How far away from Cincinnati are you? We could always use mine for the tutorial video.
Well, I don't want to get into an argument either, and I'm not arguing with you here. I must reply as a DIE HARD fan, about your thoughts on the movie. Yes, we all have our own opinions, and are entitled to them. So, I will give my opinions to what you just said.
1.) "deeply flawed movie"? - Many people, fans and non-fans in the general public have considered this "flawed" movie one of the best superhero movies ever made. I respect and admire Richard Donner's incredible direction of the movie. It sits firmly in my top five movies of all time. Add in one of John Williams' BEST and most recognized scores for a movie. What about it to you is so "deeply flawed" about it?
2.) "Variable quality special effects"? - It was made after all, in 1977, the year the first Star Wars movie was released, and then Superman was released in 1978. CGI, and other effects have come a LONG way since the late 1970s. But I still think the movie stands on it alone in the creative way they filmed the flying scenes, fights, destruction of property, etc. I.L.M. was in its infancy at the time, but I thought they did an incredible job. Just like they did with Star Wars with what the won an Oscar award for achievement in special effects.
3.) A "hideous portrayal of Luthor"? - I thought Gene Hackman did a GREAT job. Some injections of humor, with an ego-maniac sensibility, and serious moments of drama. Ned Beatty's Otis was there for the humorous "comic relief" moments, and it worked for me, and millions of other people. Reeve's classic portrayal of a bumbling, "gee-wiz" Clark Kent set a standard. A naive "farm boy" from Smallville at a big city newspaper. Yes, his performance as Clark was intended to be "farcical". That was his intention in how he portrayed him on the screen. The polar opposite of the confident, heroic Superman.
4.) "Reeve's Superman was too young and pretty at the time"? I have the collector's set released a few years ago, and director Richard Donner stood firm on casting Reeve, and I am thankful that he did! At that time actors like Robert Redford were HUGE. Warner Bros. seriously wanted Redford, or some other "known" actor as Superman. So then moviegoers would say..."oh that's Robert Redford playing Superman". Donner said no way, and cast an unknown Christopher Reeve. Then moviegoers said, "I don't know this guy, and he IS Superman". I think that Reeve's lean and muscular build was perfect for Superman, and it still is...in my opinion. Were you expecting someone more buff, like Arnold Schwarzenegger? I don't and never will find him "lightweight". So you don't like Reeve's look in the movie, but consider this figure now a "good" figure?
A "hideous portrayal of Luthor"? - I thought Gene Hackman did a GREAT job. Some injections of humor, with an ego-maniac sensibility, and serious moments of drama.
I just got my superman 2 donner cut and I thought might not be that good as original ,since is usualy not.. BUT way better version from 1st version and does nothing but improve the story...just a amazing movie ....awesome film and looking at the figure in this thread looks like he just walked off the set yesterday awesome figure and detail....
Before Tron as well. Look how that gets slagged today. :/
As with anything though, it seems far too many never seem to pick up on. The CGI stuff thats out at the moment, the really good stuff, will look dated in decades to come. Things always move on. Technology advances, skills improve, ideas prosper. So many people need to face it. Nothing stays timeless. Only for that period but it's the memories and experiences felt that counts from that time. Or we wouldn't have had threads on so many forums how they miss the 70's, 80's and 90's.
Sadly I've always felt the way how life is in the 00's and teens, things don't seem to feel quite as great as they were back then. I'm not saying there hasn't been good stuff in those timeframes but the internet didn't exist like the way it is today where anyone with a keyboard can voice their view.
More than ever now it's quantity over quality. Too many things dumbed down that ruins a lot of todays generation.
Australia baby!
Redford as much as I really like some of his movies, in a way he reminds me of another form of Clint Eastwood. Movies based on real life/day to day life. I'll always think of him as Cowboy like. Even when he was young his skin was too hard looking, like a Cowboy. Somebody thats always outdoors.
I really loved The Horse Whisperer and Sneakers. He's no fictional superhero.
Schwarzenegger as Superman reminds me of Last Action Hero for Stallone in the poster. The accent would kill it and he'd be like the comic version with the pecks and six pack nearly busting at the seams way back then. He'd pack some junk in those briefs back in those days. Probably why Shriver married him. ¬_¬
Look how legendary Reeve is, I'll bet most people in their mid 20's and upwards, if you said Christopher Reeve they would say Superman. Perfection.
My favorite bit, where I find the character at his most sinister, is the following,
"You were great in your day Superman, but it just stands to reason when it came time to cash in your chips, this old, diseased, maniac would be your banker.
Mind over muscle?"
Then he places the kryptonite over Superman's neck.
And Eastwood was asked to play superman as well..... just think how that would have turned out.
You are correct sir! Since he was already "in" with Warner Bros. pictures after making many movies before Superman: The Movie.
I just could see it now. "You feelin' lucky Zod"? I love Eastwood. But not as Superman. Or Clark Kent. Just to think of him as Clark. Umm...no.
He would have been a badass superman, the tough guy we all want. CR is way to wimpy and he is creepy looking.
Or Clark Kent. Just to think of him as Clark. Umm...no.
He would have been a badass superman, the tough guy we all want. CR is way to wimpy and he is creepy looking.
Enter your email address to join: