 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decision to have Lois Lane chase Superman and then sleep with him in SUPERMAN 2. The franchise has been on a downward spiral ever since. Eventually he becomes a deserter and a deadbeat dad. Keep gender deconstruction and political correctness out of the Superman movies. Their relationship sustains tension and poignancy while it remains platonic. The simple rule of thumb is this: Superman flies because he is above mortal foibles.
On most of the others I completely agree with you, but totally disagree with this view of SUPERMAN 2. It's precisely these things that remind us that Superman is so special - he's a man with super-strength but like all of us has challenges of the heart and isn't above moral dilemma. How exciting would it be if Superman were wholly perfect, never having any personal or moral challenges? IMO, zzzzzzz. Supe 2 was great because of these things it did, particularly in the Donner cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 28, 2010 - 6:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
I disagree entirely. These films were shot with HD cameras, not DV, and Mann has said he was purposefully using them to shoot in very low light. He shot many scenes from Collateral on 35mm film but the low light, high depth shots in HD without a shutter (so it looks videoish) so he could capture a more naturalistic look for the real locations.
Mann has always been hip and with pop culture, always with the visuals and the music. I think the HD stuff is a very purposeful move towards a modern aesthetic of digital immediacy and cel phone videos, engaging again heavily with pop culture. Had all this stuff been around when he did Miami Vice I am sure he would have done the same. I don't see any difference between the consciously raw looking HD look of the 1930s period film Public Enemies and scoring The ww2 set The Keep with a 1983 synth score by Tangerine Dream.
All of the HD cameras Mann has used on all of these projects are very capable of giving a film like aesthetic and have been used so seamlessly on many movies. I don't think this is what interests Mann and not the point of the films he is trying to make. He's challenging the conventional in this regard, in my opinion, whatever you think of it (I don't like his movie for other reasons). I think if Mann wanted to he could make like Fincher and shoot very filmlike images with the same cameras, but I don't think that's what he's trying to say. Look at The Insider and Ali (with the lipstick camera shots) and you can see even there he was beginning to experiment with non filmic looking images, in my opinion.
Yes, you may have nailed it with his intent, absolutely. It was a deliberate choice by Mann, but the end result was horrid. It looked ... cheap. In the theater it was actually a distraction, the digital combing or other artifacts that could be seen at times. It didn't look "raw" as much as it looked like a high school video project at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 2, 2010 - 8:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Michael Mann overall as a filmmaker (I hate his approach to music for example, especially stuff like Manhunter), but I think with his unconventional high def approach he's still very consciously experimenting with technique and form as he has always done, whether you like the results or not. I think that if he wanted to create visuals on par with something like The Keep he could do it very easily in a heartbeat, but I don't think that's where he wants to go now.
I agree, it is no doubt something he likes, a deliberate choice, it may be he feels he'd getting an "immediate" feel or an intimacy by using this video technique. He has a goal and feels he has accomplished it. However, really, I don't see how there's a doubt the result, instead of taking viewers - "you are there" - the end result is a distance, taking us out of the experience . It maybe something some viewers don't even realize at a high level. But there were moments in the theater that were jarring in how cheap they looked...like local cable access video - shockingly out of place in a major studio production.
So yes - this qualifies as a major mistake in the production
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decision to have Lois Lane chase Superman and then sleep with him in SUPERMAN 2. The franchise has been on a downward spiral ever since. Eventually he becomes a deserter and a deadbeat dad. Keep gender deconstruction and political correctness out of the Superman movies. Their relationship sustains tension and poignancy while it remains platonic. The simple rule of thumb is this: Superman flies because he is above mortal foibles.
On most of the others I completely agree with you, but totally disagree with this view of SUPERMAN 2. It's precisely these things that remind us that Superman is so special - he's a man with super-strength but like all of us has challenges of the heart and isn't above moral dilemma. How exciting would it be if Superman were wholly perfect, never having any personal or moral challenges? IMO, zzzzzzz. Supe 2 was great because of these things it did, particularly in the Donner cut.
You want it both ways. No, Superman must remain above mortal foibles if he is going to be super. His moral compass and his aloofness are his dilemma and his pain. That's why he built the Fortress of Solitude, to work these things out rather than give in to them. It is not necessary to develop his character too deeply. Any film that puts Superman into Lois Lane's bed is doing it wrong.
Richard
I don't want it "both ways" at all, but any character that is above moral foibles is, to me, made for people from other planets, not FOR people from this planet.  If, say, someone from Krypton were watching Superman movies I'd agree with you, but they're not. The comic book also explored Kal El's challenges and I think Supe 2 is dead on with this. We're not going to agree, I don't think. And to hopefully make us both laugh on this one, I saw one of those shirts today that I normally find annoying. This one, however, did make me chuckle: "If I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2010 - 6:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Let me put it another way: Why do YOU think Oldfield's score was a mistake? Simply because you didn't like it? Perhaps your opinion could be articulated a little better than as just simply "obnoxious", oui?
From the OP: "I am talking about a film in which a production decision was made that, in hindsight, was so wrong that it affected the quality of and respect for the film."
That's Oldfield's score, for me. I don't know what the right way to score the film would have been -- it's very possible that the elegiac strings and maybe mournful brass usually used for this kind of thing would have been inappropriate, too sentimental, whatever. What I do know is that, for me, Oldfield's harsh, blaring, bizarre score (what was it, even? Distorted local instruments? Synths?) didn't complement, elevate, or help bring into focus the film's own harsh themes or settings. Instead, nearly every time it starting playing, I was distracted from or jolted out of the picture.
To me, a score that does not enhance the film but knocks me out of it was a mistake. And if it was a deliberate decision to use a score that would knock viewers out of the picture (to keep them at a disconnect? Encourage reflection?), well, then that decision was a mistake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2010 - 6:53 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
The decision to have Lois Lane chase Superman and then sleep with him in SUPERMAN 2. The franchise has been on a downward spiral ever since. Eventually he becomes a deserter and a deadbeat dad. Keep gender deconstruction and political correctness out of the Superman movies. Their relationship sustains tension and poignancy while it remains platonic. The simple rule of thumb is this: Superman flies because he is above mortal foibles.
On most of the others I completely agree with you, but totally disagree with this view of SUPERMAN 2. It's precisely these things that remind us that Superman is so special - he's a man with super-strength but like all of us has challenges of the heart and isn't above moral dilemma. How exciting would it be if Superman were wholly perfect, never having any personal or moral challenges? IMO, zzzzzzz. Supe 2 was great because of these things it did, particularly in the Donner cut.
You want it both ways. No, Superman must remain above mortal foibles if he is going to be super. His moral compass and his aloofness are his dilemma and his pain. That's why he built the Fortress of Solitude, to work these things out rather than give in to them. It is not necessary to develop his character too deeply. Any film that puts Superman into Lois Lane's bed is doing it wrong.
Richard
I don't want it "both ways" at all, but any character that is above moral foibles is, to me, made for people from other planets, not FOR people from this planet. If, say, someone from Krypton were watching Superman movies I'd agree with you, but they're not. The comic book also explored Kal El's challenges and I think Supe 2 is dead on with this. We're not going to agree, I don't think. And to hopefully make us both laugh on this one, I saw one of those shirts today that I normally find annoying. This one, however, did make me chuckle: "If I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong."
You wrote:
I don't want it "both ways" at all, but any character that is above moral foibles
Mortal foibles.
I said mortal foibles.
Not moral foibles.
However, Superman is above moral dilemmas as well, now that you point it out. He always does the right thing, and he never lies: where have you heard that before? Removing mortal foibles and moral dilemmas from Superman does not deny him character development or character arc. He can be tested, challenged, tricked, deceived, conflicted, over-whelmed, melancholy, emotional. He has feelings, and he may not be invincible. He is constantly discovering the extent and the limit of his powers. He can't save everybody nor prevent every evil and tragedy because he is not God.
And he never, never sticks it in. As soon as he does, he is no longer Superman.
Aside from that, you are quite correct. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 3, 2010 - 12:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
Let me put it another way: Why do YOU think Oldfield's score was a mistake? Simply because you didn't like it? Perhaps your opinion could be articulated a little better than as just simply "obnoxious", oui?
From the OP: "I am talking about a film in which a production decision was made that, in hindsight, was so wrong that it affected the quality of and respect for the film."
That's Oldfield's score, for me. I don't know what the right way to score the film would have been -- it's very possible that the elegiac strings and maybe mournful brass usually used for this kind of thing would have been inappropriate, too sentimental, whatever. What I do know is that, for me, Oldfield's harsh, blaring, bizarre score (what was it, even? Distorted local instruments? Synths?) didn't complement, elevate, or help bring into focus the film's own harsh themes or settings. Instead, nearly every time it starting playing, I was distracted from or jolted out of the picture.
To me, a score that does not enhance the film but knocks me out of it was a mistake. And if it was a deliberate decision to use a score that would knock viewers out of the picture (to keep them at a disconnect? Encourage reflection?), well, then that decision was a mistake!
See? Now THAT'S the kind of articulated opinion I can get behind.
I disagree with it... but I can get behind it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
