• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

188 minute tv cut of Superman: The Movie getting an official release

Rogue-theX

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
6,890
Reaction score
7
Trophy Points
81
Gothamknight said:
...the effects now are unbearable to watch (other than as a study in film history).  Give a digital upgrade to the visuals, and I'll watch it.  Otherwise I can't be bothered.

batman-supers.jpg


:)
 

ThrowgnCpr

awol
Staff member
Messages
15,090
Reaction score
36
Trophy Points
133
Gothamknight said:
Give a digital upgrade to the visuals, and I'll watch it.  Otherwise I can't be bothered.

provided without comment:

star-wars-original-trilogy-changes-ronto-frame.jpg
 

Gothamknight

Well-known member
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
musiced921 said:
I'm not sure if you watched the movie with 2017 eyes or with 1978 eyes because it does make a world of difference.

Oh, I completely agree.  Sure, I'm aware of how cutting-edge the effects were at the time - just as I'm aware of how cutting-edge the original King Kong was in 1933.  But I can't emotionally transport myself back to a bygone era; modern effects have spoiled me for earlier films.  There are some exceptions, of course: for instance the original Star Wars trilogy, albeit with some flaws, is still eminently watchable and enjoyable.

  The effects we have today are even torn apart by movie fans (I can't believe the bashing I've seen of what people are saying about Thor: Ragnarok's effects).  When Superman came out and people got to see a man look like he could actually fly it was magical to those moviegoers.  Sure, they're definitely rough now, but you have to understand that there was a lot of heart behind making this look like he was flying where now there's no heart behind punching in some effects on a computer to make him fly.  It's easy(ish)!

The whole Lex scheme is very much what a cheesy comic book villain would do.  What I never understand from audiences is that when you have a psychopath making plans, we forget he's a psycho and that his plan doesn't exactly need to make sense to us because, well, he's crazy!

The movie isn't for everyone, like any other movie.  It's sad that you didn't find a connection to it like a lot of us have, but it just wasn't your cup of tea.  I wouldn't base the whole film on the extended cut though because there's waaaaay more padding than what is needed.

Not to get into a completely different discussion since this is a thread about the TV cut, but Gotham, are there other older films with dated special effects that take you out of the viewing experience besides this one?
[/quote]
 

Gothamknight

Well-known member
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
musiced921 said:
I'm not sure if you watched the movie with 2017 eyes or with 1978 eyes because it does make a world of difference.

I don't find it psychologically possible to watch a movie "with 1978 eyes" (or whatever the film's era happens to be).  For those who can, well, they gain more long-term enjoyment from certain films, so more power to 'em!  Of course I grasp that STM's effects were cutting-edge at the time; from a historical perspective I can appreciate that.  It's just that watching it now for sheer entertainment doesn't do it for me like it did when I was a kid.  In the same way, I can appreciate, in its historical context, the cutting-edge effects of 1933's King Kong.  I just can't enjoy it on a suspension-of-disbelief level for sheer entertainment; I can't be psychologically pulled in, cuz the obvious unrealness of it yanks me out of the story.

It simply doesn't compare to Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005), and it should be self-evident that if we could travel back in time to 1933 but just ahead of the original Kong's release, and show people Jackson's Kong - thereafter stop-motion effects wouldn't be sufficient.  People would be spoiled.  In real time the same thing has happened to me; modern effects have spoiled me for old flicks, although of course there are the rare exceptions that continue to hold up well (e.g., original Star Wars trilogy - although I appreciated some of the enhancements of the Special Editions).  It's not just visual effects, either; I also can't be pulled in by much older films where the actors overacted (their background experience was stage, so it made sense at the time) and the music was way too melodramatic.

The effects we have today are even torn apart by movie fans (I can't believe the bashing I've seen of what people are saying about Thor: Ragnarok's effects).

Not always - but the disappointing exceptions don't negate my point.  The technology exists to make the impossible seem real, and I've simply been spoiled by that technology.  Sure, some movies have made better use of it than others, but my point stands.

When Superman came out and people got to see a man look like he could actually fly it was magical to those moviegoers.

Me too.  Just not anymore.

Sure, they're definitely rough now, but you have to understand that there was a lot of heart behind making this look like he was flying where now there's no heart behind punching in some effects on a computer to make him fly.  It's easy(ish)!

Couple things here.  First, why do you talk as if I don't understand that?  Of course I do.  But it doesn't change my current experience in watching an outdated, outmoded film.  It just doesn't have the power to excite me anymore.

Secondly, you're devaluing the skill and creativity of today's CGI programmers.  They still need to be artists in how they apply the technology; it's not just a matter of "punching in" the effects.  Thought and skill are required, and I appreciate that thought and skill - and of course the results, when they're what they should be.

The whole Lex scheme is very much what a cheesy comic book villain would do.

Yeah, but here it's not about the evolution of technology; it's just about storytelling.  Even as a kid I thought Lex's storyline was lame.  He just wasn't a strong villain, and instead of being the savvy overlord of a financial and technological empire, he's under the sewers in an opulent lair that has no business existing, and his only partners-in-evildoing are two airheads.

It's not about whether Lex is a psychopath; that's unarguable.  But "psychopath" isn't synonymous with "buffoon," "idiot," etc.  His storyline was just plain dumb.

It's sad that you didn't find a connection to it like a lot of us have, but it just wasn't your cup of tea.

Here again you're presuming.  You say "didn't" and "wasn't," as if you know what my past experience of those films was.  I loved them - for Superman, regardless of what Lex was or wasn't doing.  And I accepted the effects readily in that era.  My comments in this thread only pertain to how I feel watching those films now.

Hey, I don't begrudge anyone else's current, ongoing enjoyment of these movies.  Just opining about my own lack thereof.  And I can still appreciate what was truly good about STM; Reeve's own performance, to mention it a second time, was superlative, and I do still enjoy that aspect.  It's just that when he goes into action, the adrenaline rush isn't there for me anymore.

By comparison - although of course  Batman v. Superman had major problems - speaking of the action specifically, as a Batman fan I can guarantee that the scene in which he rescues Martha will continue to get me stoked for decades to come.
 

MusicEd921

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
701
Trophy Points
143
@"Gothamknight", sorry if you thought I was making some heavy assumptions about your viewing of the film.  We just have some clearly different views and experiences when we each watch older flicks.

I'm hoping with the release of this TV cut that it does well enough to get us the Superman II TV cut and maybe, just maybe, some more of the Superman IV footage that hasn't seen the light of day.
 

Masirimso17

Well-known member
Cover Artist
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
238
Trophy Points
93
musiced921 said:
I'm hoping with the release of this TV cut that it does well enough to get us the Superman II TV cut and maybe, just maybe, some more of the Superman IV footage that hasn't seen the light of day.

I'm fearing since the theatrical or special edition of STM has always been the definitive edition for people, not many people would be interested in this Extended Edition probably. Not as much as one for Superman II at least, which has been widely known as a largely different movie than what was intended, and the Donner Cut being an incomplete cut. There hasn't been a definitive Superman II cut for people, hence why there are so many fan edits.

I'm hoping they release the TV Cut of Superman II regardless of whether this Extended Cut does well or not.
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,895
Reaction score
1,507
Trophy Points
163
The movie looks old. It is old. Some people like old stuff. Some people prefer new stuff.
Such is life.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
If I had to choose (which we don't) between all-practical Superman and all-CGI Superman, I'd choose practical. There is something special that CGI cannot replicate about seeing a real man, catch a real size helicopter, in camera, for real (03.35 into the following clip). Sure he's not really holding the weight but our eyes can't see that.

 

Gothamknight

Well-known member
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
16
I just prefer whatever looks the most real.  If that can be done using practical effects, hey, go for it.
 

bionicbob

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
8,265
Reaction score
2,390
Trophy Points
168
Richard Donner not happy with the release of the Extended Cut....
https://screenrant.com/superman-movie-extended-cut-donner-criticisms/

[font=helvetica, verdana, arial, sans-serif][font=georgia, serif]It’s terrible. That was an original assembly; it was nothing more than an assembly. And we cut most of the bad s*** out. And in good taste, the producers decided… in those days if you sold a picture to television you sold it by length. The longer the film the more money they got. So they went back and got somebody – not Stuart Baird – to put all the footage back in that we’d taken out.[/font]
[font=georgia, serif]So now, same thing, in good taste, Warner Bros TV – or whoever the hell stupidly is doing this – just took the same s*** and they’re putting it out to the audience to make a buck. Bad taste.[/font]
[/font]
 

ThrowgnCpr

awol
Staff member
Messages
15,090
Reaction score
36
Trophy Points
133
^ I think that is a pretty fair assessment. As an artist, you only want to show your best work, not all the bits that you specifically want to remove to make the product better.

It's a cool thing for fans who want to see every tiny element that goes into making a film, but I can see how as the director, this may not be representative of your work.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
Review of the TV cut release...

 

Sinbad

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
4
Trophy Points
48
I seem to remember watching Superman 3 a couple of years after it's initial release on the TV and being surprised as there seemed to be lots of extra scenes in the TV version compared to the vhs store version, another was Firefox with Clint Eastwood.  Granted I  was probably around 13 at the time and deleted scenes wasn't even a thing I would have been aware existed.  Guess it must have been common practice for certain studios to do that back then.
 
Top Bottom