|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 24, 2009 13:01:06 GMT -5
Well, not sure if this counts, but I've recently aquired a HD STM that someone edited back down to the theatrical version as well as adding the original 1978 audio. Want. |
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on May 24, 2009 22:41:06 GMT -5
Jor, you may add....
S2: Donner Cut.
Why the Donner Cut? Because my girlfriend hates Superman 2, but kind of wanted to watch it after our STM viewing last night. So, I introduced her to the Donner Cut as "treat it as if Superman 2 never was finished, and this is a bonus disc from the STM box".
She enjoyed it. I don't hate the DC like some folks on here do, but I have major issues with it. However, in short, nearlY ALL of my problems with it are in the first 40 minutes, and once the villains take the White House, I think it becomes more of what it was intended to be.
Sorry, probably not the place...
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on May 24, 2009 22:45:11 GMT -5
Y'know, I don't mind the Donner Cut at all. Do I prefer it over Lester's Version? No. It's a nice "Bonus" disc. I remember buying the box set and seeing for the first times with a few friends. We all liked it for what it is; an incomplete version of Donner's vision.
|
|
The Phantom Menace
New Member
Eyes to the stage, pilgrim, she's just warming up.
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on May 27, 2009 2:36:14 GMT -5
Couldn't sleep, so I watched the theatrical cut of Superman: The Movie. Such a great movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 27, 2009 13:42:25 GMT -5
Caught STM last night on a big screen tv- Amazing how the whole package stands up so much. That were was no CGI available then, and so much is forced to be done in-camera, that its even more impressive and one really appreciates all the details the background that can't be computer generated.
A couple of things really stuck out, especially in this day/age of superhero films being more of a regular staple:
* The pacing. Some hated the time taken to get to Superman.... but I loved that time was taken in each place to feel as if the story of his life were real, in those locations.
* Speaking of which, it also stood out on how much the environments were played as extra characters in the film. The location shooting in faux-Kansas and New York was definitely worth the pain that came with it. In looking at the film, and examining what was missing from both the Lester Cut and the Donner cut, I realize that a lot of what made STM work was how much the location shooting added to the overall feeling of the movie.
Had the helicopter rescue scene been shot on a soundstage (like Lester's version of SII), it would have been incredibly weak. The choice for location shooting giantly helped smooth out the greenscreen soundstage shots that looked bad the first time around, but even moreso in the digital age (the robbers on the boat sequence/ the landing in the Metro 'street' before drilling a whole in the ground).
But even then, when the sets look like sets in STM the art direction and the level of attention to detail (even when the fx look bad by today's standards)- more than make up for it. (i.e. Lois' balcony).
* The amount of non-verbal moments that speak volumes stands out in Donner's STM, as opposed to Lester's work on SII- I was suprised in looking at the movie how many of the performances have a lot of subtle touches and the editing embrace these moments- (as opposed to the Thau cuts).
* The amount of scenes all done in one take- that are impressive because they don't depend on fx necessarily (though the one seemingly uninterrupted take of Supes leaving Lois' balcony, to Lois seeing Clark, to Clark's almost confession, to Lois' "that's Clark, nice."--- is a shot that's so classic, I'm suprised it's not referenced more at all)--- but just the amount of perfectionism demanded by Donner.
In more than a few shots, the timing and performances in these long uninterrupted takes (often with complicated camera moves- meaning the cast and crew need to be in perfect sync)- just kill, because the easy route of shooting could easily have been taken, over and over again.
Anyhow, after looking at SII endlessly for cuts, (and getting incredibly sick of looking at the movie), it was refreshing to be able to see STM again, and have that reacquaintence feel as good as ever. But, if anything, it also reminds one of what a lost opportunity it was for Donner not to return to SII....*sigh*....
|
|
|
|
Post by superman on May 28, 2009 12:39:00 GMT -5
One of the best examples of Donner's perfection, on not cutting the scenes was at the Daily Planet -
The scene before the helicopter.
Clark asking Lois out for "a little dinner" - was done in one take!!!
One of the best composed scenes in the movie.
A shame that the average movie goer takes it for granted.
I noticed that shot back when I was 12.
Because it was the first time I watched STM on video.
STM has great attention to detail - thanks to Richard Donner.
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on May 28, 2009 13:13:12 GMT -5
I love the ending of the rooftop scene with Supes and Lois, after they flying around New York, I mean Metropolis. After he drops her off he flies off then we hear Clark knocking at the door. Awesome stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on May 28, 2009 16:03:04 GMT -5
There is so much awesome stuff in STM. Wonderful movie. Haven't seen it in a long time -more than two years easily- and I just suddenly feel the need to watch it again. Will try this weekend.
|
|
The Phantom Menace
New Member
Eyes to the stage, pilgrim, she's just warming up.
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on May 28, 2009 22:55:09 GMT -5
Watched Superman II theatrical. I was debating between this and the Donner Cut and decided to go with the more polished of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 29, 2009 16:49:20 GMT -5
Agreed.... there are quite a few 'one-take scenes' that take longer, but boggle the mind on how perfect all the elements are that come out, since any one element could have blown the whole scene, and they'd have to re-shoot it (though now, with cgi- those 'one-takes' COULD be more artifically generated as opposed to then, when it would HAVE to be done all in-camera--- although probably still extremely expensive to composite in separate performances/takes).
The marvel of STM is that the flying and fx scenes aren't the whole movie- it's the charm of the moviemaking by Donner/Baird and company that pulls it all together to make it truly a one-of-a kind film. The fx can get outdated, but HOW Donner told the story is timeless.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2009 21:03:50 GMT -5
Saw "Superman Returns" last night--- * Should say, first off, I've seen this film several times in the theatre when it came out, but only a few times on dvd for some odd reason. (Probably because I'm not planning on a fan edit of it) So.....somewhat fresh eyes as I haven't seen it in awhile (though I bought the script, the book on tape, international banner, toys, etc.- so I do have a bias) Given that--- The GOOD and BAD now that time has passed... Roger Ebert quoted a legendary filmmaker as saying that a great movie was: "A movie with three great scenes and no bad ones". Well, right off the bat- YES, there were MORE than 3 great scenes, and no real bad ones... BUT.... there were weak ones that stick out more, just as the quality of the great scenes continue to amaze me. ((Funny aside: I hate STM's standalone Luthor scenes and the turning back of time, so those are a few bad scenes, but so much is exceptional, that it's forgiven. So, I question the formula, even though I kinda get what the guy was saying...)) * GREATNESS- #1: A GOOD NUMBER OF SCENES are conceived and executed so well, from the ground up, that I could watch them a million times. Particular favorites (in reverse chronological order to the movie): * Supes and son and Lois- the 'final' goodbye. There are SO many ways that the revelation and the scene could have been done obviously or badly, that SInger/Ottman don't get nearly enough credit for the deft handling of it. The communications and dialogue are just right--- so much is communicated, without words (though Singer/Ottman did a similiar excellent job with that in Xmen, too...). Accuse Singer of other things, but you can't say that he doesn't do a fine job with drama and performances. ((*Yes, I know that I've said that the dialogue to the son feels a little 'off'--- but I'm also reconsidering the possibility that I may have wanted Reeve's version versus Routh's and let that be a bias in the past)) * The 'death of Superman' sequence. Brilliantly shot & edited--- tossing the land mass into space, and all those shots chosen of Supes falling to earth, to the rustle of the trees. Visually poetic. Gorgeous.... perfect images, music, editing. What more can anyone ask? * Similiarly, Clark's view of Lois as she goes up the elevator/Superman and Lois flying ballet sequence. It's a perfect compliment (and actually a vast improvement on) to the ballet sequence in STM--- with a perfect cap to it- Supes talking about how the world calls out for a savior, and for the first time I believe in film/comics, Supes overtly accepts that call and the burden of it, as well. * The re=introduction scenes of Smallville, Ma Kent, Daily Planet, Lois Lane, Jimmy--- just done really well, with good humor. A lot of backstory and characters to cover, but done well and at a good pace--- easy to overlook! #2: MUSIC- I still wonder--- Is Ottman's version of John Williams' music something that other composers could have done for Superman II and Superman IV, or is it the size of the budget for the music that makes a difference? I listened to a podcast interview with the producer of the Superman music box set, and he's said that if Williams' music were 'rebooted' today--- with the advances in recording/etc.-- it would probably sound like what Ottman did, so that's something I wonder- In any case, frigging LOOOOOVE the Ottman themes.... except for Luthor, but that's something else. #3: CINEMATOGRAPHY--- -Why does everyone say it's too dark?  It's BEAUTIFUL! Can't believe it's video.... Ok...now, the NOT SO GOOD: The true test of weak parts are when I've seen a movie a dozen times, and reach for a remote to zip through it. #1: LUTHOR. Spacey plays him fine---- but Singer's choice to make him a wig-wearing real estate nut (even though he's given a darker edge than in the past)--- makes him at best, a villain that is a threat, but not the best designed one, by far. With "Silence of the Lambs" and "Dark Knight", some of the best scenes are with the villain- who is just as compelling (if not more) than the hero. I was ok with Luthor- but only ok - Donner made a suprisingly great choice by pairing Luthor off with the serious Villains, but there's no Zod in SR.... and the prison thugs are scary, but not very interesting. Not much to them. In reviewing the film for the umpteenth time, I realize that we should have been dazzled by Luthor or fascinated by him at the very least. Spacey does a great job with him, but unless Singer had the same plan for the sequel as Donner did, Luthor's scenes are weak by the fact that you can't take him that seriously to begin with, and I wish I could see why he's considered such a criminal mastermind (we saw that with Joker in TDK.... there's very little evidence here. A more interesting take at the end when Luthor is on the island would not be rage, but for Luthor to quickly and quietly plan his survival and success rather than wallowing in defeat and about to eat a puppy. I get why, but it's a weak choice) #2: WEAK ACTION Suprisingly, although there were impressive moments with the plane rescue (the moment where the plane reaches zero gravity is a genius bit of filmmaking that doesn't really advance the plot one iota, but really cements how Singer is a master of seeing art beyond the obvious choices most of the time....most.)--- I actually was a bit underwhelmed by the superheroics chosen for the film. When Superman is above the earth, and hears all the cries of the world---- he chooses to save the bank's money and a car out of control? Yes, there are a couple of nice moments woven in (the iconic lifting of the car from Action Comics #1 and the bullet to the eye was fun).....but the montage of Superman's first night in Metropolis in STM was far more interesting. Different context, I know, but given the wealth of comic book history and bits to draw from, a bank robbery and a car out of control seems to be REALLY weak choices when you have so much money and tech. Singer knows how to do great action, but a couple of weak choices here.....but again, just as X2 was twice as good as X1, he'd fix that in a second, I'm sure. #3: IS IT JUST ME, OR IS RICHARD WHITE REALLLY DUMB? Most of the exposition was done well, but how can a reporter for any newspaper not know what the one substance is in the universe that can kill the only superhero (presumably) on the planet? One of the extremely rare groaners in the film.... "KRYPTONITE?" "IT'S DEADLY.... TO HIM." Ugh! I guess it's better than the little kid asking it, but..... |
|
|
|
Post by superman on Jun 5, 2009 11:00:39 GMT -5
Hi Guys!
My Birthday is 15 days away, on the 20th June – I’ll be 32 if you care.
I’m moving home pretty soon, as I’m selling one of my investment properties to pay off my new loan which got approved today 100%.
Tomorrow is open house – see what happens.
To celebrate, I decided to watch the movie I was suppose to watch 15 days from now…
SUPERMAN III
It was great fun, not too serious – I really enjoyed the 3rd role that Reeve played – I also thought to myself that at the end of the movie, Superman stops off at the Coal mine, which is not the same place where he had that ‘SuperFight’ –
But interesting to think about, as the location is similar – maybe he was evil because he is in love with Lana, and now he accepts that he can have neither, Lana or Lois, so the reason he stops off there is to forgive himself?
Anyways - an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 5, 2009 14:06:33 GMT -5
Are you sure you're not confusing this with 'Smallville'?  |
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Jun 5, 2009 18:23:06 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by superman on Jun 5, 2009 20:40:15 GMT -5
...are you sure that he can only be in love with Lois? Superman III is set in Smallville anyway? Makes want to watch 'Smallville' - |
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Jun 9, 2009 4:08:54 GMT -5
However Lana in SIII is hotter than Lois.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 17, 2009 0:08:58 GMT -5
Caught the "Making of Superman Returns" (I know that's not the exact title, but I'm a bit lazy right now)- suprisingly only the second time watching this-
Fresh impressions:
* REALLY nice making of --- Pretty thorough, I'd be hard pressed to think of a scene that wasn't really covered well in it, or a process glossed over. Pity of course (especially now) that the Return to Krypton sequence wasn't included....
* GORGEOUS sets by Guy Dyas. Suprising how at times, things (not just SR) actually look much bigger and more impressive in scale in behind the scenes' docs. Was sad to catch a blurb that suggested that sets might NOT have been kept, but torn down as they went.
* Speaking of which, amazing how much went into the set for the Daily Planet. I mean, it was really nice looking..... but..... couldn't help but think: "Hmn.....if they filmed SR 1 and SR 2 together at the same TIME..... wouldn't it be cool to see Brainiac come in and trash the DP while looking for Supes (and yes, I know it'd be a steal from SII- but, if they're going to trash sets anyways, why not trash it artistically on film?)...
* Forgot how deadpan Spacey seems off-camera. Love the bit where he's driving a golf cart, with a toy doll Superman hanging from the back, strangled on a toy noose....
* Amazed at HOW MUCH was green-screen through so many scenes... though I know that's even the norm on some tv shows, now...
* Was also wondering how is it that the flying rig looks tremendous in the documentary- but somehow was, except for some exceptional scenes, not quite as impressive in the actual film? (Much of the flying was either too fast or cut rather abruptly...maybe it's how it was edited?)
* In it, one could see how things could cost so much, given the scale. Would have loved to have been at one of the production meetings were things were broken down into what cost what- On one hand, it gives a glimpse on how expensive things could get that way- on another hand, I wonder if it was all necessary in certain cases. (Though of course that's subjective).
Anyhow, a fun re-watch that ultimately makes me sadder that MOS isn't greenlit with SInger and ROuth yet...*sigh*...
|
|
The Phantom Menace
New Member
Eyes to the stage, pilgrim, she's just warming up.
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Jun 23, 2009 12:18:55 GMT -5
Watched Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut this morning.
Looking back over the Superman films I've watched since Christmas (because I've been recording my viewings as well), I notice that this and Superman Returns are the films I've watched most.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1stelder on Jun 25, 2009 10:06:24 GMT -5
Superman III on Monday night and I enjoyed it more than I ever had before. It was only the 3rd time I had ever actually watched it from beginning to end. My opinion of it has usually been pretty low seeing it as the huge drop off in quality from STM and SII. Perhaps, I've mellowed towards SIII since the last time I watched it we have been given SII:TDC and SR(both of which I love).
Once upon accepts the fact that SIII is nowhere near the quality of its predecessors, it can be reasonably enjoyable in a Lois & Clark episode kind of way with Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn as the special guest stars. The scenes with the gorgeous Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang(a role she was born to play just as Christopher Reeve was born to play Superman) are good and I like how III follows up to the Clark/Lana/Brad scenes from I. I showed the friends I watched it with the Clark/Lana/Brad scenes from I prior to watching III. SIII also features what may have been in retrospect Reeve's best performance in the role. The battle scene between Clark and evil Superman was the best sequence of the film. It's done seriously and it showed that Lester is capable of shooting serious Superman if only he didn't let his indulgence for camp and slapstick get in the way.
If the rest of the film had been up to the level of this sequence, SIII would have been a much better film.
Bottom line: OK film with some individual great elements and scenes. **1/2 out of ****.
Also, don't think this counts but I watched the first 2 episodes of Lois & Clark for the first time yesterday. I didn't start watching it the first time it aired until the 2nd season but I was able to buy the first 2 seasons for $15 each.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 25, 2009 22:26:03 GMT -5
Superman - theatrical cut in HD
Next up is Superman III, also in HD
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 26, 2009 10:14:54 GMT -5
Does that mean Superman IV in HD next?
*shudder*
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 26, 2009 11:20:57 GMT -5
Doesn't exist, AFAIK. Besides, I'd never watch it. If Superman IV needs to be watched, then I'll pop in my extended cut. An HD transfer of Lester's Superman II doesn't seem to exist either. |
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Jun 26, 2009 12:59:20 GMT -5
STM w/ Donner and Mank's commentary. I understand how sacrilegious this will probably be... but I think I prefer the Salk/Speng commentaries.
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Jun 26, 2009 13:20:54 GMT -5
Mr. Movies! I'm going hunt you down and give you a cookie.  I can't stand Salkind, I know he's a cool mofo. But I just can't stand him. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Jun 26, 2009 13:22:01 GMT -5
I want an Alexander Salkind commentary. ;D
|
|
