Should we remind ourselves why we're watching TV or go to the movies?

Where's the myth?
Where's the legend?
Where's the magic?
Does everything has to be real, or proven or explained to us (in case it's a superhero movie)?

I've made this thread because the new upcoming Superman movie will be, and why am I not surprised, another type of "Batman Begins" or "Bond Begins", sorry I meant "Casino Royale"....

It's one thing to push reality shows all over TV, but even movies, and SUPERHEROES movies must be realistic now.

Bye bye imagination.
Bye bye mystery.

I just can't wait to see how the new Superman movie will explain to us all how he manages to fly.... ....and I'm afraid that's exactly what we're going to see.

But who am I to complain, judging by Batman Begins, people are pleased to see their superhero exposed to the "big brother" camera which shows us every single detail of Batman, the no longer mysterious superhero.

I wrote this 5 years ago, nothing has changed:

Casino Royale follows the formula of Batman Begins. Im pretty sure ppl who liked BB will also like CR. While both movies portray the beginning of their characters, they actually go as far as making them "mere human" as they can. No aura here folks. You want to see some superheroes or charming agents go look someplace else. Batman Begins will show you a man in a costum of a bat. It's down right to this point that the film bothers to explain how every little gadget actually works. No tricks here, we dont want to see Wayne suddenly wearing a black outfit flying around. No sir, you have to explain how everything works, we dont want no fantasies here. This new Bond can really kick your ass, things are simple- he's so human and such a badass....but is that what Bond supposed to be? ppl got tired of that charming looking fella and they want someone more human to relate to. These movies who deal with beginnings are the excellent way to get the Bond and Batman franchise out of the mud they were in, and thats wonderful, the question is how far its going to work when the movies will get back to the point where their heroes are heroes not for being so "human" but for being that tiresome superhero/ charming agent we've seen before. Or maybe we dont need that anymore. Dont sell us that "aura", its out of fashion.

Where's Capo when you need him?

Thing about "Realism" is that like anything else, it has its limits. Its not the dramatic answer, but its one of them. Regardless, movies/TV aren't real. They're fake, whatever that means to you. Or how much it matters.



Only in the coincidence of release dates and that both movies were sold as remakes/reboots going "back to basics" of the character/franchise. Both were brought upon because the previous two movies (DIE ANOTHER DAY and BATMAN & ROBIN) got critically-blasted and they did indeed suck. Not to mention they both cost way too much and their profit-returns were too minimal for the accountants.

They both happened because of reactions to those "failures." Hell this is a cycle in the James Bond series where they flip back and forth on the filmatic approach. Consider you have say MOONRAKER, a total FX extravaganza with James Bond kicking ass and getting hot ass out up in Outer Space.

The next movie was FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, much more down to Earth realistic (or as much as Bond can be) spy action thriller with no gadgets and Bond having an Alistair MacLean-inspired narrative.

(though actually the Batman franchise had those many years when WB didn't know what they wanted. There was Darren Aronofsky's aborted YEAR ONE picture that was a train wreck waiting to happen. Then you had Wolfgang Petersen's BATMAN VS SUPERMAN movie which collapsed despite having the leads (Colin Farrell and Jude Law) set. Also there was the BATMAN BEYOND (based off that cartoon) which never left development hell.)

You have to understand how those giant 007 movie productions operate. The last few pictures have a fall release, with shooting done during the spring/summer.

So using that template, CASINO ROYALE came out November 2006. Shooting went from January to June. Of course you might say "well they came up with that script approach after BATMAN BEGINS the summer before!"

Except it don't work that way. First they interview prospective writers and hire them. (Though to be fair, EON has reused two of the same writers since THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) Then they go write, which takes time. Once producers/filmmakers have found the script draft (or at least the basic script outline with more promised drafts to polish it out), they're happy with, then they can do casting, location scouting, crew hirings, permits, etc.

The timing here, I just don't see it happening for CR truely to be a rip-off of BB. Not to mention Daniel Craig said back in May 2005 (2 months before BEGINS even came out) that the 007 gig was his, and he wanted to do it after reading the script and unofficially preparing for the part while working on Spielberg's MUNICH which was shot that summer.



What exactly are you refering to? I've not paid attention to MAN OF STEEL or SUPERMAN RETURNS RETURNS or whatever the fuck it'll be called because (1) Its not out till '13, so I can't care that far ahead, and (2) Zach Snyder. Fuck him.



You know the original SUPERMAN movie with Chris Reeves, they explained that too.

Right?

I heard last week that in this new Superman there would be NO attraction between Lois Lane & Superman. What? I'm not really a superhero fan, but I admit I do like Superman.

I also hate reality tv. I can understand why someone would enjoy Dancing with the Stars, Idol or Glee, even though I don't watch them.

I am at a total loss though, as to how watching a show on, for instance, someone who is a hoarder (forgot the title) or any of the "real" housewives show. Which, btw, I heard yesterday that are making a"sports" housewives of L.A. about the wives of sports stars. No thanks!!!

TIS

I think that some of we older Board members lament the change in moviemaking from a concentration on actors performance to that of the bells and whistles that technology makes possible.

Last night I was watching Unstoppable with Denzel Washington for the first time (it is an exciting movie). Alot more could have been done with the actors, but much of the movie was presented in that staccato filming style with flshby scenes and a myriad of camera angles that is more distracting than anything else.

Oli,

How funny you say that. I watched Unstoppable on HBO last night. LOL

I like Denzel and the movie wasn't bad but for some reason it was as exciting as I thought it would be. I'm not sure what staccato filming style is exactly but perhaps that was part of it. I enjoyed it, but thought it would be better.

TIS

Actually, TIS, Glee is not reality TV. It's about the Glee club of a high school in Ohio, and how these "loser" kids put up with the intimidation and bullying of the cheerleaders and jocks, and even strive to establish common ground. It sends a very positive message to those who struggle with being considered a loser.

Having high-profile guest starts and lavish musical numbers, it's the opposite of the "unscripted" reality shows that are put up on the screen because they're cheap to make, not having high-salaried stars or expensive sets. I loathe many of those shows that seem to pander to our lowest qualities, like The Bachelor or those moronic housewives.

I was actually excited wondering if the train would slow enough to make it around the curve.

As far as staccato filming style goes, think of the scenes of firemen et al gathered around with people and reporters and helicopters. The camera didn't stay focused on just one angle very long; it moved around rather quickly filming from different angles - a little like Blair Witch project and that monster in manhattan film - what was its name?

Cloverfield! Worst movie ever! My girls refer to it as Clover-failed.

When I saw previews of Cloverfield, I thought it looked good and then I saw it (thankfully on tv) and it was lousy. I didn't like Blair Witch either... a real letdown and yes, the shaky camera got on my nerves.


TIS

SB,

I stand corrected on Glee. You're correct. I don't watch the show (bits and pieces at one time) and for some reason it came under the "reality" genre in my mind.


TIS

I'm with you, TIS. I can't stand most of reality TV. It's ridiculously contrived and it's so obvious that half of the "drama" is all scripted. Plus, how many times do I need to see a bunch of strangers sent to some stupid island to eat bugs? I do notice that the island is always quite warm and has a beach, which gives the girls a chance to strut around "surviving" in their bikinis, because I'm sure that's how real survivalists roll.

Edit: You were actually partially correct. Glee is using a reality show called The Glee Project to find some cast members, so maybe that's where you got the idea about it being a reality show. And as much of a Gleek as I am, I haven't watched it.

And really, do we need another Freekin' "Housewives" show?

Geez, why doesn't somebody can come and film me, showing the life of "Retirees of Riverside County." How flippin' exciting would that be?


However, on the other hand, money talks AND I could introduce the TV world to the BB. Gangster BB could become a household word. Think of how popular we'd become. Heck, I'd bet we'd be bigger than U.S. Steel.


TIS

You know ronnie, the original Superman spent a good first half explaining how Kal-El became Superman and that was actually the better half of that movie, the second half was terrible.

Superman II was, and still is, the finest live superhero movie I've ever seen. It never lost the magic and was breath-taking from start to finish.

Let's not talk about the other sequels.

The thing with Batman Begins, it was praised for its character "humanization", stripping its hero from any magical myst, to the point that we have another Jack Bauer in a bat costume. That's what I didnt like, and still don't like.

And yes, I'm talking about Man of Steel, set to come out only in 2013, but already you hear its director constantly bragging that "Superman is probably going to be the most realistic movie I've ever made"

It's like a trend, nowadays, to make every hero realistic and that's what I'm complaining about. Superman I introduced us the character, but the movie did not focus on trying to humanize the character, and there was a touch of innocence all through the movie that nowadays is lost. Superman II was so brilliant for displaying the conflict of becoming human without falling to mere gadgets/powers analysis. The moral dilemma was the focus.


But like I said, that's just my personal feeling, and I know it's not very popular. I hope there will be some magic left in this upcoming movie, but right now it's just sounds like the transcript will focus on explaining the following:


Flight
Invulnerability
Superhuman Strength
Superhuman Speed
X-Ray Vision
Telescopic/Microscopic Vision
Heat Vision
Super-Senses
Super Breath/Freeze Breath
Eidetic memory
Regeneration
Longevity
Superhuman Olfaction
Superhuman Vision

(thanx to wikipedia for the list)

---
---

Let me know if it will be any different, and I'll be the first to watch it.

I could do without that staple of cinematic realism, the-fascinating-conversation-at-the-urinal-scene.

Comics here and there have proven that it can work storytelling-wise. Not saying it will in MAN OF STEEL (because fundamentally among other things, Snyder doesn't comprehend human emotion. He hasn't discovered a way to greenscreen that shit just yet.)

I mean why not? Seriously, why must every Superman movie seem to involve Lane practically going wet for Supes, who's always desperate it seems to hide his inevitable boner in his little short shorts? Or shit, why must everyone one of those pictures have to involve Lex Luthor?

Superman has a solid rogues gallery. Yet not one fucking Superman picture has had friggin Brainiac yet. Or even Superman's true archnemesis equal of Darkseid in strength and will? Personally I was a fan of Metallo myself, but thats neither here or there.

(worse, MAN OF STEEL apparently has General Zod as the baddie. Oh god, this shit again?)



Let me get this straight: You don't like the 2nd half of SUPERMAN, but you had no problem with #2 and that Amnesia Kiss nonsense? I mean that's your opinion, that's fine. But damn, Gene Hackman wasn't camping any less in #2 than he was in #1.

I get why nerds hate the 2nd half of SUPERMAN, but I don't hate it, flaws and all. It's not as If anything, wasn't Superman's reveal magical as your words would describe it? That music, Reeves' charm, it worked.



Agree.



Three thoughts:

(1) Fuck Jack Bauer.

(2) I figured you would've dismissed him as more Jason Bourne than Jack Bauer, for whatever reason.

(3) BATMAN BEGINS was the first Batman movie where I quite frankly gave a shit more about Bruce Wayne than I did Bat Blunder. Actually that might not be true, I liked BATMAN RETURNS and certainly Tim Burton milked the hero's relationship with Catwoman, but even then Batman was just a reactive prop for the villains, who had the origins and full pathos exploration and all that shit.

Certainly I appreciated with a camera and a big budget going after the shocking idea that Batman is the star of a Batman movie.

Funny how BEGINS practically aped SUPERMAN in the spirit of the whole "myth," doesn't it?

(Also unlike Batman in general whether comics or movies, Jack Bauer was a one-dimensional NeoCon pornography. Or basically Dirty Harry but without the funny one-liners or awesomecharisma.)



To be fair, Zach Snyder is a fucking idiot so that's nothing new. Ever met someone who think they're clever and witty, when really...they're not? That's my impression of Zach Attack whenever I tried to listen to him. (Plus like any good hack, he's very defensive and touchy about his unpopularity with the Internet so that statement was a jab at the Internet.)

I like that he's gotten one of his script hacks from 300 to rewrite MAN OF STEEL, because of the many things people remember about 300, it was the writing. *rolls eyes*



Tell me Fame, can you stand science fiction? Just asking.

Except it's always been there. Remember SUPERMAN when Kent asks his dead Dad why he has to use a secret identity? No not "realistic" in your definition, but "realism" at its best with these sort of stories is to try to use some logic so people won't be distracted with playing Logic Police instead of...you know, enjoying the movie.

Nolan tried to make Batman logical, or as logical as it can be considering the concept in itself of a Batman is ridiculous. I mean how many kids with such a traumatic childhood moment grow up to become tights-wearing vigilantes? Its stupid. But that's not the point.

People like some basic logic in their movies. You can cheat here and there, because following true physics and true science and all that....there wouldn't be a movie. But if you cheat too much, or cheat glaringly....then people tell you to fuck off.

Here's an example: how many times have we seen at the movies where the hero gets shot in the arm, yet is able to complete the plot? In real life, that would fuck him up and you would have shock and blood loss and possibly bones shattered by the bullet. But we accept it because hey, its an arm. It's possible that the guy survives, right?

Now if a movie character is shot at point blank range at the head or chest (w/o kevlar) and survive without a noticeable effect, well you call bullshit right?

Remember ARMAGEDDON? I could write a book with the stupidity in that one, but with such a concept in the first place, its to be expected, but I remember that laughing and pointing out the bullshit at the scene after the space ship crashing onto that asteroid and the crew crawling out of the fire and debris. You know, fire in outer space? Even high school physics flunkees (like me) know that's....wrong.




I'll give you one thing Fame. Nolan and Snyder and those guys have to remember that Superman is not Batman. You could play pathos and psychology and so forth with Bats because its part of the basic fundamental appeal, since all his adversaries tend to be chariactures of emotions and prejudices and human faults just oversimplified.

Superman though, is a fairy tale. Or fantasy if as a grown man the term "fairy tale." Last son of a dead planet sent to Earth and a mortal God he became by fate. Especially alot of touches from the comics which DC unwisely deleted many years back which I loved, whether its Krypto the Super Mutt or Super Girl or Kandor the bottled city or all the different types of Kryptonite or the Superman robots or shit, even Superboy.

Ridiculous? Well yeah, but they worked for Superman because as details they only strengthened that fantasy setting. They would absolutely fail with Batman, and god knows the boring SUPERMAN RETURNS did its goddamn best to pull a Batman on Supes with the pathos shit, and it didn't work.

Why? Superman in himself isn't an interesting character unlike Bats. Superman is an idea, the god of justice. Like Captain America, he represents the supposed best of us that we ourselves can never achieve or witness in our reality. That recent CAPTAIN AMERICA picture, not a great work, but they essentially understood what I'm talking about. Its why it worked.



Not much of a conflict if the hero had a deus ex machinas convenient escapes to both get his powers, and get rid of his lover who knows too much shit on him. OK first one I could live with because, well why not? But the second...I'm sorry, I can't forgive that cheap copout hijinks.

They might as well have had Lane wake up and realize it was all a dream. Its just as lame and stupid.

(Really, why not have Lane know of Superman's identity. You could've even played off that idea of the former lover, now friend/co-worker who's your ally. And you can always hook them back together in a third SUPERMAN picture. Instead of paying Richard Pryor a fortune to be unfunny.)



Jesus, even the early Superman comics (with their bullshit pseudo-science) explained alot of that away without it coming off as too silly. If I remember right, the yellow rays of Earth's sun is what "charges" up Supes' powers. The disportion of Supes' native Krypton gravity compared to Earth's gravity (not as heavy). I can't really remember the rest.

Also Superman is an alien, its theoretically possible that he would naturally have a longer lifespan than Earthlings. Not to mention nothing short of a Sun being dropped on his ass can apparently kill him.

(or for that matter, all biological creatures one fashion or another "regenerate." The difference is only in the extent. With Superman, we're not dealing with a science project here.)

Good question. I see his forum is dead as well. Hopefully he's not another GBB has-been. But anyways, to our business:




Ronnie, I did not like II for its silly romantic scenes or silly Lex Luthor scenes. Nowadays most 80's films seem cheesy or silly or downright ridiculous. That doesn't make movies today any better tho. I did enjoy the concept of Superman losing his powers, and those scenes where he's no longer superman were actually the best in the movie (call it a paradox). You seem to pinpoint realism as your main criticism again and again (amnesia kiss, deus-ex machina, fire-in-space etc etc). The back-to-human machine for instance, is no more than a prop. Movies should challenge ideas more than facts. If I were to disqualify movies based on how improbable or impossible this and that is - more than half the classics on AFI will go down.

As far as Armageddon goes - feel free to hate it all day long, but fire-in-space will not convince me to stay away from it. Why else do you hate it? I'm not a big fan myself, but you take this movie too seriously when it's anything but serious. You don't need to look for impossible stuff once you see Bruce Willis' character (whatever it was called) firing guns all over the plant because he doesn't like his daughter's boyfriend. It's just a damn popcorn movie, and you give it too much credit.

Generally speaking, I don't hate shitty stand-alone movies as much as I hate those franchise-destroyers. Bay's filmography is as interesting as Jersey Shore. But I was annoyed and very-much-so, when he took on a great franchise like Transformers and turned it into a pile of crap. And Spielberg is just as guilty for supporting this crap. I feel the same way about novels. There are way too many shitty novels out there but nothing is more annoying than Winegardner and his fellow franchise-destroyers.



You didn't like 24?



I don't know why, but DiCaprio-Damon-Whalberg seem too young and pretty for the national kickass hero. Have you seen Liam Neeson in "Taken"? now THAT'S the equivalent of Jack Bauer. Craig could do it just as well, not sure about those 3 boys I listed above, and not sure why I link them together, I bet there's a reason.



I love it, and I've no problem reading explanations when necessary. But do we really need to restart superheroes over and over again? it's like they couldn't come up with any script for a good Brosnan movie, so they started the Bond series all over again. And look where it's now. And now the rebirth of Superman should do the same thing, but that's like beating a dead horse anyway.



That's all true, but if it's already been explained numerous times as you claim, then can we please have some new movie plots? you're tired of Lois Lane, I'm tired of beginnings.