Superman Returns The "Brando" Footage ...

[Kryptonite]

I think in Superman 2 there was a scene were Luthor found the FOS and talked to Jor-El. Jor-El told him about Krypton and the crystals, along with the information about Zod. I think its from this scene that Singer will use the Brando footage to educate Lex about building new Krypton as well as realizing that Superman is hurt by Kryptonite.

The thing I hated most about STM is how Luthor uses Kryptonite on Superman in their first encounter.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Ya know....the Brando footage thing.....it's one of the coolest things I've ever heard of.

I mean, Jor-El is very much a voice from a dead planet.....and he's gone forever, but his memory lives on through this technolgy.

And guess what? Brando is very much a becon of a time gone by....and he's gone forever, but his memory is living on through the technology of this world (ie: the Godfather videogame, for example...and Superman Returns..). It's just so.......perfect. Errie, almost how much it matches up.

And, if the Brando family is fine with it....and gives their blessing...I cannot see how any of us (who aren't even a part of his family...) could ever feel negatively about it, atleast in terms of how Brando's name s being treated.

 

[maninfridge]

Ill tell you what isnt an issue and thats the new potc2 I havnt seen anything about that and people are still on these types of forums saying "its going to gross this amount, and that amount" well I havnt seen anything so if thats going to do well Im sure a big....... no sorry massive film like superman that not only kids and girls with crushes on the leading man will go, but parents and granparents that remember the old movies as well. this movie has great appeal and I think if the media do ignore it then it will deffinatley be the suprise smash hit this year. Sorry for ranting.

 

[Nivek]

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.

Agreed. We've seen computers reanimate and integrate deceased actors in various forms of media for years. Its a strange little addition, and one honestly I have not been fond of in the production (yeah, I have my things I dont approve of in this film as well).

 

[BrollySupersj]

I heard info that, they made NEW lines for Jor-El by using Brando's voice from the first two movies, and all that complicated stuff.


Does he have new lines?

 

[The Kid]

Yeah, I think I read somewhere that singer's inserting old unused footage from superman 2 so that'll be his new lines.

Pesonally I'd like singer to insert any unused apocolypse now footage. heh...that'd have been pretty cool. Like if lex reconfigured Jor-el to be bald...

 

[Metropolis_Man]

I heard info that, they made NEW lines for Jor-El by using Brando's voice from the first two movies, and all that complicated stuff.


Does he have new lines?

I think so. I believe Singer said he had some unused Brando footage and dialouge from the first movie. So it'll be interesting to see what all he says and what was left never seen until now.

 

[supzfan]

The problem I have with the Brando footage, if indeed it is the stuff Donner shot, is that it's using another man's work, Donner's vision. As an artist I would take particular offense if I found something I painted, wrote or filmed turning up in another person's project. There is a thing called "integrity". Look, we've already established how Singer is paying homage to the original "STM" and how he's utilizing many themes and scenes from the first film. O.K. While that's not the way I would have done it, it's his baby and his choice so that's that. But when you start lifting a scene directly form another movie, authored by another director and actor, that's just wrong. I liken it to the way certain musicians "sample" other musicians music. Even if it's legal it isn't ethical. The artist should have enough pride and confidence in his own abilities not to have to steal or borrow from another artist. I have issues with this movie, for sure, but good or bad, I would prefer Singer veering away from the original and trying something new. I would respect him more for it.

 

[The Game]

The problem I have with the Brando footage, if indeed it is the stuff Donner shot, is that it's using another man's work, Donner's vision. As an artist I would take particular offense if I found something I painted, wrote or filmed turning up in another person's project. There is a thing called "integrity". Look, we've already established how Singer is paying homage to the original "STM" and how he's utilizing many themes and scenes from the first film. O.K. While that's not the way I would have done it, it's his baby and his choice so that's that. But when you start lifting a scene directly form another movie, authored by another director and actor, that's just wrong. I liken it to the way certain musicians "sample" other musicians music. Even if it's legal it isn't ethical. The artist should have enough pride and confidence in his own abilities not to have to steal or borrow from another artist. I have issues with this movie, for sure, but good or bad, I would prefer Singer veering away from the original and trying something new. I would respect him more for it.

Co-sizzle

 

[hoopy3]

I think in Superman 2 there was a scene were Luthor found the FOS and talked to Jor-El. Jor-El told him about Krypton and the crystals, along with the information about Zod. I think its from this scene that Singer will use the Brando footage to educate Lex about building new Krypton as well as realizing that Superman is hurt by Kryptonite.

The thing I hated most about STM is how Luthor uses Kryptonite on Superman in their first encounter.

Yeah...I have to agree with you. I love STM. It is one of my favorite movies ever and I have watched it more thimes than i care to share...however...there are so many plot holes in regards to Luthor's plans...How the heck would he deduct that a meteor from krypton would emit radiation that would hurt superman...and to add to that..how the heck did he know that the meteor found in africa or wherever it was was definitely kryptonite...a lot of assumptions considering his entire plan rested on this being correct.
I am hoping in the movie (and it apears so far like this in the book) that his plans are a little more thought out and clear to the audience.

 

[supzfan]

A lot of those holes, unexplained momemts, out-of sequence events, etc. are the result of the way movies are made in general. In STM you had God knows how many writers involved, then there's the editing, then those different versions being released. We all know the shooting script probably bore only a passing resemblence to what was originally plotted. Daily changes in dialogue, cast availibilty (Brando and Hackman were only involved for a certain period), re-shoots and the rest are chiefly responsible. Add to to it all that Donner shot STM and a lot of footage for STM2 pretty much at the same time then left the second film and had THAT cut to pieces makes for a real mess. It's amazing the movie turned out as good as it did. A tribute to Donner's sure and strong hand. The collaborative nature of movies can often make for a patchwork quilt of dialogue, plot and scenes. This stuff goes on all the time.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

is that it's using another man's work, Donner's vision. As an artist I would take particular offense if I found something I painted, wrote or filmed turning up in another person's project.

You'd be right to if it happened without your knowledge. But Singer checked with Donner first and got the okay to do it, same as the Fortress visuals.

The artist should have enough pride and confidence in his own abilities not to have to steal or borrow from another artist.

And artists always, since the beginning of time, have stolen and borrowed from other artists. That's part of art itself, and always has been, and always will be. Repurposing what you see into your own interpretation has been done since Shakespeare, and the tradition has been carried on ever since, both in writing and in music. I'm very highly certain a fair amount of your favorite artists (singers, directors, writers, artists) can be accused of "Stealing" from other artists to create their own vision of the world, and I'd argue that more often than not they're better for it.

Simply using other people's works doesn't make you a hack. It's if you misuse those works or use them in a lackluster fashion (like say, Puffy in music, or Paul W.S. Anderson in film) that you begin to suck. But Singer did his homework, checked with the original creator, got the go-ahead, and there you go.

Now, he could f**k up in the USING of the footage, no doubt, but just the fact he used it doesn't mean he's automatically "wrong." If he uses it wrong, it's a big f**k-up, yes. But that still remains to be seen.

Examples of a director using another director's footage in order to amp up his film's power?

Ridley Scott - using Stanley Kubricks shots from "The Shining" in Blade Runner
Stephen Soderbergh - Using Ken Loach's "Poor Cow" for parts of Terence Stamp's performance in "The Limey"

those are the first two that pop into my head. Do you automatically respect those directors less for figuring out how to utilize another director's footage and incorporate it into their story?

 

[Newb]

...And artists always, since the beginning of time, have stolen and borrowed from other artists. That's part of art itself, and always has been, and always will be...

But the really good ones change just enough so that their source or inspiration isn't so obvious.

I'm kind of bummed about Singer going retro as well. In '78, StM was not too far removed from the comic continuity. Today tho? Wow, that Superman is 20+ years dead and buried, and we won't ever see him again outside of the odd elseworld tale. I would have preferred a post-crisis interpretation of the character as well.

As far as Brando goes tho, I don't mind him being dead playing a dead guy, seems appropriate in some way. A ghost playing a ghost.

I'm surprised that in the face of inevitable comparisson, WB greenlighted this requel. I guess they felt it was the safe bet. But it's a double edged sword isn't it? I mean isn't there just as much chance that people will get turned off by the similarities, than turned on?

Probably not i guess, I imagine the casual fan still figures it's 1983 in Superman land.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

But the really good ones change just enough so that their source or inspiration isn't so obvious.

Not necessarily. see the two examples above. Also, a LOT of people consider Led Zeppelin to be the greatest rock band ever--and the majority of their first two albums is outright STOLEN. Does it lessen their artistry? Not to most people. And in this case, it's more like the usage that Soderbergh did in 'The Limey' than it is a cheap jack move. It ties in because of the 'requel' thing goin on.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Using the Marlon Brando footage is further proof that this film is a rehash of the 78 film.....to f-ing lazy to go cast a new Jor-El huh Singer.

Somewhere I once read a rumor that Glenn Ford would also be shown in flashback sequences, and It woudn't have shocked me!!!

 

[Newb]

At some point common sense has to work itself in, dude.

I totally agree. Artists do draw inspiration from other artists all the time. No doubt LZ had a huge impact on a great many different bands. As they were too inspired by other's. You claim it was obvious plagerism on their part, I guess I'm not most people, nor am I hanging around most people, because this is the first I've heard of it. I'm not disputing your claims, I guess I'm in the less people group that didn't know.

When an artist's source of inspiration is blatantly obvious, they are reffered to as a hack. Singer is walking a fine line, I hope it works out for the best.

What was your point again?

 

[Metropolis_Man]

I actually am glad that Singer is using Brando footage and dialouge. He was one of my favorite things about Superman The Movie. The sound of his voice sounds great in the trailers and tv spots.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Pesonally I'd like singer to insert any unused apocolypse now footage. heh...that'd have been pretty cool.

Jor-el: Who are you?
Lex: I'm Lex Luthor. I'm a criminal mastermind.
Jor-el: No you're not, you're an errrand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

 

[Newb]

Jor-el: Who are you?
Lex: I'm Lex Luthor. I'm a criminal mastermind.
Jor-el: No you're not, you're an errrand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

LOL

 

[Steelsheen]

I actually am glad that Singer is using Brando footage and dialouge. He was one of my favorite things about Superman The Movie. The sound of his voice sounds great in the trailers and tv spots.

indeed, it has a very iconic feel to it.

 

[Steelsheen]

Jor-el: Who are you?
Lex: I'm Lex Luthor. I'm a criminal mastermind.
Jor-el: No you're not, you're an errrand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.

LMAO!

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

"They can be a great people Kal'el,if they wish to be..they only need a light to show the way. For this Reason above all..there compassion for good,i have sent them you,my only son."


still gives me goose bumps.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

When an artist's source of inspiration is blatantly obvious, they are reffered to as a hack.

No, they're not. That's not even close to the definition of a hack. Look, I'm not saying Singer's a f**kin genius for using Brando footage, or that he's even going to end up using it right. I haven't seen the flick. but just the fact that he USED it, especially in context of the fact this is essentially a 'requel' and brando is "reprising" the character, doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean he's an uncreative ass for choosing to make his inspiration known. Brian DePalma based the climax of the "Untouchables" on Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" almost shot for shot--and people applauded him for it because he did it really, really well. It fit, whether the inspiration was visible or not.

hacks aren't even inspired. The fact there's a sense of inspiration AT ALL sort of belies that. Hacks are soulless and passionless. Singer may make a bunch of mistakes on this flick, but I doubt they come from a place where there is no passion or soul. There's genuine inspiration there, even if at the end I don't like where his inspiration took him.

 

[Newb]

LOL. That's not sensitivity. I didn't "misunderstand you" at all. I know what you were saying, I was debating WHY you were saying it. That's still fair game and all, innit?

You were debating WHY I was saying that I prefer a contemporary adaptation of Superman? Or were you debating what constitutes a hack?

Both topics are highly subjective, so I don't see any debateable material there, won't it just end in agreeing to disagreeing?

Why don't we just do that, and save a bunch of time?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, I think I read somewhere that singer's inserting old unused footage from superman 2 so that'll be his new lines.

Yeah....that's been the huge rumor. Supposedly, Singer dug into WB's deep vault and found deleted footage that had never been used after Donner got fired and I think alot of stuff got cut out. I think I read that half of Superman II was filmed while filming Superman the Movie....so that could explain some stuff.

The problem I have with the Brando footage, if indeed it is the stuff Donner shot, is that it's using another man's work, Donner's vision.

Yeah, but I mean....c'mon.....that's like saying that Donner is a hack for using someone else's vision by making a Superman movie....after all, he didn't create Superman....

As an artist I would take particular offense if I found something I painted, wrote or filmed turning up in another person's project.

NOT if you gave your permission.....which Donner has. As an artist, I get you....but I think filming something is different territory when you talk about painting, drawing or designing.

Look, we've already established how Singer is paying homage to the original "STM" and how he's utilizing many themes and scenes from the first film. O.K. While that's not the way I would have done it, it's his baby and his choice so that's that.

That's the thing...Singer's "IT" is Donner's. He grew up with that. It's HIS definitive Superman.

Like BATMAN BEGINS is for me, so....if I ever got the chance to make a Batman film....chances are, I'd do a lot of the stuff that Batman Begins did....simply because it's the IT film for me....so think about that.

But when you start lifting a scene directly form another movie, authored by another director and actor, that's just wrong.

Not if the artist, or director in this case, gives permission....which Donner did.

I liken it to the way certain musicians "sample" other musicians music. Even if it's legal it isn't ethical.

Maybe back then....not anymore. That might be too old school rule of thought that is totally out the window in the music buissiness.

The artist should have enough pride and confidence in his own abilities not to have to steal or borrow from another artist.

C'mon....ALL artists borrow or steal atleast a LITTLE of something....even if they're not aware of it. Nobody is completely original anymore....I'm an artist and trust me....it's like that. Even if it's something like a style....or an idea for an origin...or anything. All artists seek inspiration.....which some people would call "stealing" or "borrowing".

I have issues with this movie, for sure, but good or bad, I would prefer Singer veering away from the original and trying something new. I would respect him more for it.

Not if the film is good. If it's good, that's all that counts.

You'd be right to if it happened without your knowledge. But Singer checked with Donner first and got the okay to do it, same as the Fortress visuals.

Yup.

And artists always, since the beginning of time, have stolen and borrowed from other artists. That's part of art itself, and always has been, and always will be. Repurposing what you see into your own interpretation has been done since Shakespeare, and the tradition has been carried on ever since, both in writing and in music. I'm very highly certain a fair amount of your favorite artists (singers, directors, writers, artists) can be accused of "Stealing" from other artists to create their own vision of the world, and I'd argue that more often than not they're better for it.

****in Yes.....your on top of things.

Examples of a director using another director's footage in order to amp up his film's power?

Ridley Scott - using Stanley Kubricks shots from "The Shining" in Blade Runner
Stephen Soderbergh - Using Ken Loach's "Poor Cow" for parts of Terence Stamp's performance in "The Limey"

I didn't know that..but there ya go.

But the really good ones change just enough so that their source or inspiration isn't so obvious.

Well, in terms of how deep you go....it CAN be obvious. Since this is a Superman movie...it's obvious to us since we pick and nick at everything....so yes, to us. For most...it might not be. If you check mosts artists and dig deep....the inspirations would become obvious.

You polled most people?

C'mon....you NEVER hear anyone bad mouthing the Led....so yeah, he's right...MOST people don't care. They are legends...and honestly, that's the first time I've ever heard about the album stealing. If it were a big problem...more people would hate on them for it.