Lots of people have claimed the other gunman who accompanies Jack Napier in the murder of the Wayne's is Joe Chill. Personally I always thought this was merely an attempt to try and align the origin more with the comics.
I actually always believed as a kid this second gunman was in fact......Bob the goon as a younger man!
There is no evidence either way to suggest the identity (nothing is in the credits as "Young Bob") but there seems to be clues. Jack and Bob clearly always trusted one another and you can imagine them coming up together in the underworld as teens. They also seem to be around the same ages.
The biggest evidence I have to suggest this theory is a line uttered by Bob at Axis Chemicals: "C'mon Jack let's go!". Not a special line but in the Wayne murder scene this second mugger panics and then yells: "C'mon man let's go, let's go Jack!". I doubt it was intended as a signpost for later in the film but it's pretty coincedental and something Bob actually says. The fact he has a tendency to panic also is seen in the scene where he runs off from a challenge by Batman.
I believe it is Bob.
However I have a magazine interview from 1989 with Michael Uslan who says it is Joe Chill.
I had to get on the Internet to find out there was an alternative point of view about it. I always assumed it was Bob too. Bob was always Jack's man in my view, even before Jack was the boss.
Nah there really is a lot of fans who argue it's Joe Chill. Not sure why they ever assumed that.
Having it be Bob not only is cooler it makes more sense. Also suggests a whole sick backstory to the Joker's past. He's always been a bad seed with evil ties.
I agree with Alex Ross who felt the movies origin always made more sense to the character than Alan Moore's idea. But you try arguing that to the "no mercy" type Bat fans who feel any deviance from comics creativity is sacreligious lol
I always had trouble believing a decent family guy became a mass murderer through even as terrible a tradgegy as the one in Killing Joke. I actually wish we could have found out even more about Napier's past in the film. All we get is the police report stuff Bruce reads ("Assault with a deadly weapon age 15...").
Similarly how can Ledger buffs argue that he's more lethal and less silly than Nicolson's??? Nicholson's is still pretty lethal if not more so. It's all there just developed as backstory and leaving an audience to fill the gaps themselves. I find that more creative and inventive personally. I'm a firm believer that newer fans need to look deeper into the Burton films to find the psychological depth that Nolan slaps in your face in bucket loads of sign posting.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 18 Sep 2012, 23:34
Having it be Bob not only is cooler it makes more sense. Also suggests a whole sick backstory to the Joker's past. He's always been a bad seed with evil ties.
Yes, exactly. A constant in his life, before and after the accident. Making Bob's death all the more poignant.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 18 Sep 2012, 23:34
I always had trouble believing a decent family guy became a mass murderer through even as terrible a tradgegy as the one in Killing Joke. I actually wish we could have found out even more about Napier's past in the film. All we get is the police report stuff Bruce reads ("Assault with a deadly weapon age 15...").
Again, exactly. Jack's Joker having a mobster past shows he's street wise and gives us some grounding.
Jack's Joker kills a lot of people and takes joy in it. Viewing it as artistic expression.
I always figured Napier was similar to real life killers like British serial killer (and one step away from Joker psychoticness) Ian Brady for instance. A guy I find repulsively evil and deranged beyond all measures.
Y'know, a guy who has had severe issues practically from the day he set foot on the world, leaving you little doubt he would eventually become what he became infamous for. Not just because of an accident/tragedy, but because frankly his mindset was already set towards that path in life. Bruce even states of Napier "his head is full of bad wiring" for example.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 18 Sep 2012, 23:34I agree with Alex Ross who felt the movies origin always made more sense to the character than Alan Moore's idea. But you try arguing that to the "no mercy" type Bat fans who feel any deviance from comics creativity is sacreligious lol
I understand and relate to that mentality though because deviation often feels like the filmmakers are taking a superior attitude, as if they have to "fix" or "improve" the source material in order for it to be credible.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Tue, 18 Sep 2012, 23:34Similarly how can Ledger buffs argue that he's more lethal and less silly than Nicolson's??? Nicholson's is still pretty lethal if not more so. It's all there just developed as backstory and leaving an audience to fill the gaps themselves. I find that more creative and inventive personally. I'm a firm believer that newer fans need to look deeper into the Burton films to find the psychological depth that Nolan slaps in your face in bucket loads of sign posting.
Hmm, well, let's see.
Jack Napier shot a father and mother to death in front of their 8 year old son... and had to be talked out of blowing him too.
Ledger burned a pile of money.
QuoteJack Napier shot a father and mother to death in front of their 8 year old son... and had to be talked out of blowing him too.
Ledger burned a pile of money.
To be fair, Ledger burned a man to death on that pile of money while ordering another man to be chopped up and fed to his dogs.
As for the sidekick, it's probably Bob. The actor doesn't look much like Tracey Walter, but then again Hugo Blick was probably hired more for his resemblance to the comic book Joker than he was to Jack Nicholson. But, as Paul said, there's Uslan's statements and his introduction in the Batman and The Fifties collection that the second mugger was added so that fans could interpret him to be Joe Chill.
Since we never get a name, count me in as another that always assumed the fellow was Bob.
With Jack Napier essentially stepping into the role of Joe Chill by killing Bruce's parents in the flashback, my impression was that having Joe standing right beside Jack with this surprised look on his face following the shootings of the Wayne's, is a acknowledgement to the character, but ultimately unnecessary. In the narrative, we see that Bob is incredibly dedicated to Jack/Joker throughout the film, and my impression was that dedication stemmed from years of prior amity between the two.
But if Mr. Ulsan says it's Joe. OK.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 20 Sep 2012, 08:10
But if Mr. Ulsan says it's Joe. OK.
I see this as nothing more than trying to soothe and calm the 'Joker didn't kill Batman's parent's in the comics' crowd.
Chill didn't kill his parents but he was there!
Nah. It makes more sense for it to be Bob.
I love the original film but to my knowledge the name 'Joe Chill' is never mentioned in any of the original series. So if he's never mentioned on screen we can't really acknowledge him as a character in that universe.
Napier does kind of remark as an adult that he killed more in his younger days. And that is generally how the mob works; the ones going out whacking people and committing the actual crimes are the ones lower on the ladder. When they rise up, they then have the lower guys do their dirty work (I realize there wasn't a hit on the waynes it was a robbery). So Jack likely stopped killing once he ascended in the ranks and then started again when he became the Joker.
Obviously it's never stated who the side kick is but since Bob is an established character in the film and Joe Chill is not, I'd be more inclined to assume it's Bob.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 20 Sep 2012, 12:54
I see this as nothing more than trying to soothe and calm the 'Joker didn't kill Batman's parent's in the comics' crowd.
With all the deviations the Nolan films took with the mythology in order to tell it's stories, I don't see any
real valid reason for stating what comes across as being apologetic about deviations the Burton films took in order to tell
it's stories.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 20 Sep 2012, 21:42
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 20 Sep 2012, 12:54
I see this as nothing more than trying to soothe and calm the 'Joker didn't kill Batman's parent's in the comics' crowd.
With all the deviations the Nolan films took with the mythology in order to tell it's stories, I don't see any real valid reason for stating what comes across as being apologetic about deviations the Burton films took in order to tell it's stories.
I know what you're saying, but that's the way I see it in regards to this. The Joe Chill thing is out of left field and foreign to this film in my opinion. Uslan is the only person on record saying it's Chill.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 20 Sep 2012, 15:24
I love the original film but to my knowledge the name 'Joe Chill' is never mentioned in any of the original series. So if he's never mentioned on screen we can't really acknowledge him as a character in that universe.
Obviously it's never stated who the side kick is but since Bob is an established character in the film and Joe Chill is not, I'd be more inclined to assume it's Bob.
Exactly. Uslan's comments in a magazine don't hold any weight for me.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 20 Sep 2012, 08:10But if Mr. Ulsan says it's Joe. OK.
He can say what he likes but I don't buy it. I could see it being a nameless thug, I could easily see it being Bob but being a pivotal character like Chill... who essentially gets tossed aside so Jack can do the dirty work... that just doesn't make sense to me in any way.
I don't really have any real strong feelings on the subject either way. I'm perfectly OK with Michael Uslan stating the guy was Joe Chill in a magazine over 20 years ago, just as I am still Ok with having always assumed the guy was Bob due to the narrative of the film itself.
Honestly, I suspect Mr. Uslan isn't really passionate about the Chill name dropping himself, and likely said it off the cuff (which is how it comes across). Because otherwise, I'm sure he could have very easily changed the "Other Mugger" credit to "Joe Chill" if he really wanted to make that point. As is, it's open to interpretation just as it always has been.
If they wanted it to be Joe they easily could have had Jack call him by name. I dont mind it being the Joker. That was the first comic film in theatres without Superman in 23 years. they couldnt have known how mad comic fans get when elements are changed :)
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 23 Sep 2012, 01:53
I dont mind it being the Joker.
I'm glad that was the case. It makes it unique to Burton's film alone and increases the personal connection between the two main characters.
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 23 Sep 2012, 01:53
I dont mind it being the Joker.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Sep 2012, 02:04
I'm glad that was the case. It makes it unique to Burton's film alone and increases the personal connection between the two main characters.
Indeed.
Well I'm in the minority here, because I like the idea of the second mugger being Chill.
But perhaps there's a compromise. We've always assumed Bob's surname was 'Goon' (doubtless related to the Boston Goons) and that his middle name was 'The'. But what if his full name was 'Joseph Robert Chill'? That would be a much better plot twist than Ducard turning out to be Ra's.
Bob's death scene is still a darkly funny moment to me and further shows the absolute insanity of The Joker in that he'll go so far as to shoot even the one man who perhaps can be truly called his "friend". I love how he still however needs to calm his nerves done after going thru with the act: "Going to need a minute or two alone boys..." LOL
But as well as being a funny moment and fairly a surprise too it seemed to me Burton flagged that moment up for another reason. If Bob really was that 2nd mugger then his murder by Jack has just robbed Batman of half his revenge. That's how that moment felt to me watching as a five year old. Obviously Bob had no part in actually murderering the Wayne's but he clearly contributed to their hopeless ordeal. Batman would as much want his revenge on him as Jack, but his death takes that opportunity from him.
This is why I'd very much like to see the deleted Batman vs Bob knife fight!
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 23 Sep 2012, 15:43
Well I'm in the minority here, because I like the idea of the second mugger being Chill.
But perhaps there's a compromise. We've always assumed Bob's surname was 'Goon' (doubtless related to the Boston Goons) and that his middle name was 'The'. But what if his full name was 'Joseph Robert Chill'? That would be a much better plot twist than Ducard turning out to be Ra's.
I wouldn't have a problem per se with the second mugger being Joe Chill. But you can't consider something canon unless it appears in the film itself.
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 24 Sep 2012, 04:08I wouldn't have a problem per se with the second mugger being Joe Chill. But you can't consider something canon unless it appears in the film itself.
Mmm, I'd also permit the director or screenwriter saying so. Still, I do wish more people would have your policy though. Then Superman fans could stop arguing that Superman destroyed the Fortress of Solitude at the end of Superman II.
EDIT- Unless, of course, their argument is that Superman burned the joint down with Lex still inside it. Even then, I still don't buy it but there's something to be said for consistency, I think.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 24 Sep 2012, 08:00
Quote from: riddler on Mon, 24 Sep 2012, 04:08I wouldn't have a problem per se with the second mugger being Joe Chill. But you can't consider something canon unless it appears in the film itself.
Mmm, I'd also permit the director or screenwriter saying so. Still, I do wish more people would have your policy though. Then Superman fans could stop arguing that Superman destroyed the Fortress of Solitude at the end of Superman II.
EDIT- Unless, of course, their argument is that Superman burned the joint down with Lex still inside it. Even then, I still don't buy it but there's something to be said for consistency, I think.
Whooo boy your Superman II comments open a WHOLE other debate on another board lol While it was cool seeing that Donner cut with the Fortress being destroyed scene, I don't consider that 2006 release as the "official" Superman II. And I know there are fans who do. I still feel it's merely a glimpse at what could have been. The editing/pacing of it was all wrong (far too quick in my book), a few sloppy effects and weirdly re-dubbed dialogue. Plus some of the humour was completely missing (the sherrif and his deputy's little chat was clearly deliberately chopped down). Missed all that. I also feel some Lester scenes were better than what Donner orginally wanted. Especially the ending scene with Clark and Lois in the Daily Planet. Great emotion scene and a rare chance to see Chris Reeve break character and have him play Superman dressed as Clark! I don't think there was much wrong with Superman II's original theatrical release anyway and the audience at the time proved that. But it's still nice to have merely an "extended special feature" to see what may have been.
Heh, I think those early Superman movies are a mess and the reboot is long overdue.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Mon, 24 Sep 2012, 17:16Whooo boy your Superman II comments open a WHOLE other debate on another board lol While it was cool seeing that Donner cut with the Fortress being destroyed scene, I don't consider that 2006 release as the "official" Superman II. And I know there are fans who do. I still feel it's merely a glimpse at what could have been. The editing/pacing of it was all wrong (far too quick in my book), a few sloppy effects and weirdly re-dubbed dialogue. Plus some of the humour was completely missing (the sherrif and his deputy's little chat was clearly deliberately chopped down). Missed all that. I also feel some Lester scenes were better than what Donner orginally wanted. Especially the ending scene with Clark and Lois in the Daily Planet. Great emotion scene and a rare chance to see Chris Reeve break character and have him play Superman dressed as Clark! I don't think there was much wrong with Superman II's original theatrical release anyway and the audience at the time proved that. But it's still nice to have merely an "extended special feature" to see what may have been.
My gripe is, was and will always be how selective the Donner Cut fanboys are.
QuoteFanboy- "This movie is better than Lester's!"
Me- "But the pacing is shot all to hell. And that ending makes no sense. Clark beats up the trucker for basically no reason at this point."
Fanboy- "You have to go easy on it, it's unfinished."
Me- "Mmm, okay. But Reeve's performance in the FOS scenes where he forsakes his powers is just BAD."
Fanboy- "Donner would have fixed that."
Me- "You don't know that. But whatev, a lot of those wire scenes are just CRAP."
Fanboy- "Remember man, this thing was pieced together from chewing gum and popsicle sticks. But it's better than Lester!"
Me- "You mean the FINISHED Lester movie that doesn't have jacked up sound effects, piss poor dubbing and a pretty coherent narrative?"
Fanboy- "UNFINISHED! BUT BETTER!"
Ugh, look, the Donner Cut can be unfinished or it can be better. It cannot be both. You don't get to handicap it on the myriad flaws and weaknesses it has but still argue it's somehow better than the finished, unhandicapped Lester version. The fanboys can pick the test we apply but let's apply it to both, shall we?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 05:34
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Mon, 24 Sep 2012, 17:16Whooo boy your Superman II comments open a WHOLE other debate on another board lol While it was cool seeing that Donner cut with the Fortress being destroyed scene, I don't consider that 2006 release as the "official" Superman II. And I know there are fans who do. I still feel it's merely a glimpse at what could have been. The editing/pacing of it was all wrong (far too quick in my book), a few sloppy effects and weirdly re-dubbed dialogue. Plus some of the humour was completely missing (the sherrif and his deputy's little chat was clearly deliberately chopped down). Missed all that. I also feel some Lester scenes were better than what Donner orginally wanted. Especially the ending scene with Clark and Lois in the Daily Planet. Great emotion scene and a rare chance to see Chris Reeve break character and have him play Superman dressed as Clark! I don't think there was much wrong with Superman II's original theatrical release anyway and the audience at the time proved that. But it's still nice to have merely an "extended special feature" to see what may have been.
My gripe is, was and will always be how selective the Donner Cut fanboys are.
QuoteFanboy- "This movie is better than Lester's!"
Me- "But the pacing is shot all to hell. And that ending makes no sense. Clark beats up the trucker for basically no reason at this point."
Fanboy- "You have to go easy on it, it's unfinished."
Me- "Mmm, okay. But Reeve's performance in the FOS scenes where he forsakes his powers is just BAD."
Fanboy- "Donner would have fixed that."
Me- "You don't know that. But whatev, a lot of those wire scenes are just CRAP."
Fanboy- "Remember man, this thing was pieced together from chewing gum and popsicle sticks. But it's better than Lester!"
Me- "You mean the FINISHED Lester movie that doesn't have jacked up sound effects, piss poor dubbing and a pretty coherent narrative?"
Fanboy- "UNFINISHED! BUT BETTER!"
Ugh, look, the Donner Cut can be unfinished or it can be better. It cannot be both. You don't get to handicap it on the myriad flaws and weaknesses it has but still argue it's somehow better than the finished, unhandicapped Lester version. The fanboys can pick the test we apply but let's apply it to both, shall we?
Oh dear somebody argued this with you? Well everybody is entitled to their opinion. Those scenes in the Fortress with Superman while fascinating I felt made him a bit of a whiny brat. I can't believe I felt that about the great Christopher Reeve. He acts far more spoiled in the Donner version whereas in Lester's for me he was far more "in character". Having Superman act selfishly at that stage in his life while entertaingly shocking would have been a bit misguided. In Lester's version you get the impression he knows he's taking a risk but he must go through with it for Lois. Iyla Salkind sums it up for me in his commentary of that scene.
I mean I can go on and on and on lol I absolutely loathe that Lois shooting Clark moment. It's ridiculous. Not least cos it's a screen test that doesn't match in continuity. It also made HER a bit unlikeable. Sure it's a blank bullet but still, tricking Superman? Entrapment? Fraud? Why would this guy love her after that? Okay the original had the tacky pink hotel room and all but I found that scene more real and more full of emotion. The idea of Clark tripping deliberately or not is fascinating because they never answer it. Also it's a more shocking moment of that revelation. Lois' shock and all and Clark's look of I just screwed this whole thing lol Actually makes him human.
I'm divided on the portrayl of the 3 villains. Zod was menacing and great in Donner's version but I still enjoyed his humour when he's beating the weak of the Earth. Non was tougher but became a blander character. I liked him better when he was a big dumb idiot lol Ursa also seemed a lot cooler vocally in Lester's version but that may simple be because of the later reshoots.
But the big issue? A sequel in which Superman appears 30 MINS INTO THE FILM lol 30 mins! The Niagra Falls scene. Far too long in a number 2 movie. In Lester's we explode from scene 1 to France in a new adventure.
simple math equations
1 + X = 3
you know X must be 2
this applies to events which are implied to happen off screen. The Joker ascended in the crime ranks. We don't see it happen, it's simply assumed.
-----------
(X - 2) * (X - 4) = 0
X must be either 2 or 4
What happened to the Joker and his goons in the dark knight after the joker threw Batman out the window? Either they ran away before Batman got back up there or he went back up there and chased them out. Those are the only two viable scenarios.
-------------
X + Y + 5 = 67
impossible equation to solve based on the evidence.
All we know about the partner is he is not named or mentioned again in the series. You can forever theorize but it is a question with no distinct answer to.
Okay enough math I'll respond to the superman being brought up; Those films were pioneers and iconic for their time. Not disrespecting Donner, Lester, Reeve, or anyone there. Now I will fully admit I'm not a fan of the character superman; he already is invincible without kyryptonite. Add in the fact that according to the films he can turn back time and there's really no scenario where the stakes are raised. I prefer the green lantern, there's more humanity there, the ring adds an extra element and otherwise he has supermans powers but needs to be more creative. Anyhow all that aside the films just don't hold up for me. I'm sure they did the best with the resources they had and truth be told how many action films pre-1980 still hold up today? But the film industry has come a long way in the past 30 years, especially comic films. I was hoping Bryan Singer would give us a better film but he didnt. He seemed too focused on the art and attempting to essentially make Superman 2.5 than to take a chance and actually take advantage of resources he had that Donner and Lester didnt. Instead we got a superman version of indiana jones 4; "we waited all these years to see a film do the same thing he's already done." Lex luthor plans on stealing land with his goons and uses kryptonite against superman.. yawn. And not a single punch thrown by supes all film.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07Oh dear somebody argued this with you?
It's not an uncommon viewpoint, believe me. This is particularly true of Singerman fans, who somehow think the Donner cut better ties in with Singerman (which, once you get past the Fortress being destroyed with Lex inside of it, makes sense in that not at all kinda way) and so forth.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07Well everybody is entitled to their opinion.
And some opinions are friggin stupid. The superiority of the Donner Cut? One such.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07Those scenes in the Fortress with Superman while fascinating I felt made him a bit of a whiny brat. I can't believe I felt that about the great Christopher Reeve. He acts far more spoiled in the Donner version whereas in Lester's for me he was far more "in character". Having Superman act selfishly at that stage in his life while entertaingly shocking would have been a bit misguided.
I'm okay with it on the grounds that Lois basically epitomizes what Clark had to leave behind in becoming Superman. I mean, let's face it, it ain't like Jor-El gave him much of a choice. Say whatever you want about SV but Clark became Superman on that show on his terms rather than 12 years of Kryptonian brainwashing. Anyway, as I say, I'm okay with it though because it's Superman (A) acknowledging that he was conscripted into that life (B) perhaps had some regrets in retrospect and (C) learned from the experience. In Lester's cut anyway.
In Donner's, he just took a mulligan, time-traveled and undid all of his mistakes. Because, y'know, he hadn't seen how badly wrong things can go when someone with his powers decides he know what's best for everyone else. Ugh...
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07In Lester's version you get the impression he knows he's taking a risk but he must go through with it for Lois. Iyla Salkind sums it up for me in his commentary of that scene.
That, and I think his scenes with his mother are more melancholy. With Jor-El, it comes off as rebellion. With Lara, it's her letting her son make his own decisions, knowing he's going to screw up but also realizing he has to learn from the experience. It's not like either of them knew the stakes they were really playing for. It seems more genuine to me that Superman would have this difference of opinion with Lara rather than a confrontation with Jor-El.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07But the big issue? A sequel in which Superman appears 30 MINS INTO THE FILM lol 30 mins! The Niagra Falls scene. Far too long in a number 2 movie. In Lester's we explode from scene 1 to France in a new adventure.
That's my beef too. Say whatever you want about Lester, he knew he was making an action film and understood that you needed a big opener to kick off the movie. Sure, it's tempting to ridicule some aspects ("sure, when I think 'terrorist', I naturally think 'Frenchies'.") but Lester's S2 (and, I would argue, even S3) have a lot of heart to them.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 28 Sep 2012, 06:59
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07Oh dear somebody argued this with you?
It's not an uncommon viewpoint, believe me. This is particularly true of Singerman fans, who somehow think the Donner cut better ties in with Singerman (which, once you get past the Fortress being destroyed with Lex inside of it, makes sense in that not at all kinda way) and so forth.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07Well everybody is entitled to their opinion.
And some opinions are friggin stupid. The superiority of the Donner Cut? One such.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07Those scenes in the Fortress with Superman while fascinating I felt made him a bit of a whiny brat. I can't believe I felt that about the great Christopher Reeve. He acts far more spoiled in the Donner version whereas in Lester's for me he was far more "in character". Having Superman act selfishly at that stage in his life while entertaingly shocking would have been a bit misguided.
I'm okay with it on the grounds that Lois basically epitomizes what Clark had to leave behind in becoming Superman. I mean, let's face it, it ain't like Jor-El gave him much of a choice. Say whatever you want about SV but Clark became Superman on that show on his terms rather than 12 years of Kryptonian brainwashing. Anyway, as I say, I'm okay with it though because it's Superman (A) acknowledging that he was conscripted into that life (B) perhaps had some regrets in retrospect and (C) learned from the experience. In Lester's cut anyway.
In Donner's, he just took a mulligan, time-traveled and undid all of his mistakes. Because, y'know, he hadn't seen how badly wrong things can go when someone with his powers decides he know what's best for everyone else. Ugh...
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07In Lester's version you get the impression he knows he's taking a risk but he must go through with it for Lois. Iyla Salkind sums it up for me in his commentary of that scene.
That, and I think his scenes with his mother are more melancholy. With Jor-El, it comes off as rebellion. With Lara, it's her letting her son make his own decisions, knowing he's going to screw up but also realizing he has to learn from the experience. It's not like either of them knew the stakes they were really playing for. It seems more genuine to me that Superman would have this difference of opinion with Lara rather than a confrontation with Jor-El.
Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 27 Sep 2012, 22:07But the big issue? A sequel in which Superman appears 30 MINS INTO THE FILM lol 30 mins! The Niagra Falls scene. Far too long in a number 2 movie. In Lester's we explode from scene 1 to France in a new adventure.
That's my beef too. Say whatever you want about Lester, he knew he was making an action film and understood that you needed a big opener to kick off the movie. Sure, it's tempting to ridicule some aspects ("sure, when I think 'terrorist', I naturally think 'Frenchies'.") but Lester's S2 (and, I would argue, even S3) have a lot of heart to them.
I always figured the turning back of the world was merely placed in Superman II's Donner cut because it would have simply have been the way he would have ended the movie had he fully directed it.
I like Richard Donner but I found his commentary of his cut really bad taste. Slacking off the Salkind's and all that in every scene. It just came across arrogant. I don't think it was right how Lester took over but I thought his attacks on the highly successful (and much loved) theatrical version of Superman II were immature for a professional filmmaker.
Donner felt Marlon Brando was more important an inclusion but as Salkind stated it was the choice of the highly expensive "Mr Corleone" or using that budget on spectacular and ground breaking special effects. I'm glad he went for the latter personally. It didn't mean the sequel was "cheap" as some fans feel. Those action scenes at the end still excite and made Superman II memorable. The crew were doing unthinkable things in 1980 that superhero films wouldn't yet touch for years.
On the matter of the Reeve movies now being old fashioned well sure of course they are. What movies never date? It never stops my enjoyment of them. Just you wait and see what happens to the Nolan Batman films lol Many years yet but eventually that realism and modern day feel will have them age faster than fans can dream. Just the nature of time. That's the beauty of say Batman Returns. A bizaare Tim Burton fantasy version of a superhero whose timeless feel will make it last longer still. I don't think we'll ever have a more perfect Superman movie than those original two. They can do far more spectacular things sure but that doesn't make the movie better. It's already been done so well in 1978. Most of all though there is one thing they can never top: Christopher Reeve. He's the main reason they'll always be great and better.
I would say that's true in a way some people may not be completely comfortable with. My argument is that without Reeve and the Williams music, those movies are actually fairly meh. They have good points, to be sure, but the scripts generally have problems, there are issues with clashing tones (Donner could be very inconsistent in that area, in spite of his hype to the contrary), an aggravating and unattractive female lead and probably other stuff too but somehow Reeve and the Williams music make it all go away.
I think that Superman can be equaled. I don't even think it's all that hard to do. Superman's generally not a hard character to get right. One major gripe I've had about Superman for the past ten'ish years is how the Donner/Reeve stuff has come to exert a really inappropriate amount of influence over the mythos. Rather than being an adaptation of the mythos, those movies have begun defining the mythos. And I don't like that. However much it may have served his purpose, Donner took a massive dump on a lot of the canon that he wasn't hip to. People can argue the merits and execution of his myriad deletions/additions but nobody can argue the facts of them.
Bottom line? I'm happy we're getting something new. It's way past time we did.
It is best to view the Donner cut of S2 as a collection of deleted scenes and what ifs.
The best cut of S2 lies somewhere between Lester and Donner.
The time reversal scene in the Donner cut was used merely because it was the intended ending for S2 that ended up getting used for STM instead. A cop out to use it for the cut but then again there is no other alternative for the cut especially if they wanted to show the deleted scenes of Perry brushing his teeth and "coming round" in the Daily Planet office.
My best ending for S2? Lester but cut before Lois' memory loss. End it on a kiss with Lois knowing Supes is Clark.
On btw, I don't like Lesters slapstick in the Metropolis battle...but the editing and score in the Donner cut is a mess.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sat, 29 Sep 2012, 10:19On btw, I don't like Lesters slapstick in the Metropolis battle...but the editing and score in the Donner cut is a mess.
I'm not fond of parts of the battle. Clark grew up in the country. How much would you like to bet he knows how to roll with Zod? Y'know, old fashioned John Wayne fisticuffs and stuff. Because of that, all the sissy-la-la kicking and stuff is aggravating.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sat, 29 Sep 2012, 10:18
It is best to view the Donner cut of S2 as a collection of deleted scenes and what ifs.
The best cut of S2 lies somewhere between Lester and Donner.
The time reversal scene in the Donner cut was used merely because it was the intended ending for S2 that ended up getting used for STM instead. A cop out to use it for the cut but then again there is no other alternative for the cut especially if they wanted to show the deleted scenes of Perry brushing his teeth and "coming round" in the Daily Planet office.
My best ending for S2? Lester but cut before Lois' memory loss. End it on a kiss with Lois knowing Supes is Clark.
There is just one thing from the end of Donner's cut I truly wish was in the actual movie: the shot of the 3 villains being sucked back into the Phantom Zone again. A great triumphant moment (although slightly dodgy effect) and a bit amusing too. In a "back to square 1" kinda way.
I kinda like the Metropolis citizens reactions to the big fight between Superman and the villains. It gave the city a kind of character for me. Some stuff was too comedic but I felt it brought the city into the finale and what their saying might be how people would react to the kind of bizaare action going on lol
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Sep 2012, 19:00
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sat, 29 Sep 2012, 10:19On btw, I don't like Lesters slapstick in the Metropolis battle...but the editing and score in the Donner cut is a mess.
I'm not fond of parts of the battle. Clark grew up in the country. How much would you like to bet he knows how to roll with Zod? Y'know, old fashioned John Wayne fisticuffs and stuff. Because of that, all the sissy-la-la kicking and stuff is aggravating.
Hmm I don't know about that. Let's not take his square Kansas background too literally. I think Clark would know how to battle it out. Just like riding a bike. Otherwise he'd be a much more naffer superhero than some comic fans already believe him to be if he didn't know how to swing a punch at least.
I don't think it's a big deal to inject a bit of humour into the action scenes. For me it can add to the fun. There is a light hearted feel to the Superman movies in their earlier days which I think modern fans tend to forget. So long as the humour doesn't mock anything about Superman and I don't think Lester did this in the 2nd movie. Take for instance Zod being hurled into the Coca Cola sign. My favourite moment. Probably in the entire series! Never fails to raise a smile. Also it's quite possibly the biggest, most blatant product placement scene in movie history lol
I noticed in Donner's he changed the music structure, sound effects, pacing and cut a lot of the crowd reactions to make the battle more intense and perhaps darker. Nice attempt but ultimately I think this ruined the scene and made it less fun. One of my favourite music cues in Lester's is when Superman freezes the truck with his super breath. It was a less heroic moment with the much calmer music used instead. I hated the new sound effects on the heat vision. Obviously an attempt to make it more realistic sounding. But I thought the more comic book lazer effect sounded cooler.
QuoteAlso it's quite possibly the biggest, most blatant product placement scene in movie history lol
What about the legendary Cheerios scene from the first film?
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m7lc0nZK9m1rsmgln.jpg&hash=48529e1b453f4bc3dd66fe7a0e3e1cb02dadf02c)
Perhaps they deleted it because it was too subtle.
Personally, I think the extended special edition of Superman: The Movie is by far the greatest comic book/superhero movie ever made. I also slightly prefer the Donner Cut of Superman II over the Lester version, though at the end of the day I love both versions. Chacun à son goût.
Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 17 Sep 2012, 22:00
I believe it is Bob.
However I have a magazine interview from 1989 with Michael Uslan who says it is Joe Chill.
Here I was about to make another thread on the subject, but I found the answer in the first post of this thread.
I looked further into it, and here's the proof:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/182972_473601339384695_1827842025_n.jpg)
It's funny how some of the most-discussed diversions from the comics actually came from Bob Kane himself. This article infers that Bob was the one who encouraged the change from Sam Hamm's script based on hindsight with the comics. The all black armor was also also the intended appearance, but we know how that didn't translate well in the comics.
Anyways, I was personally surprised to find that this
wasn't Bob. His connection with Jack seemed to confirm that they committed petty crimes together in their younger years. And there was no indication of Joe Chill being a character otherwise.
But when you consider the script rewrites, it makes sense. Originally, it was just Joe Chill - a seemingly inconsequential thug who happens to completely change Bruce Wayne's outlook on life. But then a young Jack was added in, and they simply kept Joe in there as a partner. Personally, I like the contrast: Chill is a desperate thug, but Napier is truly evil.
It wasn't him who killed the Waynes in the film, it was Jack. However, don't you think Jack would've shot Bruce if his partner hadn't called him?
He cocked the hammer back and lowered it to Bruce, I think he intended to eliminate all the witnesses. We're supposed to believe that he says his trademarked phrase only when he kills someone. So technically, that's two times Bruce cheated death from Jack.