didn't care for it myself. "Juggernaut" I thought a bit slow- not bad, but not something I'd revisit. I am curious about "Robin and Marian", though. Other thoughts on non-Supes films these guys did? Just checked out the blu ray for Robin And Marian. It's not bad but it ain't a home run either IMHO! Connery and Hepburn do have great chemistry-and Lester does a fine job guiding them through a rather shallow script. In fact this was Hepburn's return to the big screen for the first time in a number of years by that point(1976)-and the film was hyped on that fact alone leading up to it's release. In terms of action, think Excalibur(the 1981 version) but without the magical elements.....and you have good feel for this one. One of the highlights is the battle between Connery's Robin and Robert Shaw's Sheriff Of Nottingam(essentially a rematch of their classic fight in the train from Russia With Love!)-it feels real and it's bloody-Lester could definitely pull out some dark stuff--we got an inkling of that in SIII's junkyard fight. Great cinematography and editing-John Victor Smith from SII is on hand here. Production values are also good- very gritty and earthy tones-world feels lived in. Lester went from this to filming The Ritz which he also knocked off in 76'----seems to have had the knack for making 2 films in the same year-he did it again in 79' when he filmed Cuba(have seen it) and The Early Days of Butch and Sundance(never seen it). Given that info-I wonder if Lester had directed both STM and SII(sorry CAM, I know that's not gonna sit well with ya!)--could he have completed both of them within the alotted schedule-lol???!!!!!! Think I agree with you on your list of Donner films there, CAM. Although ,I personally would tie Lethal Weapon 1 with The Omen as being Donner's best outside of STM. Will add more thoughts as I make my way through all these flicks. I think Lester could have pulled off an 'ok' Superman film, but the aesthetics and emphasis fit perfectly for Three Musketeers- and I'd say possibly a lighter Bond film...I think 'Ant-Man' might be more Lester's speed, whereas the only reason I'm so pumped for the Superman films was the epic approach to it that Donner had to it (that drove the producers nuts for the costs of perfect looking shots) - and that it worked. Lester could have made STM-SII work on schedule and whatnot, but outside of one shirt rip scene, I think it would have been more in my 'passable' category of action films than a loved one. But, it is all preference...
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 25, 2023 11:50:32 GMT -5
@cam
IMHO, Lester's career, from a stylistic perspective, is essentially divided into 2 parts-the first part being the 60's and the second , devoted to the 70s(+80s).
I have seen Help!, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum,The Bed Sitting Room and Petulia(which in my opinion is Lester's best ever film)- Lester's work from the 60s, but a long time ago.
From what I recall, those films were kinda quirky, off kilter comedy, contained twisted irony, shot in a quasi documentary style/ early hand held camera work.....and in the case of Petulia, constructed in a way that even Nolan himself would be envious(inverted time chronologies/flash backs ect ect).
Once you get to the 70s and The Muskateers ,Lester reverts to more traditional movie making methods(stable camera work and slower editing) and linear story telling with a sense of grandeur(which is definitely the case with The Muskateers). Juggernaught, The Flash and even Robin & Marian(to a certain extent) are also big productions.
But they still contain the Lester quirks-for instance, at the beginning of Robin and Marian , the bad guys aim a catapault at a castle and fire.....and the boulder just lamely goes into the moat in front of the castle!-not sure if that was intentional or a flubbed take which Lester thought was so great that he included it in the final cut. It's a beautifully framed and choreographed scene-but the action is an anti climax......and that is(or at least, can be for some of the time) Lester for you!....and I agree it's not for everyone's taste.
But the Salkinds hired Lester for The Muskateers in pretty much the same way as they hired Donner for Supes, i.e not because the aforementioned directors had the appropriate style for the subject matter at hand.....but because they were in vogue at that specific point in time. And sometimes, by sheer fluke, it worked(as it did for the Muskateers and STM).
But in the late 70s , Lester goes back to smaller productions like Cuba and The Ritz(and switches back to the docu style of film making). And from there he takes over duties for SII.
As I said in one of the other threads, if you did not know it......there is no way that you would ever guess that Cuba or Robin & Marian had the same director as SII. I would argue that's the hallmark of a high calibre director, the ability to tackle diverse subject matter, and change the movie making style accordingly.
It's strange when you think about it, but Lester did change his style to accomodate SII(and align it with Donner's work) but as ever, Lester's fingerprints still found a way to punctuate and perforate the piece and I can see your frustation with that fact.
Anyways, will add more thoughts as I go along.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 25, 2023 12:26:31 GMT -5
With regards to finding scenes were the same actor was optically duplicated in the same action scene-well there is this OG Star Trek episode where good Kirk fights bad Kirk-gotta confess I forgot about this one.....and I consider myself a half decent trekkie.
The shot where Spock is staring at both of them...is actually pretty good in terms of hiding the optical matt- When the fight kicks in it's pretty obvious what's goin' on- still it's pretty well done......but not as well as SIII's junkard brawl!
In terms of the origins of optical/split screen actor duplication-1961's A Parent's Trap seems to be the first movie that successfully pulled it off-I have never seen the movie in it's entirety -but here is a 10 minute docu showing how it was done:
This is obviously not an action picture, so it was fairly easy to keep Haley Mills on the opposite side of the same frame.
For SIII, even after all these years, the shot where Clark "emanates" from Supes is pretty seamless-done with blue screen and is still very impressive-not bad considering if the lighting or angles were off, it would have compromised the effect:
@0.05:
Looks great on the blu ray-will be interesting how it holds up on the upcoming 4K.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 25, 2023 23:50:51 GMT -5
@cam IMHO, Lester's career, from a stylistic perspective, is essentially divided into 2 parts-the first part being the 60's and the second , devoted to the 70s(+80s). I have seen Help!, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum,The Bed Sitting Room and Petulia(which in my opinion is Lester's best ever film)- Lester's work from the 60s, but a long time ago. From what I recall, those films were kinda quirky, off kilter comedy, contained twisted irony, shot in a quasi documentary style/ early hand held camera work.....and in the case of Petulia, constructed in a way that even Nolan himself would be envious(inverted time chronologies/flash backs ect ect). Once you get to the 70s and The Muskateers ,Lester reverts to more traditional movie making methods(stable camera work and slower editing) and linear story telling with a sense of grandeur(which is definitely the case with The Muskateers). Juggernaught, The Flash and even Robin & Marian(to a certain extent) are also big productions. But they still contain the Lester quirks-for instance, at the beginning of Robin and Marian , the bad guys aim a catapault at a castle and fire.....and the boulder just lamely goes into the moat in front of the castle!-not sure if that was intentional or a flubbed take which Lester thought was so great that he included it in the final cut. It's a beautifully framed and choreographed scene-but the action is an anti climax......and that is(or at least, can be for some of the time) Lester for you!....and I agree it's not for everyone's taste. But the Salkinds hired Lester for The Muskateers in pretty much the same way as they hired Donner for Supes, i.e not because the aforementioned directors had the appropriate style for the subject matter at hand.....but because they were in vogue at that specific point in time. And sometimes, by sheer fluke, it worked(as it did for the Muskateers and STM). But in the late 70s , Lester goes back to smaller productions like Cuba and The Ritz(and switches back to the docu style of film making). And from there he takes over duties for SII. As I said in one of the other threads, if you did not know it......there is no way that you would ever guess that Cuba or Robin & Marian had the same director as SII. I would argue that's the hallmark of a high calibre director, the ability to tackle diverse subject matter, and change the movie making style accordingly. It's strange when you think about it, but Lester did change his style to accomodate SII(and align it with Donner's work) but as ever, Lester's fingerprints still found a way to punctuate and perforate the piece and I can see your frustation with that fact. Anyways, will add more thoughts as I go along. I actually might have been fine with adjusting for a number of Lester's changes- I wasn't crazy(at ALL) about the lightening up of the villains- but the slapstick tone of most of the Metro battle just killed me. If he stuck to the Mank script- with the PZ criminals kept as more menacing & the final battle free of wacky (to me) cheap visual jokes, I would have been fine if Lester shot in a cheaper way. He was capable of it- but wanted it overall pushed towards his type of humor and poke holes at the overall seriousness of it. Behind all of this I think is just the RARITY of a giant budgeted superhero film- and knowing how there was no guarantee of ANY other giant budgeted superhero film again = ever = at the time... made me extra-annoyed at what felt like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see a superhero property taken completely seriously with a big budget and groundbreaking fx and high production values. (This of course without knowing the MCU would be in Hollywood's future- Plus, even after the Superman franchise crash and burned after SII- of course, we had to wait years before Batman, then years before Spiderman and X-men- and the rest being history of course..... but who would know that would have ever happened for sure back then?)
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 26, 2023 0:03:12 GMT -5
With regards to finding scenes were the same actor was optically duplicated in the same action scene-well there is this OG Star Trek episode where good Kirk fights bad Kirk-gotta confess I forgot about this one.....and I consider myself a half decent trekkie. The shot where Spock is staring at both of them...is actually pretty good in terms of hiding the optical matt- When the fight kicks in it's pretty obvious what's goin' on- still it's pretty well done......but not as well as SIII's junkard brawl! In terms of the origins of optical/split screen actor duplication-1961's A Parent's Trap seems to be the first movie that successfully pulled it off-I have never seen the movie in it's entirety -but here is a 10 minute docu showing how it was done: This is obviously not an action picture, so it was fairly easy to keep Haley Mills on the opposite side of the same frame. For SIII, even after all these years, the shot where Clark "emanates" from Supes is pretty seamless-done with blue screen and is still very impressive-not bad considering if the lighting or angles were off, it would have compromised the effect: @0.05: Looks great on the blu ray-will be interesting how it holds up on the upcoming 4K. I WANTED to like Superman 3. I remember buying a version of the script at a convention before it came out (Interesting that initially it was a forest fire at night, not a chemical plant in the daytime for the beginning section)- it felt like a 'meh' tv movie script to me, but in retrospect... With some tweaks, (maybe be just a LITTLE deeper/ more serious with Supes/Clark's character if it was going to go there)- if the script was stronger, then I would have really loved that sequence with Supes/Clark. As is, it's still probably the most interesting scene out of the movie to me, mainly for Reeve's committment to both parts in that scene that makes it very rewatchable.... but I felt like a lost oppornity was left on the table by keeping the character dynamics somewhat superficial. On a visual note- Maybe it was the best done for a mirror image sequence up to that point- but actually the script had it (if I recall right) at sundown so that the red skies gave it a more visual impression of heck in the junkyard... (and it's literally called out in the script to resemble a version of heck). but from a production point of view I could understand how day shooting for both the forest fire scene (that got converted into a chemical plant) and the junkyard fight would be a lot cheaper done that way- but a lot less visually striking than what was suggested in the earlier script.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 26, 2023 19:21:12 GMT -5
I actually might have been fine with adjusting for a number of Lester's changes- I wasn't crazy(at ALL) about the lightening up of the villains- but the slapstick tone of most of the Metro battle just killed me. If he stuck to the Mank script- with the PZ criminals kept as more menacing & the final battle free of wacky (to me) cheap visual jokes, I would have been fine if Lester shot in a cheaper way. He was capable of it- but wanted it overall pushed towards his type of humor and poke holes at the overall seriousness of it. Behind all of this I think is just the RARITY of a giant budgeted superhero film- and knowing how there was no guarantee of ANY other giant budgeted superhero film again = ever = at the time... made me extra-annoyed at what felt like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see a superhero property taken completely seriously with a big budget and groundbreaking fx and high production values. (This of course without knowing the MCU would be in Hollywood's future- Plus, even after the Superman franchise crash and burned after SII- of course, we had to wait years before Batman, then years before Spiderman and X-men- and the rest being history of course..... but who would know that would have ever happened for sure back then?) It's always interesting when the threat carried by the villains(and how Donner and Lester handled that aesthetic) is brought up, because it can be observed through 2 prisms. If you view SII through the prism of it being just one movie with a single vision and storyline: Then the villains destroying the lunar module and smashing up the white house are the same villains who blow the helicopter into the barn and break the arm of the red neck in the bar. In other words you have a broad spectrum or gamut of threats from the villains-from cold and sadistic(Ursa kicking the cosmonaut in the crutch) to relatively harmless(Non not being able to zap the snake). This is how Lester wanted SII to be received by the theater goers- as one cohesive linear story with a broad array of sensibilities. If on the other hand you view SII through the prism of it being 2 distinct visions and the work of 2 directors who are almost competing against each other for the audience's attention, then it's easy to discern the more violent interpretation of the villains as depicted by Donner , relative to the more(seemingly) milder presentation ,performed under Lester's guidance. This is how Donner wanted the theatrical SII to be perceived by the fans , from at least the late 80s onwards when he started prevaricating about his lost footage-and possibly at the time of the films theatrical release-although he did wish SII all the best, saying that "it would do good business" when interviewed in April 81's Starlog that was dedicated to the breakdown of the behind the scenes trauma. And this is definitely how Mank and Donner wanted the DC in 2006 to be interpreted by fans-2 diverse directorial works in one movie-with Donner's footage being distinctly superior-and Mank even emphasizing as much in the commentary during the fortress climax. But IMHO there is one caveat. If you watch Cuba-the movie that Lester completed just prior to taking over the helm of SII-there are a number of extremely violent scenes with one of the most brutal being when Castro's men shoot up a dinner that is being attended by Battista's wealthly elite. One chap gets shot in the eye no less, with the camera lingering on said attrocity for quite some time. Yet, shortly after this very horrific sequence ,Connery's mercenary is courting Brooke Adams's spoilt mistress with both of them getting squirted in the face with a malfunctioning milkshake blender in some bar......in true Lester tradition! Now Cuba is strictly adult fare-not intended for youngsters at all, so Lester could show his more violent tendencies. That's definitely not the case with SII , where Lester had to show much more restraint , given the subject matter. But what I am trying to say is that it could be the case that even if Lester had reshot the Lunar and White House sequences himself, that he could conceivably have depicted Non crushing the module on the moon in no less a violent manner than Donner ultimately would do(and brilliantly so ). It's all hypothetical of course , but having just rewatched both Cuba and Robin & Marian(I like both of them - would recommend them).....Lester could express violence in pretty harsh ways....if permitted to do so. Definitely something to bare in mind.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 26, 2023 19:59:25 GMT -5
CAM wrote:
Thanks for the info there regarding the intentions of the original script-I did not know that they were going for a resemblance to h-ll for the junkyard fight. Very interesting.
Of course, it would be pretty easy to pull off with CG these days , in post production.
But back in the photochemical days of film making- you either waited for the skies to convey the colors that you wanted(red sunsets or yellow sun rises) or you shot what you got-lol. Apparently Cameron waited for a reddish sunset so he could shoot the iconic sequence on the bow of Titanic with Leo and Kate-to depict the impending doom(shooting in Mexico definitely helped!)......but even in 1997, CG was already being used to augment colors within a frame of footage.
This was impossible in 1983-also filming in England is pretty much a no go for beautiful sun rises and sunsets(outside of a few days in the summer-lol)-I live here and grey is the predominant color-lol-which is what you got in the junkyard fight!
On a side note I watched 1973's Soylent Green recently and the filmmakers used some kind of filter to express a green haze over a polluted Manhattan. It kinda works-but the image is quite fuzzy as another optical composite had to be applied to the film negative to get the effect that they were looking for. I can see why Lester's team did not use a red filter for the junkyard fight as it would have depleted the resolution of the final image.
But I can't fault the actual production values for both the junkyard and plant fire sequences-they went all out there and did a great job-IMHO.
Agree with you on the limitations of the script with regards to the dynamics of Clark and Supes and how it diminished the impact of the fight. That script needed more work/time to iron out the kinks. I actually think there are some great elements in the screenplay but they needed to be juggled differently with more nips and tucks before going into production.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 27, 2023 2:05:46 GMT -5
If you view SII through the prism of it being just one movie with a single vision and storyline: Then the villains destroying the lunar module and smashing up the white house are the same villains who blow the helicopter into the barn and break the arm of the red neck in the bar. In other words you have a broad spectrum or gamut of threats from the villains-from cold and sadistic(Ursa kicking the cosmonaut in the crutch) to relatively harmless(Non not being able to zap the snake). This is how Lester wanted SII to be received by the theater goers- as one cohesive linear story with a broad array of sensibilities. If on the other hand you view SII through the prism of it being 2 distinct visions and the work of 2 directors who are almost competing against each other for the audience's attention, then it's easy to discern the more violent interpretation of the villains as depicted by Donner , relative to the more(seemingly) milder presentation ,performed under Lester's guidance. This is how Donner wanted the theatrical SII to be perceived by the fans , from at least the late 80s onwards when he started prevaricating about his lost footage-and possibly at the time of the films theatrical release-although he did wish SII all the best, saying that "it would do good business" when interviewed in April 81's Starlog that was dedicated to the breakdown of the behind the scenes trauma. .... But what I am trying to say is that it could be the case that even if Lester had reshot the Lunar and White House sequences himself, that he could conceivably have depicted Non crushing the module on the moon in no less a violent manner than Donner ultimately would do(and brilliantly so ). It's all hypothetical of course , but having just rewatched both Cuba and Robin & Marian(I like both of them - would recommend them).....Lester could express violence in pretty harsh ways....if permitted to do so. Definitely something to bare in mind. I haven't seen Cuba, but the Three and Four Musketeers- the action was ok, but it's the choreography, camera shots, and editing that made me really enjoy Donner's sense of action in the Superman movies as well as Ladyhawke and the first few Lethal Weapon films. But- I'm more bothered by how the overall effect was in comparing the Mank version of SII versus the theatrical with the rewritten SII- Ilya Salkind on the commentary for SII talks about how he was distracted by personal affairs and might have had Lester not go so far off the rails in comedy during the Metro battle- so if that's the case, then it seems (especially with SIII going far off into comedy imo)- that the softening of the action to being silly and comedic was less the producers and more Lester's preferences. In any case- I didn't like the end result even on first view, with it feeling like shifts back and forth that weakened the potency of the Donner-shot villain scenes, I thought. But- anyhow.... the only things I think I would be a nice suprise to see at this point would be = a Lester interview/commentary of his side of the story for SII, before he dies- And- more shown takes/footage that we haven't seen shot by Donner. (If he had shot a ton of takes each time, would love to see the other takes for the Reeve/Jorel scenes to see for myself why the resulting scenes were lackluster- if it was the editing or if they really were the best takes chosen. Given the rest of the bad choices with editing in the Donner cut, I'm leaning still on it being poor editing that ruined the Donner cut.)
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 27, 2023 2:26:32 GMT -5
"EXT. AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARD - TWILIGHT At first we cannot tell where we are. The EVIL SUPERMAN, black garbed, lands on his knees in a landscape that looks like the end of the world: dark piles of twisted metal, debris, small fires burning here and there. It could be heck. But it is, in fact, an automobile graveyard."
"POV: LOOKING FORWARD DOWN THE AILSE -- The bus has stopped. Out the windshield we SEE a red glow on the horizon that lights up the sky. TWO SHOT -- CLARK AND JIMMY JIMMY Wow, what a beautiful sunrise! CLARK At one o'clock in the morning? CLOSER ON THE WINDSHIELD -- We now SEE police cars with dome lights blocking the road, barrier set up. EXT. TWO-LANE HIGHWAY - NIGHT A few minutes later. The BUS DRIVER has gotten out to talk to the POLICEMAN blocking the road. CLARK, JIMMY, and some OTHER PASSENGERS have come out of the bus also to find out what's happening. Throughout the following, CUT TO VARIOUS ANGLES showing other traffic being halted and one lane cleared for emergency vehicles to pass through: ambulances, fire trucks, National Guard truck, etc. STATE POLICEMAN It's your choice. Turn back or pull over to the side of the road till it's over. BUS DRIVER How long'll that take? STATE POLICEMAN You never know with forest fires. And this one is spreading like . . . (he has no choice but to finish the sentence he started) . . . wildfire. We got 10,000 acres of timber going up like matchsticks and a south wind. CLARK What's the south wind got to do with it? STATE POLICEMAN Iroquois Trail Power Plant is just eight miles south of the fire. JIMMY The nuclear power station? JIMMY turns and runs back onto the bus. INT. BUS - NIGHT JIMMY grabs his camera from the overhead rack, dashes out again. EXT. BUS - NIGHT CLARK How did it start? STATE POLICEMAN Nine times out of ten it's some careless camper. CLARK Are there campers trapped in there? STATE POLICEMAN We're doing our best to get 'em out. JIMMY comes out of the bus, pulls CLARK aside. JIMMY Keep talking to that state trooper so he doesn't notice where I'm going, okay? CLARK What are you doing? JIMMY You know what Mr. White said. A photographer always goes after a story. He starts to sneak off into the nearby forest. CLARK Jimmy, it's dangerous! On JIMMY -- The swashbuckling bravado of a 19 year-old: JIMMY Danger? That goes with the territory, Mr. Kent. And he ducks into the woods. C.U. CLARK -- making a decision. NEW ANGLE -- As more cars have been stooped, a DRIVER, in F.G. gets out of his car to walk forward toward the barrier to see what's going on. CLARK looks around to make sure nobody is noticing him. Then, quickly, he opens the right- hand side back door of the empty car and enters. A split-second later he emerges from the left-hand side as . . . SUPERMAN! He takes off. CUT TO: EXT. FOREST FIRE - NIGHT OVERHEAD SHOTS (STOCK FOOTAGE): A terrific forest fire is raging. Miles and miles of burning trees, rushing winds. EXT. FOREST - NIGHT
VARIOUS SHOTS (STOCK FOOTAGE) INSIDE THE FIRES ITSELF ON GROUND LEVEL. 1. Flaming trees, timber crashing. 2. Animals running in panic. 3. Sheets of flame sweeping through woods. Followed by VARIOUS QUICK SHOTS of brave and hard-working FIREFIGHTERS right in the thick of it, doing what they can: 1. Spading up the ground with shovels and hoes, trying to create firebreaks. 2. Chain-saws at work bringing down trees to to clear area. 3. A portable pump with hose attached drawing water from a small pond or creek in the area. Throughout all this, we have the impression of a blazing inferno of terrific proportions with sheets of flame and sounds of fire and falling trees and whipping winds."
To me, these sound a lot more visually dynamic than the changes to daytime shooting for both. But- oh well...
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,822
|
Post by atp on Feb 27, 2023 4:29:39 GMT -5
Mr Thau please create CGI red sky for Superman 3 Junkyard scene
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,822
|
Post by atp on Feb 27, 2023 4:31:45 GMT -5
Flash Gordon (1980) had some very interesting effects for colourful skies and clouds
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 27, 2023 18:27:44 GMT -5
CAM wrote:
Apart from Supes and The Muskateers , all the other Lester work from the 60s and 70s was not intended for young children. You could even argue that some aspects of The Muskateers(beheadings and the like) were going too far(for kids).
Obviously Help! and A Hard Days Night targeted young people (late teens and upwards) and technically could have been shown to children but very young kids were never the intended audience.
But everything else from The Bed Sitting Room to Petulia are effectively surrealist movies , influenced by new wave European cinema in the mould of the likes of Trufeau and Fellini. Children can watch-but they most likely through no fault of their own, are not going to understand-even adults are perplexed by Fellini some 60 years on. I know I am! Now I am not an expert but I have some Fellini and Trufeau stuff in my collection-and some of Lester's 60s work is very much in that vain.
How does this relate to SII? I think Lester realized that he had to strike just about the right balance-to make the movie amenable for young children(probably like me at the time!) aswell as satisfy older members of the audience. And for good or for worse , this was Lester's way of doing something in what was relatively new territory for him.
Donner of course, was not afraid to throw the cop under the train, destroy Krypton and kill off Pa Kent(as per canon) and Lois in STM. But these were not scenes that involved fighting......in fact as mentioned in another thread, there is no combat in STM apart from Supes throwing Luthor onto the couch.
SII ,on the other hand, would neccessitate sequences that involved good ol' fashioned fighting(allbeit airborne). And seeing as we were still the best part of 10 years pre-Lethal Weapon, Donner's credentials as an action director were still in a state of flux-he would have been tested by SII if he had got round to completing it back in 79'. So what I am trying to say is could the Donner of the 70s pulled off SII as an all actioner?- which is what it essentially was.
I think it's fair to say that the underlying reasons for Lester maintaining Donner's work for the moon and White House sequences were purely financial-as it would have cost too much to reshoot. The firing of Donner was done just at the right moment(if you look at it from the Salkinds point of view)-had he shot more stuff , say at Niagra or some of the climax it would have been too expensive to find a new director and redo all those scenes from scratch. Also, I don't think there is any doubt that Lester esteemed Donner's skills as a director-that could be another reason why he left most of the lunar, Don's diner and White House material relatively unscathed in the theatrical.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Feb 27, 2023 18:35:27 GMT -5
@cam Thanks for the SIII script- very cool. I think Spengler mentioned in the commentary that one of the initial drafts had the plant/forest fire going on for ever.....and they had to find a way to curtail it from taking over the whole story-lol! atp Ah not seen the 1980 Flash Gordon for about 40 odd years.....I know it's out on blu ray and even 4K -may bag it at some point. Yeah any application of filters ,using analogue tech, meant that the whole image would be bathed in what ever color it was that the director intended---you may remember the bloody sequence in the last 20 mins of Taxi Driver having said effect.......as opposed to CG....where you can apply the appropriate hue to just the object in question(sky,walls,characters ect ect). And that's one of the main advantages of digital over photochemical.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Feb 28, 2023 15:08:14 GMT -5
@cam Thanks for the SIII script- very cool. I think Spengler mentioned in the commentary that one of the initial drafts had the plant/forest fire going on for ever.....and they had to find a way to curtail it from taking over the whole story-lol! atp Ah not seen the 1980 Flash Gordon for about 40 odd years.....I know it's out on blu ray and even 4K -may bag it at some point. Yeah any application of filters ,using analogue tech, meant that the whole image would be bathed in what ever color it was that the director intended---you may remember the bloody sequence in the last 20 mins of Taxi Driver having said effect.......as opposed to CG....where you can apply the appropriate hue to just the object in question(sky,walls,characters ect ect). And that's one of the main advantages of digital over photochemical. When I have a chance, will re-lookup & link the pdf for the full SIII script found. One thing you pointed out that made me think: if SIII wasn't approached to be directed in tv movie style (for the most part aside from $ behind it)- then the 'dream sequence' of Superman imagining splitting apart could have been even more psychedelic (or maybe even a little)- with even more schizo bits (past and future villains as cameos in the fantasy junkyard battle. I get they they wanted to do this on a specific budget and keep to a fairly standard style, though. But.... might have been extra cool to have had a more psychedelic approach and/or cameo bits of other characters that played before (Phantom Zone criminals? Helen Slater cameo a la Hawkeye appearing first in Thor?). Fan editors? hecko? Any takers on this?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,822
|
Post by atp on Mar 1, 2023 14:38:56 GMT -5
In the S3 novelisation, the evil Superman is explained a bit deeper. He is kind of the embodiment of Clark's resentment at being unappreciated and having to hide his identity.
In fact, the novelisation does quite an interesting job of delving into all the main characters. It's quite cynical and jaded though, which is the style of William Kotzwinkle's books.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 2, 2023 12:02:06 GMT -5
In the S3 novelisation, the evil Superman is explained a bit deeper. He is kind of the embodiment of Clark's resentment at being unappreciated and having to hide his identity. In fact, the novelisation does quite an interesting job of delving into all the main characters. It's quite cynical and jaded though, which is the style of William Kotzwinkle's books. I actually had that novelized version of SIII back in 83/84-it's one of the first books I was able to read without a teacher (or my parents) forcing me to read it! Unfortunately lost my copy way back then and can't remember any details of the story. Interesting what you are saying though- would have been nice to see some of that depth make it's way into the movie. Do you have any idea if they did a novelized version for SII back in 80/81?- and if so how did that diverge(or not) from the film?
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Mar 2, 2023 12:18:06 GMT -5
@cam
haha Interesting take on the psychedelics aspect for Supes.
If Lester had applied the techniques he used in Petulia to SIII-that possibly would have made a better end product. Petulia is basically a flash back/story unfolding non chronologically heaven's paradise.....with a good dose of late 60s San Fransciscan psychedelics thrown in for good measure.
I am really hoping it gets a Blu ray release......day 1 purchase for me(but that's me!) when that happens.
But yeah-good catch on how that could have worked for evil Supes. If they had gone with that approach back in 83'......think it would have been possible.....I am sure Sara Douglas mentioned in 1981 that the way was left open for a possible return of the villains(or at least some of them).
I often think that with a bit of script juggling for SIII......they could have had Supes fight the computer in the middle of the flick.....and have the kryptonite rays that the computer fires at Supes be the cause for him to split into 2.....and go from there.
Anyways...never happened-lol!
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,822
|
Post by atp on Mar 3, 2023 3:19:26 GMT -5
In the S3 novelisation, the evil Superman is explained a bit deeper. He is kind of the embodiment of Clark's resentment at being unappreciated and having to hide his identity. In fact, the novelisation does quite an interesting job of delving into all the main characters. It's quite cynical and jaded though, which is the style of William Kotzwinkle's books. I actually had that novelized version of SIII back in 83/84-it's one of the first books I was able to read without a teacher (or my parents) forcing me to read it! Unfortunately lost my copy way back then and can't remember any details of the story. Interesting what you are saying though- would have been nice to see some of that depth make it's way into the movie. Do you have any idea if they did a novelized version for SII back in 80/81?- and if so how did that diverge(or not) from the film? I don't think there was a novelisation of S2 ever. I read that Puzo wouldn't permit it as he had the rights.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 6, 2023 20:39:32 GMT -5
In the S3 novelisation, the evil Superman is explained a bit deeper. He is kind of the embodiment of Clark's resentment at being unappreciated and having to hide his identity. In fact, the novelisation does quite an interesting job of delving into all the main characters. It's quite cynical and jaded though, which is the style of William Kotzwinkle's books. I actually had that novelized version of SIII back in 83/84-it's one of the first books I was able to read without a teacher (or my parents) forcing me to read it! Unfortunately lost my copy way back then and can't remember any details of the story. Interesting what you are saying though- would have been nice to see some of that depth make it's way into the movie. Do you have any idea if they did a novelized version for SII back in 80/81?- and if so how did that diverge(or not) from the film? After reading how much effort Peter David put into 'fixing' Batman Forever by adding extra material in his novelization to justify a lot of crazy things that happened in the shooting script.... I'm always curious how much a writer who gets the novelization assignment phones it in or really takes the material to a new level.... so I would be curious how SIII's novelization is. I've heard also that Puzo's contract forbade STM/SII novelization, so the only tie-in where the Elliot Maggin novels that were solo stories and only slightly had any real connections to the movie scripts- so as not to tread on the contract.
|
|