The "Brando" Footage ...

Hi SR Fans ,

I wanted to stimulate some conversation regarding the Jor-El footage. We all know that Singer has some old unused footage of Jor-El that he is going to use in the movie. I think it is very interesting to do this and the right move for this film. I have the following questions and comments:

1. Does anyone know what Brando will say ... what footage is going to be used. I saw some footage on youtube after Superman first appeared to the world in STM where Jor-El told him that although it was fun, he must keep his identity a secret because he cannot save the world 24 hours a day. Or is it the footage after he gave up his powers ... but in this film nothing like that happens so I am not sure how that will work.

2. Do you think they will use Jor-El in the following Superman movies or is this just for the first one? I think it depends on whether the FOS is destroyed ... Superman's I mean ... if so then Jor-El is gone.

3. Are they going to use the "... I have sent them you, my only son ... " speech in the movie or was that just for the teaser?

4. When Lex goes to Superman's FOS in the north, he apparently talks to Jor-El and somehow gets him to reveal all of Superman's secrets. Are they using old footage for this or somehow making new original footage using the old ... I think it will be interesting to see how it works out.

5. I wonder if Superman talks to Jor-El before he leaves to find the remains of Krypton ... what does Jor-El say and does he approve?

6. Does Jor-El and/or the last energy from the FOS save Superman in this film ... based on our knowledge of the hospital scene?

Can you let me know your thoughts on this ... thanks ...

SUPERDAVE

[Cinemaman]

My advice to you, see new trailers and tv-spots.

This footage is from SII, it was delete scene.

and unused footage.... theres alot we dont know about.

[musclesforsupes]

plus you will see it again in Superman II the donner cut, if they cut that out to be used in this movie I will be PISSED!

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Hi SR Fans ,I saw some footage on youtube after Superman first appeared to the world in STM where Jor-El told him that although it was fun, he must keep his identity a secret because he cannot save the world 24 hours a day. Or is it the footage after he gave up his powers ... but in this film nothing like that happens so I am not sure how that will work.

No, this footage is on the DVD. It's a deleted scene added after he reveals himself to the world in STM (saves Lois, etc.). It's actually the only deleted scene I really like. Very quotable and meaningful.

[lujho]

Apparently 90% of what singer is using is straight from STM, and that a lot of the missing Jor-El stuff from Superman 2 is mostly stuff that Singer didn't even have access to (was actually unearthed after Singer used what he used).

So I don't think there needs to be any worrying about any overlap between what's in SR and what's on the new cut of Superman 2, or Singer using Brando meaning that some stuff will be left out of SUperman 2. What they've used is largelydifferent stuff, apparently.

Still, I wish they had just re-cast Jor-El, which would have allowed the flexibility to have any dialogue they wanted in this film, and to allow further possibilities for flashbacks, hologram scenes, dream sequences and hallucinations etc in future films. Also, to better establish SR's world as it's own separate (though similar) continuity and to eliminate the incongruity of re-casting all the actors but one.

[Matt]

This is the first aspect of the production that really disturbed me...its...morbid...for lack of better wording....

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Matt

This is the first aspect of the production that really disturbed me...its...morbid...for lack of better wording....

lol, I would not say morbid, just a lackluster idea, I would have liked them to just recast Jor-El.

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

Jor-El tells Superman never take sides aganced the family.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by The Game

lol, I would not say morbid, just a lackluster idea, I would have liked them to just recast Jor-El.

I think it is incredibly morbid. It is as bad as Vincent Price selling vaccum cleaners.

Furthermore, its going to take focus away from the film....no one is going to be talking about Routh or the movie...all the Hype, when this news becomes more accessible to the general public and media...is going to be around Marlon Brando's role from beyond the grave.

[Cinemaman]

Originally Posted by Matt

I think it is incredibly morbid. It is as bad as Vincent Price selling vaccum cleaners.

Furthermore, its going to take focus away from the film....no one is going to be talking about Routh or the movie...all the Hype, when this news becomes more accessible to the general public and media...is going to be around Marlon Brando's role from beyond the grave.

I think Brando's role there have only 2 scenes.

And you want this film to suck, only because you dont like it.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Cinemaman

I think Brando's role there have only 2 scenes.

And you want this film to suck, only because you dont like it.

to say the media is going to ignore this is naive.

[Fatboy Roberts]

The news HAS been accessible and no one really cares. It's often one of the first three things brought up in every blurbed "preview" of the movie in the entertainment rags. The "role beyond the grave" aspect had it's chance to be a big lighning bolt of controversy, and it didn't stick.

The media has ALREADY ignored it. they'll continue to do so after the film is released. It's a non-issue.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Cinemaman

I think Brando's role there have only 2 scenes.

And you want this film to suck, only because you dont like it.

Jeez give the guy a break will ya, his points are valid

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Fatboy Roberts

The news HAS been accessible and no one really cares. It's often one of the first three things brought up in every blurbed "preview" of the movie in the entertainment rags. The "role beyond the grave" aspect had it's chance to be a big lighning bolt of controversy, and it didn't stick.

The media has ALREADY ignored it. they'll continue to do so after the film is released. It's a non-issue.

It won't be once the public sees Brando on the big screen. Its too soon to be anything other than a blurb, but come show time, every critic, entertainment journalist, and casual aquaintance of Brando will be wanting to chime in on it.

[dark_b]

i just know that once i read that they did made a CGI brando and then the next time they said they didnt.

fact is that with computers they can make a very good CGI head and identical voice. so yeah we could get anything from marlon brando in this movie.

[Fatboy Roberts]

his points are valid

Actually, no. His opinion is valid (I wish they'd just recast as well) but saying the media is going to blow this up into a big deal is not a valid opinion--because it's already been proven the media doesn't really give a crap past the technological "how-did-you-do-that" behind the scenes claptrap that you get on any typical EPK.

If the media hasn't latched onto the "controversy" of casting this dead guy yet, they're not going to after watching the movie.

Its too soon to be anything other than a blurb, but come show time, every critic, entertainment journalist, and casual aquaintance of Brando will be wanting to chime in on it.

based on...what, exactly? your sole supposition? Not anywhere near enough, especially again, in the face of the fact that every critic and entertainment journalist who's done a piece on this movie has NOTED the "cool factor" or whatever of bringing Brando back from the dead via cg manipulation and old footage--and not gotten upset. It hasn't factored in. Casual acquaintances of Brando make up all of .0000000000003 percent of the potential audience, so they're not much of a drama threat, especially in the face of the media's current "eh." reaction to the possibility.

They've had their chance to chime in. No one has. Because it's not a big deal. You're manufacturing a potential controversy where there is absolutely none.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by dark_b

i just know that once i read that they did made a CGI brando and then the next time they said they didnt.

fact is that with computers they can make a very good CGI head and identical voice. so yeah we could get anything from marlon brando in this movie.

Now thats Morbid!!! using Brando's face but CGI'ing his voice

[afan]

Originally Posted by dark_b

i just know that once i read that they did made a CGI brando and then the next time they said they didnt.

fact is that with computers they can make a very good CGI head and identical voice. so yeah we could get anything from marlon brando in this movie.

I think the legal wrangling involved in creating a CGI Brando image vs using existing footage would be fairly substantial.

I think that the Donner SII footage may involve Hackman's inquiries in the FOS and the Superman re-energizing scenes. In those scenes Jor-el "sacrifices" himself to re-energize Superman. IMO that would fit very nicely into SR and conveniently remove any Brando / Jor-el use in future films.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Fatboy Roberts

Actually, no. His opinion is valid (I wish they'd just recast as well) but saying the media is going to blow this up into a big deal is not a valid opinion--because it's already been proven the media doesn't really give a crap past the technological "how-did-you-do-that" behind the scenes claptrap that you get on any typical EPK.

If the media hasn't latched onto the "controversy" of casting this dead guy yet, they're not going to after watching the movie.



based on...what, exactly? your sole supposition? Not anywhere near enough, especially again, in the face of the fact that every critic and entertainment journalist who's done a piece on this movie has NOTED the "cool factor" or whatever of bringing Brando back from the dead via cg manipulation and old footage--and not gotten upset. It hasn't factored in. Casual acquaintances of Brando make up all of .0000000000003 percent of the potential audience, so they're not much of a drama threat, especially in the face of the media's current "eh." reaction to the possibility.

They've had their chance to chime in. No one has. Because it's not a big deal. You're manufacturing a potential controversy where there is absolutely none.

No one has because its a non issue right now. The movie isn't out yet. Would you want the news reporting on the Presidential inauguration 2 months before it happened? When it becomes an issue, you will see more on it.

See, to most, this movie is nothing more than a quick blurb in EW right now. LESS than .0000000000003 make up the people who waste their time on this board, revolving their life and being around this movie. When the movie becomes an issue, this will become an issue.

[Fatboy Roberts]

LOL. That's a horrible analogy, Matt. The image has been in the trailers. The articles have been written. The interviews have been done. The information is out there, the fans know, the general public knows. Your line of logic says the audience also won't have an opinion on the suit because they haven't seen the movie yet. Which is obviously laughable.

C'mon. be realistic about this--if it was gonna be an issue, it would have happened already. But it's not an issue and that's reflected by the fact the only real controversy so far regarding Brando's "beyond the grave" performance is the imaginary one you're saying will explode and derail the film once general audiences see it.

And as far as I can tell, gauging the response from writers, interviewers, readers and yes, people on messageboards--it's a non-factor. If it's a non-issue now, it'll be a non-issue then, won't it? Sorta stands to reason. I mean, it sorta kneecaps your argument when, in the act of defending your point, you actually admit "It's a non issue."

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Fatboy Roberts

LOL. That's a horrible analogy, Matt. The image has been in the trailers. The articles have been written. The interviews have been done. The information is out there, the fans know, the general public knows. Your line of logic says the audience also won't have an opinion on the suit because they haven't seen the movie yet. Which is obviously laughable.

C'mon. be realistic about this--if it was gonna be an issue, it would have happened already. But it's not an issue and that's reflected by the fact the only real controversy so far regarding Brando's "beyond the grave" performance is the imaginary one you're saying will explode and derail the film once general audiences see it.

And as far as I can tell, gauging the response from writers, interviewers, readers and yes, people on messageboards--it's a non-factor. If it's a non-issue now, it'll be a non-issue then, won't it? Sorta stands to reason. I mean, it sorta kneecaps your argument when, in the act of defending your point, you actually admit "It's a non issue."

No, its a non issue because the movie is a non issue. When the movie becomes an issue, you will see this as an issue. We'll have to agree to disagree until we find out.

[Cinemaman]

Originally Posted by Fatboy Roberts

LOL. That's a horrible analogy, Matt. The image has been in the trailers. The articles have been written. The interviews have been done. The information is out there, the fans know, the general public knows. Your line of logic says the audience also won't have an opinion on the suit because they haven't seen the movie yet. Which is obviously laughable.

C'mon. be realistic about this--if it was gonna be an issue, it would have happened already. But it's not an issue and that's reflected by the fact the only real controversy so far regarding Brando's "beyond the grave" performance is the imaginary one you're saying will explode and derail the film once general audiences see it.

And as far as I can tell, gauging the response from writers, interviewers, readers and yes, people on messageboards--it's a non-factor. If it's a non-issue now, it'll be a non-issue then, won't it? Sorta stands to reason. I mean, it sorta kneecaps your argument when, in the act of defending your point, you actually admit "It's a non issue."

Matt thought that he is the leader of general public. Anyway, dont mind about him, he doesn't like anything in SR, even if it is very good film.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Matt, it's pretty obvious what you're doing. And apparently, you're the only one with a problem with the Brando thing.

Your analogy is ridiculous as is your conclusions and laughable predictions of some media **** storm.

Seriously, I'm all for people having their say, but when it originates from a blind hatred, what they have to say becomes meaningless because it's biased. And that's pretty much anything you have to say it seems nowadays.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Fatboy Roberts]

No, its a non issue because the movie is a non issue. When the movie becomes an issue, you will see this as an issue.

LOL. That's even worse. What a load of doublespeak. The movie IS an ISSUE. You are TALKING ABOUT IT. That makes it an issue. It is the subject of many articles, many pre-release interviews, some tv show coverage, trailers, ads, the fact that it ISN'T PLAYING YET does not mean it somehow doesn't exist. People know about it. People know enough about it to talk about it. The movie IS AN ISSUE.

Brando being in it IS NOT.

This isn't a case of "agree to disagree" this is a case of you manufacturing a problem that REAL LIFE and BASIC OBSERVATION has already proved to be NOT A PROBLEM. The SUIT has been an issue. The CASTING has been an issue. The PLOTLINE has been an issue. the TIMELINE has been an issue. The CAMERAS have been an issue. Not once has there been any discussion by ANYONE regarding Brando's footage being used, that approaches any of the level of discourse as there was in the other subjects I brought up.

The idea that the general public is going to sit in that theater and THE ONE THING that will lose them is old footage of Marlon Brando showing up seems grossly unfounded and even further, you don't have ANYTHING to back your supposition up. Nothing. You've had like 3 chances while "debating" this with me and you've come up with NOTHING. As a matter of fact, you've AGREED with me that it's a non-issue.

C'mon.