Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 15, 2008 20:22:36 GMT -5
Exactly. Superman The movie would get a new asshole ripped for it by a lot of todays audience.
Imagine how much bitching would be done about how Jor El looks?
or why the fuck the Phantom Zone is a freakin album cover?
Or why Krypton looks like Alaska?
Or why Zods wearing black and got a beard?
Where the heck is Faora and Quex Ul?
Or Why Jackie Cooper looks nothing like Perry White?
Or Why Reeve isn't barrel chested enough. Why he's got poofy 70's hair?
Or Why Lex is wearing a wig?
Or Where are Lex's mad scientist inventions?
Why Superman isn't fighting Bizarro or Solomon Grundy or some other big bruiser?
Where's Jewel Kryptonite?
Why wasn't Clark Superboy in Smallville?
Where's Pete Ross?
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Nov 15, 2008 21:18:08 GMT -5
Screw all that.
Know why? STM was the one that started it all. Most people know that.
STM was also a product of its time. Different times, different approaches. In fact, I daresay that STM is so influential that I'm not sure Nolan or Singer or anyone would've been inspired to do some of the great things they've done with superhero movies if it weren't for the Salkinds, Donner and Reeve.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 15, 2008 22:46:41 GMT -5
Exactly. It wouldn't work today...no matter the fact that it IS so great and so influential or could be so influential.
And in this age of the internet people WOULD complain about everything I said. We've got 25 PAGE discussions on the soles of Rouths fucking shoes or his HAIR for God's sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ollie W on Nov 16, 2008 2:14:14 GMT -5
How about lack of story. Honestly for a 2.5 hour movie nothing really happens. Bullshit. Superman's character development was taken further in SR than in all of the later 3 Christopher Reeve films.. Don't swear Mav. You have a different opinion than mine. I still say for a movie of that length that very little happened. Take the Smallville scenes for example. They were incredibly rushed through making them arbitrary, where's the deleted Smallville scenes carry more emotion then what Bryan left in. We get to see that much has changed in his absence. The newspapers scene detailing disasters that could've been averted had he not left. And the little bit about Martha finding a new love was touching. The point I am making is that very little of the emotion and rich storytelling that I think Bryan was going for shows up on screen and what we are left with is a film that never takes a moment to breath. We got to see him deal with him: Knowing for sure that hes the last of his kind. Without the return to krypton scene there is absolutely no weight to that whatsoever. Seriously when Routh says "that place was a graveyard, I'm all that’s left" it's cringe worthy. Dealing with the mistake he made in not telling Lois goodbye. Fitting back into his life after 5 years in Solitude. What fitting in? He gets back and is excepted by everyone apart from Lois. Realizing that everything he was looking for on Krypton was right here on earth (Another like himself). Well we got that in SIV, earth is home. Just because you didn't like what happened, doesn't mean nothing happened. I Love Superman Returns. I think its Epic & all heart & character. It has nothing to do with me liking the material or not. Bryan's story idea was great but his execution was poor. I wasn't chasing more action I just think Superman's absence and return carried very little weight to a story that was billed as Superman Returns. How can you call a film epic when it never reveals itself for any considerable time because of fear of looking fake. Oh and Superman Returns flying shots are as epic as a video game. What a joke for a film made 28 after STM graced the screen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2008 13:39:38 GMT -5
I call SR epic.
There are numerous times there are things that occur on screen that are things that, as a Superman nerd, almost gave me a pure, true erection.
|
|
|
|
Post by thepariah on Nov 16, 2008 14:11:04 GMT -5
or why the fuck the Phantom Zone is a freakin album cover? L.M.A.O. ;D ;D ;D Take the Smallville scenes for example. They were incredibly rushed through making them arbitrary, where's the deleted Smallville scenes carry more emotion then what Bryan left in. We get to see that much has changed in his absence. The newspapers scene detailing disasters that could've been averted had he not left. And the little bit about Martha finding a new love was touching. The point I am making is that very little of the emotion and rich storytelling that I think Bryan was going for shows up on screen and what we are left with is a film that never takes a moment to breath. Without the return to krypton scene there is absolutely no weight to that whatsoever. Seriously when Routh says "that place was a graveyard, I'm all that’s left" it's cringe worthy. What fitting in? He gets back and is excepted by everyone apart from Lois. It has nothing to do with me liking the material or not. Bryan's story idea was great but his execution was poor. I wasn't chasing more action I just think Superman's absence and return carried very little weight to a story that was billed as Superman Returns. I do mostly agree with you on these points. Even as much as I love SR, I was a little confused on how there was no conflict between him and the public. Granted, I'd say mankind was a bunch of bastards with their heads stuck up their asses if no one was grateful for him making a comeback by saving that plane, but I was surprised there was no touching upon the point of, "Hey, where the heck have you been, jackass??" I kind of expected there to be shots of talking heads on TV ripping him apart, even if most of the public was just glad to have him back, that kind of thing. heck, I've read fanfics that have done a better job with this aspect. And almost all the deleted scenes were indispensible and/or better than what we actually got. I personally wouldn't care if I had to sit through a 4-5 hour epic, but that's just me. To think, there's even more deleted scenes that weren't even included on the DVD. (Excluding RTK.) Yeah, Brandon's delivery of that line tanked. I still cringe at it. I chalk it up to inexperience, but I'm surprised Bryan let it slide instead of making him give a better performance. I don't need him chin-wibbling or crying since he's already accused of being a crybaby just for getting a little misty-eyed later  but it doesn't even come across as sheck-shocked numb or haunted, just flat. Luckily that was my only disappointment in his acting. I call SR epic. There are numerous times there are things that occur on screen that are things that, as a Superman nerd, almost gave me a pure, true erection. Word. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Nov 16, 2008 15:13:53 GMT -5
I call SR epic. There are numerous times there are things that occur on screen that are things that, as a Superman nerd, almost gave me a pure, true erection.  Oh & Ollie, swearing is ok on this board.  I love SR & disagree with every single thing you have said. (Save for the fact that I do agree that the deleted Smallville stuff needed to be left in) Simple, really. |
|
|
|
Post by thepariah on Nov 16, 2008 15:30:36 GMT -5
I love SR & disagree with every single thing you have said. (Save for the fact that I do agree that the deleted Smallville stuff needed to be left in) Simple, really. And this is why I love this board: you fellas can coexist and be civil in your disagreements. You guys should be, like, running the country or something. ;D |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 16, 2008 15:42:11 GMT -5
If McCain and Obama gave each other erections the parties would be UNITED...in a circle jerk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Nov 16, 2008 15:50:20 GMT -5
Pariah, it wasn't always like this. Certain elements had to be purged. Like an enema. But as someone who has frequented this board in one capacity or another for almost 10 years, I can say that these last few months have been about as good as we've ever been.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 16, 2008 16:00:30 GMT -5
I like to think of him as more of a gallstone or a boil.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 16, 2008 16:22:19 GMT -5
I don't know if I'd agree that - if nothing changed - that it wouldn't work today, but my guess is that - because of audiences and what they expect today from a superhero film...or an action film (similiarly, for the original Connery "Bond" films wouldn't pass today, either- too much talking, not enough action)--- that the box office wouldn't necessarily be there. But... it depends which market it is targeting and what that audience is like. I teach an after-school program for high schoolers, and they LOVE "High School Musical"--- which is incredibly squeaky clean, appropriate for the family, and doesn't have a trace of darkness to it. (And I'm still scratching my head at how much money it made). On the plus side, maybe it is a good thing that "Dark Knight" made so much money that now (maybe) WB can see that it's not as simple as: "successful superhero film= must be squeaky clean" or "successful superhero film= must be incredibly dark"..... WB's idea of dark might not be the same idea as what we think is dark, too.... In any case....I get off topic- STM would probably get those who enjoy a solid story and those who enjoy (and can tell) the 'special touches' in filmmaking that would make one see it over and over again. STM might not get the general crowds that only go to ANYTHING if it's a giant novelty event (in terms of what the broad audience might determine is anticipation-worthy--- for example, what I call the "Heath Ledger's death" possible effect on TDK's interest and box office. Or the FIRST 'Jurassic Park', when that new level of fx were introduced.) Which is why I thought (to a degree) SR did far better than it should have- just like BB, which were both re-introductory stories (for the most part) and were both more character-establishing than powerhouse action films. And.. it always comes back to this--- why MOS would rule. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 16, 2008 16:42:32 GMT -5
People would complain that Superman didn't punch someone in STM...and "Can You Read My Mind" would be the new "Nuke the Fridge."
The internet geeks would implode.
|
|
|
|
Post by thepariah on Nov 17, 2008 11:15:43 GMT -5
I like to think of him as more of a gallstone or a boil. It's a TOOOOOOMAH. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ReeveIsSuperman on Nov 17, 2008 18:36:03 GMT -5
They should release Superman the Movie in 2008- Re-Release that is, for the 30th anniversary. It's still the 'GodFather' of all superhero movies...
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Nov 17, 2008 18:53:14 GMT -5
I haven't clicked on this thread in a few days, I love it!
I recently read a review of Superman: The Movie on imdb.com. The writer was a 20 something moron who thought STM was boring and dated. The 'Superman didn't punch anyone" came up more than once. Maybe we're the last of a dying bread. I for one want substance before any Michael Bay-like CGI. Smallville being the exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 17, 2008 23:09:50 GMT -5
Well... I have to confess that there were a number of movies I loved in my late teens/early twenties that I now am embarrassed to say that I even saw. let alone liked.... so, tastes change. On the flip side, other movies I've seen as a kid continue to hold up in mid-age (the original Star Wars & Empire being another one). So, I'm getting more tolerant of varying opinions- the things that don't change over time about STM is the level of perfectionism that Donner had over the production-- (Something that Lester's S2 always lacked) The cinematography is still/will always be gorgeous, by Geoffrey Unsworth, the editing sharp as a tack, John Williams' music always timeless to listen to, and the chemistry and performances by Reeve and Kidder (as well as the others)- Donner's said that the movie is primarily a love story that the rest hangs on. It is- but, to me, it's always about the whole journey that the character had- from his heritage, how he came to be as a person, based on the love of his father and his adopted parents to have the weight of the world on his shoulders, knowing that he also is (possibly) the most powerful and most alone person on the planet. Now....a reviewer looking for just high adrenalin action, wouldn't get that. Some things take time to really appreciate. STM thankfully got a website that has forums that have folks like us that keep that movie alive in discussion, decades later, after its left the theatre. So.... who cares what they think on imdb? |
|
|
|
Post by thepariah on Nov 18, 2008 1:27:55 GMT -5
I recently read a review of Superman: The Movie on imdb.com. The writer was a 20 something moron who thought STM was boring and dated. The 'Superman didn't punch anyone" came up more than once. Maybe we're the last of a dying bread. I for one want substance before any Michael Bay-like CGI. Smallville being the exception. I'll let the whole-grain goodness of your typo slide. ;D Y'all need to make sure you procreate and indoctrinate your offspring to carry on your film sensibilities for the next generation. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Nov 18, 2008 2:02:38 GMT -5
^^Exactly! We need to instruct them early into "The Church Of Kal-El".  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Nov 18, 2008 2:36:11 GMT -5
They should release Superman the Movie in 2008- Re-Release that is, for the 30th anniversary. It's still the 'GodFather' of all superhero movies... Agreed.  |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Nov 18, 2008 2:48:10 GMT -5
^YES! STM rocks! I'd LOVE to watch it on the big screen. |
|
|
|
Post by thepariah on Nov 18, 2008 3:00:09 GMT -5
^^Exactly! We need to instruct them early into "The Church Of Kal-El". ;D Eh, not quite that hardcore. Besides, they might start up a crusade against those British Jedi... |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Nov 18, 2008 12:27:26 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 23, 2008 13:33:19 GMT -5
Well....was thinking about all the thoughts that came up on this original post, but rather than add a new one (that might be a little too similiar), thought I'd revise the title of this thread to include thoughts of the sequels if they came out now versus then--- is it going to the well one too many times? Possibly, but just sharing additional thoughts... IF: Superman II came out in 2008 instead: * Aside from possible confusion of: well, when did the first one come out? Or.... does this movie stand alone on its own? Or... are we talking about the RDC or Lester cut?--- * Assuming Superman I came out in 2007, then--- and talking about quality, content, and/or aesthetics (or, of course, whatever anyone chooses to make a tangent on, as- god knows, I'm one of the kings of going off on tangents... )--- Then.... How well would Superman II (Lester theatrical*) be received, as Supes DOES punch someone? (* reason I don't put out the Donner version, is because I still consider the Donner Cut sadly forever unfinished because Donner never got to shoot what he needed to for everything to jell in his vision, and would be even more complicated than thinking just about how Lester's version would be received.) * My own opinion: My thoughts would be that it wouild do.... mildly ok box office. Ok, here are my arguments for Lester's SII getting at best ok box office: In no particular order: #1: The memory kiss- Why? I think in general the bar for fantasy to have a little more grounding in reality - (story logic-wise)- has gone up, due to Star Wars*, Star Trek* (the good ones), Nolan's Batman, X-men, the Lord of the Rings, etc. etc. --- that "easy fixes" to tough dilemmas in fantasy stories would be less forgiven nowadays by fans and critics.... The 'Amnesia Kiss' probably would go over just as well as Harry Osborne's 'Amnesia' and his butler's "convenient remembering of a particular knife wound" in Spiderman 3*. It's a groaner- an easy fix for a dilemma that would have been far more interesting if a more realistic resolution had been given- even to its own story logic. (Unless one goes by the idea that Lois DOES actually remember, but she's so emotionally distraught that she suppresses it and it's not a superkiss at all...but, still.) ((*At the same time, I have to admit that Spiderman 3 did do giant box office, but I don't know of a single person on the planet - aside from Sam and Ted Raimi that thinks: "yeah....amnesia works plausibly for this story and I buy it for the conclusion of the Spiderman series." So, there is that.)) #2: The light tone - would it work today? For the Lois and Clark scenes, this might not hurt... I think the acceptance of "Lois and Clark" on the airwaves helped cement the romantic comic possibilities of the Lois/Clark dynamic that were brought out by Donner's Superman--- and, love or hate Smallville, it's one of the few things that (in spirit) is still captured and kept alive by that show. They're a funny couple- and it doesn't have to be campy. The Lois and Clark scenes would be a give or take- but the acting is so well done, and the comic timing is such that even over time I don't think I've heard ANYONE hate these. (They may comment on how tired Lois looked in Lester's version, but not the acting) For the Luthor/Teschmacher/Otis scenes: they're pretty fast and they always kept the plot forward....and while I wasn't crazy about Luthor being campy in STM, I accepted him and thought he was hilarious as a contrast to the Donner version of the villains and fit perfectly. I think these scenes would be fine even if introduced 'new' to today's audience. However.... When the camp/comedy goes over the top in the Metropolis battle--- I don't know if people would be so offended as to walk out of the theatre, but I think it's telling that even Ilya Salkind comments that he might have pulled back on the comedy schtick at the end of the battle. People were scratching their heads in the theatres (nobody laughed at ANY of the shows I'd attended at the 'Metro battle comedy sequence'----and I'd seen the flim multiple times)---- when there WERE no other superhero films... I can imagine people getting pissed off and throwing popcorn at the screen if they were engaged in a movie that all of a sudden totally went into camp mode 2/3rds through. Speaking of the battle scene... #3: Where's the action, man??? Well--- there are the STILL great Moon, Daily Planet, White House scenes by Donner (it's telling when some scenes that are decades old STILL holds a lot of power today)- but it was all leading up to the big battle---- which are a couple of punches, then.... slapstick. There are some minor nifty bits here and there- but--- especially given all the videogame action available nowadays, that would be a good barometer... if a movie builds to a giant sfx battle, and its cheapened to comedy, it takes a lot of energy that was built up by the film. So.... On the plus side, no matter what, it's such a (fairly) solid and engaging plotline, that it is watchable, even with Lester's changes to Donner's original intents. Would it be something that would catch fire today with its faster pace than STM? Honestly.... If Donner/Baird had finished it with the serious tone and big battle, I think (and this is purely speculation, but this whole thing is speculation) it would do well--- maybe even extremely well, even with today's higher 'darkness/violence' level. But would Lester's finished version do well today, even with Donner parts? I think it would do 'mild- maybe good' family business. Watchable, but a movie that was disappointing in 1980, and my guess is it would be considered even more mediocre with its uneven parts and higher standards now. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 23, 2008 13:41:28 GMT -5
Now, If Superman III were released in 2008... my op would be...
* Big bomb on almost all levels....
- Too simplistic to be a good drama
- Too unfunny to be a good comedy
- Too dull in action to be an action picture
- Too unspectacular to compete with fantasy films of the last couple of decades
- Too scary for children
Even if it had ILM redone the fx, there's so little Superman in this film- and the personality changes are done so superficially (had it been done with more complexity, it could really have been something) in an attempt to appeal to all ages- that it's hard to know what there would be in this film to engage audiences, other than seeing Reeve as Clark/Superman and (the always underrated) O'Toole in this film.
I didn't mind if it had to have comedy, but the dialogue that's supposed to be 'witty' between Clark and Lana is incredibly flat- and the direction (By Richard "One take and cheaper is fine" Lester) didn't add any real layers nor complexity to it, either.
|
|
but it doesn't even come across as sheck-shocked numb or haunted, just flat. Luckily that was my only disappointment in his acting. 
