"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

I wouldn't mind paying (Amazon's) $28 for each of these films if they're given the right treatment, but $60 apiece for the same disc(s) housed in a cardboard box filled out with superfluous junk (sorry to George and his marketing people) is beyond the call of duty.

As it stands, I have trouble with those releases even at sensible prices. I love how much smaller BD cases are than DVD cases, but Casablanca is a brick. And if the mock-ups for GWTW and TWOZ are seen through, I'd "enjoy" those even less. How do you put a double-wide case in/on a media rack/shelf? Ugh! I would actually be more willing to pay a premium for standard packaging.

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Christopher Reeve is the one and only Superman. All those who come after him should look like him and play Christopher Reeve playing Superman-which Routh did.

I know you're not gonna like me for saying that but that would be a shame if it was true. Chris Reeve was an extremely limited actor and his portrayal of Superman worked because of its presence. He just stood up there and it worked. When emotional scenes came around, he fell apart (like the one with his dad they inserted back in Donner's film).

Someone could and - I very much hope will - take the Superman character to an entirely new level. Yes improve on it. Saying what you're saying would imply for instance that the Joker in the Batman universe would always be Jack and no one should try something else. Well Heath made the part his own and took it to an entierely new level.

Most forms of art are often re-imagined and I think it's very healthy.
Of course sometimes something doesn't need to be re-imagined when it still works. For example Indiana Jones. I think Lucas wanted to "bring it to another level" and Spielberg wanted to leave it the way it was. Well we get that new Indiana Jones which is IMO a complete mess and can't still believe Spielberg shot that. Sometimes it screams Lucas all over. And what's the problem with David Koepp?

-->I thought the fun was to make it old style but instead it became that normal modern CG spectacle in which they completely forgot who the characters were.

Reeve's Superman movies and efforts are a thing of the past and we should move forward. They will always be there for us to remember and to look back upon Chris' legacy. SR was halfway here and halfway in 1978 which created its identity problem.

I know you want to protect what has been done (like the talk about Star Trek) but new visions have to opportunity to bring the material to another level and possibly improve on it. Is this always the case? Of course not but sometimes it does and does it best by starting from scratch (Nolan's Batman)

I think if people get a chance to see Superman Returns Again/Man of Steel they'll appreciate Returns more.

It's unfair... You also know the plots and ideas of movies in their development stage. Are you friends with Bryan?

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Brainstorm was shot with a mix of 35mm and 65mm footage at 24fps. AFAIK, none of it was filmed in true Showscan.

Douglass Trumbull indeed wanted to film the entire movie in Showscan, but no studio guys wanted to provide the extra funding it would have taken to shoot the whole thing in 5/65mm at 60fps.

A long time ago, I remember seeing a demonstration of this.

The demonstration sequence was something like a low flying pass over Western landscape (& Grand Canyon?) which necessarily had motion blur at 24p, but cleared up when Showscan was switched on. How is that possible? Or was what I saw just simulated?

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by Geoff Gibson

If indeed, it was the "real" Superman III (which I would embrace) -- the major contrivance -- that Superman left earth after encountering Zod to search for more survivors -- the Singer's Superman is a liar.

It could simply end with: if it was the "real" Superman III it wouldn't have the same plot and same lines of the first movie".

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by Grubert

See also Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. An exceptional movie in so many aspects. (But cinematography is still a bit flat.)

haha
Yes thanks Grub. Those titles were on my list anyways but I forgot they were Genenis-captured.

[PeterTHX]

"Beholden" to the Donner films?

There are only a handful of comic book films that can stand up or surpass what Donner accomplished in 1978.

Singer was trying to remain true to the mythos established and bring Supes into the 21st Century. I think he did a pretty good job and hate to think of someone else doing the sequel. X2 was a great sequel.

[Doctorossi]

Tim Burton's Batman is to The Dark Knight as Richard Donner's Superman is to what an excellent Superman movie could be.

[PeterTHX]

Not even close.

Donner's Superman is an excellent Superman movie, one that has held up for 30 years.

Superman and Batman (Dark Knight) are 2 different types of comics in tone, just like Star Trek is not Blade Runner.

Warner wanting to make a Superman followup more "dark" is a terrible idea.

[Doctorossi]

Who said anything about more "dark"? All I want is more "good".

[Jeff Kleist]

Warner wanting to make a Superman followup more "dark" is a terrible idea.

Don't knock it before you tried it Seriously, all the stuff I heard was REALLY good.

[Pirate King]

I would have a difficult time seeing Superman as "dark". Superman is not Batman. Superman.. truth, justice and the American way. He has to be spotless. He has to always do the right thing. Otherwise he is not Superman. A dark Superman movie would not be true to the character Superman.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Don't knock it before you tried it Seriously, all the stuff I heard was REALLY good.

I'm not referring to Singer's take on the sequel, but Warner's wanting "dark for dark's sake" because of the success of "Dark Knight".

[Jeff Kleist]

Too true, Dark is the new...black when it comes to superhero movies

The problem being that very few people have the ability to pull it off in a meaningful manner

[Bobby Henderson]

Others can knock Superman: The Movie (1979) if they like. My opinion is that movie was excellent and a standard bar on which all other super hero movies will be measured. I'm not sure any have really surpassed it (perhaps Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight). The vast majority of all comic book adaptations have fallen short.

Superman Returns had some good moments, but ultimately struck me as being very derivative. At least it was a damned sight better than Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace -a Golan-Globus Production. Those previous two Superman sequels were just freaking embarassing.

Originally Posted by cjamescook

The demonstration sequence was something like a low flying pass over Western landscape (& Grand Canyon?) which necessarily had motion blur at 24p, but cleared up when Showscan was switched on. How is that possible? Or was what I saw just simulated?

Just a guess, but I figure they simulated the 24fps thing in Showscan via a reverse 3:2 type of thing. It was probably all native 60fps stuff from the camera, but then they just drop frames and dupe the remaining ones to simulate 24fps.

[Jeff Kleist]

Others can knock Superman: The Movie (1979) if they like. My opinion is that movie was excellent and a standard bar on which all other super hero movies will be measured. I'm not sure any have really surpassed it (perhaps Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight). The vast majority of all comic book adaptations have fallen short.

Basically it was the single genuinely good superhero movie made up until then, and for the next decade following (and after that pretty much waited until Spider Man)

Don't forget it was master cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth's final film as well.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I'm not sure any have really surpassed it (perhaps Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight). The vast majority of all comic book adaptations have fallen short.

I don't feel any impulse to compare Superman only with other comic book or superhero-derived movies; I compare it with any movies. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a competent, solid film and reasonably entertaining. I just don't think it's really that special. Yeah, it was pretty much the only 'didn't drop the ball in any obvious way' superhero movie around for a while, but I don't see why that, on its own, is a big deal. Superman Returns had to familiarize its audience (which it couldn't reasonably assume had seen the Donner films) with the characters, anyway, and it really would've been a lot freer, without the Donner legacy baggage, to do so in much more interesting ways.

[Jeff Kleist]

Superman Returns had to familiarize its audience (which it couldn't reasonably assume had seen the Donner films) with the characters, anyway, and it really would've been a lot freer, without the Donner legacy baggage, to do so in much more interesting ways.

You ask kids out in the bush in Africa where Superman comes from, they know. Everything you need to know is in that opening title card

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Others can knock Superman: The Movie (1979) if they like. My opinion is that movie was excellent and a standard bar on which all other super hero movies will be measured. I'm not sure any have really surpassed it (perhaps Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight). The vast majority of all comic book adaptations have fallen short.

I agree...and the film has held up well over the years too. I still get chills with the opening sequence and John Williams's music...in fact, that was the best part of Superman Returns too

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I don't feel any impulse to compare Superman only with other comic book or superhero-derived movies; I compare it with any movies. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a competent, solid film and reasonably entertaining. I just don't think it's really that special. Yeah, it was pretty much the only 'didn't drop the ball in any obvious way' superhero movie around for a while, but I don't see why that, on its own, is a big deal.

Okay. Let's have it. Name a superhero movie that's actually better. Dr., what is, in your opinion, the best super hero movie ever made? Put it out there.

On a 1-4 star scale, I strongly give Superman: The Movie a firm four star rating. You may disagree with that, but then you're just going to be stuck in disagreement me on that point. You will never change my mind. That 1979 flick is indeed a great movie, period. My own opinion is those who think it is crap have a big board stuck up their poop chute and just want to dump on anything a lot of people enjoy. But then that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

[GabrielB]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Tim Burton's Batman is to The Dark Knight as Richard Donner's Superman is to what an excellent Superman movie could be.

Thanks for standing up with me Doc. I'd feel alone without you...
I'm with you all the way. A new Superman franchise that wouldn't look in the past and start afresh could be quite something. Indeed it could "Dark Knight" the hell out of Donner's film.

No one is trying to convince anyone anyways.
I think the origin part of Superman (1978) is quite well done and creates a great buildup. That part where Clark is at the Fortress and get "educated" and 12 years passes by in space and time is a great climax to the first part of the movie and when Superman is finally revealed at the Fortress and the music announces him, it chills my bone every time.

But I think when he gets to Metropolis the movie just collapses.
I find Donner's Superman didn't really age very well.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Don't knock it before you tried it Seriously, all the stuff I heard was REALLY good.

Yeah I think he was talking about Warner wanting Supes to be darker after seeing how TDK made so much money. Were you aware of these development as well? I thought it had been officially announced by Warner that they would reboot.

from Rubinov himself
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=48159

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

My own opinion is those who think it is crap have a big board stuck up their poop chute and just want to dump on anything a lot of people enjoy. But then that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

No one is trying to shit on what others enjoy. If you like it it shouldn't change. So you should also respect the fact that some don't think it's the ultimate Superman we could ever see.

We're just trying to tell our opinion on how great a new take on Superman could become. And you know, I think we could have had that discussion when they were rebooting Batman. A lot of people were like "it could never top Burton's" and were so sure of that. Terrible sequels (like Superman) didn't help that. The franchise was weak. But then look what happened.

If a true artist and creator surrounded by talented people and writers would be given Superman, it could be quite something.

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Okay. Let's have it. Name a superhero movie that's actually better. Dr., what is, in your opinion, the best super hero movie ever made? Put it out there. [...]

Well that's not the point. Or it maybe is. There are not much good superheroes movies. And the fact they are so rare doesn't make Superman a better movie.

OK. TDK, Batman Begins, Spider-Man 1 & 2 (mostly 2), X-men 2 (the first one is okay but indeed better than most things). What else?... I think that's about it... Yes Superman is one of the few superhero film I own. More because of the first hour (origin) and because I have an affection for the film because of my childhood (actually Superman is my favorite superhero because of when I was a kid).