generalfrevious

At least (hopefully) it won't be letterboxed like last time. I'd rather have a DNR'd OT than have them sit in a basement at LFL's offices.

SilverWook said:

Somebody has to do Walt frozen in carbonite if it hasn't been done already. ;)

I think he is hidden in the Pirates of the Caribbean ride. It shouldn't be too hard to find him ;)

It's not the audience that I have a problem with; it the thuggery of an industry that churns out horrible movie after horrible movie and constantly changes for the worse. Where is our generation's Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola? They can never come into the spotlight today because the marketing side of the industry has long ago obliterated the artistic aspect, fearing that taking risks equals making the next Heaven's Gate. Think of all the classic films in American cinema: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Vertigo, etc. There is absolutely no chance in hell today that they would be made, because they would not help the Chinese box office or be familiar enough for the middle American to buy a ticket to see. Even films like There Will Be Blood and Mulholland Dr couldn't get made in the Hollywood climate of 2013 because they keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars in superhero reboots to stay relevant in public eye. The problem is that the superhero genre has worn itself out already; but there is no genre to take its place, so were stuck with the latest Superman or Spiderman reboot.

SilverWook said:

I've been hearing most of the same complaints about Hollywood for decades now. (Ever since that shark movie came out in '75.) The major difference is the industry used to be accused of pandering to the youth market.

And yet, the mature themed, more serious Oscar contending films still seem to come out every fall.

If people didn't care about Superheroes, who are all those people dyeing their underwear and running around conventions? ;)

The first blockbusters of the 70s-80s were good, though. They respected film grammar, they weren't bloated special effects experiences, they weren't rehashes of pop culture institutions the audience were familiar with, and they treated audiences like adults instead of consumers. 

For the Oscar bait movies, they just nominate the same 10 pretentious dramas released in the last six weeks of the year every single year. For every Godfather that wins best picture there are at least 15-20 Crash(s) that end up winning. They are just as terrible as the loud summer blockbusters of he last few years, we just don't notice because we are so burned out by November.

i have nothing against superheroes, but the superhero movie trend has long overstayed their welcome. The modern trend began with x-men all the way back in 2000 (yeah I know about batman 89, but that wave died with Steel back in 97). Its become too competitive nowadays for a film like Easy Rider or Midnight Cowboy to revitalize the industry because no one in Hollywood can't take risks anymore. Hence they just stick to the same genre again and again, and then try to squeeze money out of the audience with more sadistic measures. They can't recover because of he Internet and overseas box office profits.

I know. God to I really hate Adam Sandler. Who did he bribe to get a spot on SNL 20+ years ago? It was the worst thing to happen in the history of comedy. 

Back on topic, how many superhero movies are left this summer? How many are we facing next year? Are there going to be even more in 2015!? Can we get the Geneva Convention to intervene?

In an ideal world, this film should have killed the whole superhero trend in Hollywood. But it's being kept alive years after people stopped caring about superheroes, but since they have to compete with the internet and now pander to the Chinese for international releases, it's the only thing playing nowadays. It's fucking horrible; we keep getting the same stories and the same familiar elements over and over again. The situation is so bad that I now only go to the movies one or twice a year since anything good is rarely shown in theaters. 

Hollywood is turning into this sadistic machine charging us fifty dollars for three hour atrocities that destroy every cultural icon in its path (Star Trek, Superman, etc.). The American film industry has been in an irreversible artistic decline ever since Heaven's Gate bombed  nearly 35 years ago. They are becoming more and more crypto-fascist with every passing year, with a new low achieved seemingly every week. Someone needs to wipe Hollywood permanently off the map and spare humanity the misery they spew out every single day.

You found the right place then; this is probably the only site left devoted to the original versions of the original trilogy.

LexX said:

Just saw it too. I have to say, one of the worst films I've seen. I didn't imagine they would make a worse Superman film than Superman Returns but it seems like a masterpiece compared to this. Ugh. Very disappointed.

Glad I saved my money. 

But isn't Superman IV considered the worst in the franchise by fans? (Or at least until Man of Steel arrived) Granted, Superman Returns was bland and pointless; and the later Reeve films at least have some camp value.

They probably would be there for fanservice reasons. They're not going to remake Crystal Skull three times over.

SilverWook said:

Great Scott! Can't they use some other villain from the rogue's gallery for a change?

No, because the audience would not be familiar with any other superman villians beside Lex Luthor and Zod. It's all about selling tickets than taking risks. That's why they had the origin story in Man of Steel for the second (or third?) time.

Oh yeah, doesn't Snyder like slow-motion shots as well? How many were there in Man of Steel (if any)?

CP3S said:

Have you even read either 300 or Watchmen? 300 the graphic novel, on top of being filled with gore and blood splatter throughout, also depicts the Spartans running around naked half the time. That book has more exposed dong in it than an all gay college fraternity's frat house.

I did read Watchmen before watching the film version, and to me it felt a little off. I understand that all the sex and violence in the graphic novel were there, but Snyder seemed to magnify those elements in the film. It's probably just me putting the book above the movie, and nitpicking the movie if it doesn't seem to look right to me (Just like fans of Harry Potter, LOTR, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc. not liking the film versions of those works)

CP3S said:

generalfrevious said:

Yeah I'm glad I didn't see this film. Snyder has a talent for making the adaptation more violent than the source material; I remember my Dad walking out of 300, and he wanted to see it!

300 more violent than the source material? The source material was extremely violent. The Superman comics have gotten fairly violent at times too over the years.

Well, when I saw Watchmen a few years back it seemed to embellish the sex and violence more than in the graphic novel (don't forget the added emphasis on Dr. Manhattan's penis). Maybe I'm wrong about the 300 adaptation.

Yeah I'm glad I didn't see this film. Snyder has a talent for making the adaptation more violent than the source material; I remember my Dad walking out of 300, and he wanted to see it!

I think I just don't like superhero movies in general (except for the Dark Knight trilogy), and I might of seen this if Snyder wasn't in the director's chair. Plus, the origin story has been done to death by now, and Hollywood is on an irreversible decline anyways, so they'll keep pumping out terrible superhero movies for decades to come.

I haven't seen the OOT in almost three years now. But that was the GOUT.

Too bad there is a legal barrier to watching these films.

Well it's directed by Zack Snyder (which should set up a red flag) but Christopher Nolan is involved; it could be okay. But why is Superman bearded in parts of the film? Otherwise there seems to be a good cast here, but Snyder is my biggest concern.

Abrams has no respect for what makes Star Trek the franchise it was, he just wants to make marketable action films and nothing more. Whatever directorial style people think he has is either taken from Spielberg or bland and forgettable.

Damon Lindelof is a con man. He doesn't care about writing a good script, he just wants to fuck around with the audience and take their money in the process. People think there is something deeper to his work, but it is more shallow than a dry rain puddle. 

Lindelof and Abrams are not in Hollywood to tell a story, they are there to manipulate audiences in order to make money off a broken system. It's like how they wasted 6 years of everyone's lives with LOST and the cynical exercises of the last few years (Super 8, Prometheus). Only in a world where the bar has been so lowered in American cinema can these people be successful in their manipulation.

imperialscum said:

generalfrevious said:

SilverWook said:

To believe Lucas had nothing to do with the creation of Star Wars is a whole new level of loathing and denial.

That's buying into the revisionist history of the franchise. Lucas wants to be seen as the father of SW but does not deserve that title. Gary Kurtz and Marcia Lucas are the real people behind SW.

Don't be ridiculous...

ANH was saved in editing. That is a fact. Marcia Lucas was one of the editors to the film. That is also a fact. Kurtz managed to rein in George's overindulgences during ANH and most of ESB's shooting. This yet another fact.

With ROTJ George Lucas was trying to remake ANH the way he wanted to before common sense saved the day six years earlier, before he contemplated remaking the whole trilogy in the form of the SE back in the 90s. The silver lining to Jedi is that Kazanjian, while no Kurtz, was no sock puppet like Rick McCallum would be during the making of the PT. So the movie ended up not being an unwatchable disaster like the prequels later would.

Can't we all just go back to 1995, when we all we had to do was sweep the problems of ROTJ under the rug?

Alright. I'm still mad at him for not letting us see the originals, and I doubt disney will do anything to rectify that situation.

I think with the prequel trilogy, the started on the wrong foot, and went rapidly downhill with each installment, with the later two being even more unwatchable than Episode I. At least in TPM there was the nostalgia of the time when it came out, the hype, and the ultimate disappointment many fans felt with the film. I honestly don't know why the other two exist other than make money and Lucas' need to complete the new trilogy. The fact that Episode I is the best the PT ever got...that's pretty sad.

The "old" George had no money anyway; once you have a billion dollars, you can ignore anyone.

And I don't even hate ROTJ, I just have to bash it because it is the popular thing to do (Dark Knight Rises for example), and doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to not be bashed by people who love ANH/ESB.

SilverWook said:

To believe Lucas had nothing to do with the creation of Star Wars is a whole new level of loathing and denial.

That's buying into the revisionist history of the franchise. Lucas wants to be seen as the father of SW but does not deserve that title. Gary Kurtz and Marcia Lucas are the real people behind SW. If Lucas had the creative control back in 1976 that he had shooting the PT there would be no franchise to talk about. It's been proven many times over in the last thirty years that Lucas was a fraud; he cares more about the marketing side of the films instead of the story. The franchise as Lucas wants us to see it is less than twenty years old, and in light of the constant changes made to these films the oldest installment of the franchise might be ATOC or ROTS!

Let's not forget the disney factor. They love making money as much as George does. In a perfect world, they would have stopped after Jedi. At least we can have 2 1/2 good movies out of three instead of two out of nine.