Superman 2-who do you want to direct?

[Excel]

IF Bryan Singer cannot direct Superman2, who do you want?

I'd chose J.J. Abrams.

1.hes a fantastic writer who knows superman inside and out. his script has fantastic drama and some very very impressive action scenes
2. the sequel will hopeflly have physical villains, and even though his ty zor character and his origins were made up, they were great. hed be an instand classic villain, no doubt about. menacing and cool, and it was abrams sole creation.
3. MI3 looks great. the action, style, fx, acting, and tone all look fantastic and im sure he could bring this to superman.
4. budget control. MI3 as having runaway bidget problems until J.J. Abrams entered the picture.
5. very respected name. "from the creator of LOST, ALIAS, AND MI3"

...hes my choice. whose yours?

[Cinemaman]

If MI3 bombs, he will not direct it.

But I likes your thread :up:

[dr collossus]

Personally, I think at this point in cinema history it's too big a responsibility for one director. I would like to see two people co-directing it to balance each other out. Obviously this can stifle creativity so they need to be two people who can work well together.

[ToddIsDead]

I'd like to see how Speilberg would handle Superman. But I think Abrams would probaly do a really good job. As long as there's no suit in a can.

[Cinemaman]

I hope Singer will come back.

But if he doesn't, I hope Ratner will NOT come back.

I think J.J. Abrams isn't bad choice for Superman.

[Immortalfire]

There's already been a Superman 2

[Cinemaman]

I'd like to see how Speilberg would handle Superman. But I think Abrams would probaly do a really good job. As long as there's no suit in a can.

Believe me, Spielberg don't want films like this.

WB asked him for Superman or Harry Potter, and he didn't want it.

And he is a great director, but Superman would be like WOTW with superhero.

[Immortalfire]

but Superman would be like WOTW with superhero. http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005Y71H.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Il_Siciliano]

I'd be over the moon with Michael Mann, but slightly more realistically Zemeckis would catch the bright side of Superman.

[Cinemaman]

There's already been a Superman 2

Excel meant another director (if Singer doesn't come back) for SR sequel.

[Cinemaman]

I'd be over the moon with Michael Mann, but slightly more realistically Zemeckis would catch the bright side of Superman.

Spielberg, Zemeckis, Lucas... they all don't want to direct movie about superheroes.

[Cinemaman]

IF Bryan Singer cannot direct Superman2, who do you want?

I'd chose J.J. Abrams.

1.hes a fantastic writer who knows superman inside and out. his script has fantastic drama and some very very impressive action scenes
2. the sequel will hopeflly have physical villains, and even though his ty zor character and his origins were made up, they were great. hed be an instand classic villain, no doubt about. menacing and cool, and it was abrams sole creation.
3. MI3 looks great. the action, style, fx, acting, and tone all look fantastic and im sure he could bring this to superman.
4. budget control. MI3 as having runaway bidget problems until J.J. Abrams entered the picture.
5. very respected name. "from the creator of LOST, ALIAS, AND MI3"

...hes my choice. whose yours?

Sorry, but I have some questions.

1. Did you read his script?
2. I thought we will have Metallo or Brainiac in sequel, right?
3. Did you see MI3? It can be disappointment also.

P.S. I think WB will ask another new popular director, like it was with Singer.

[Excel]

i did read his script, i havbent seen mi3. but i have no doubt, it will be a good film and looks great all around.

where was it sad metallo n brainiac were to be in the sequel? his tyzor villains is BADASS. MAULS zod or doc ock or joker in terms of menacing and coolness. lot like DARTH MAUL.

[grey_jeanie]

I reckon Ratner will want to be in there. But assuming it finds big success with SR I think more of the 'big wigs' (what a sad phrase) will stick their foot in the door. Big names such as Spielberg.

[Cinemaman]

i did read his script, i havbent seen mi3. but i have no doubt, it will be a good film and looks great all around.

where was it sad metallo n brainiac were to be in the sequel? his tyzor villains is BADASS. MAULS zod or doc ock or joker in terms of menacing and coolness. lot like DARTH MAUL.

Give me please photo and some information about Ty-Zor.

I heard something about him.

[Cinemaman]

If Singer doesn't come back, Ratner will ask WB to be director.

But I think they will confirm that they find a new director before Ratner will ask them.

[Pickle-El]

Zemeckis. That guy is class.

[dark_b]

I reckon Ratner will want to be in there. But assuming it finds big success with SR I think more of the 'big wigs' (what a sad phrase) will stick their foot in the door. Big names such as Spielberg.if the movie is a succes than singer will direct the sequel.
isnt it obvious?
we get a new director only if singer doesnt wana do it.

[Cinemaman]

if the movie is a succes than singer will direct the sequel.
isnt it obvious?
we get a new director only if singer doesnt wana do it.

Agreed.

[dr collossus]

For the love of god I hope its not Ang Lee

[Cinemaman]

Does somebody know somethink about Ty-Zor?

[Pickle-El]

Does somebody know somethink about Ty-Zor?

Dude, you post A LOT.

Sorry , I just had to say that.

[Matt]

Brett Ratner. He seems to be combining everything Singer did right and fixing everything Singer did wrong on X-men...no reason he couldn't do that here.

Alternativley...James Cameron, who is a fantastic sci-fi director. David Fincher...just because he's David Fincher. Or Peter Jackson who knows how to make epics.

[dr collossus]

Brett Ratner. He seems to be combining everything Singer did right and fixing everything Singer did wrong on X-men...no reason he couldn't do that here.

:up: :up: :up: :up:

[Cinemaman]

1. Director should make a really good movie for public.

2. He should make it for fans too.

3. He should make it to get more money :)

[explode7]

No director want nothing do with superman. They just do it for the money and to make their resumes bigger.

[Cinemaman]

People, don't listen Explode7!

He is crazy fan.

[Pickle-El]

Brett Ratner. He seems to be combining everything Singer did right and fixing everything Singer did wrong on X-men...no reason he couldn't do that here.

I think Ratner is a decent director. But I have some serious doubts about both his ability to knock a Superman movie out of the park, and his ability to deal with the script and time-frame that FOX gave him.

Not only that, but a ton of people feel that there's nothing to 'fix' from X1/X2. (I fall in that category)

Alternativley...James Cameron, who is a fantastic sci-fi director. David Fincher...just because he's David Fincher. Or Peter Jackson who knows how to make epics.

Cameron would be sweet as well.

[Pickle-El]

People, don't listen Explode7!

He is crazy fan.


Classic.

[krisboyuk]

Ugh... :rolleyes:

[Matt]

I think Ratner is a decent director. But I have some serious doubts about both his ability to knock a Superman movie out of the park, and his ability to deal with the script and time-frame that FOX gave him.

Not only that, but a ton of people feel that there's nothing to 'fix' from X1/X2. (I fall in that category)




Cameron would be sweet as well.

With all due respect Pickle, old friend...I dare say, the people who say there is "nothing to fix in X1/X2" are choosing to be blind. There are always things that can be fixed in movies...be it Lord of the Rings and The Godfather or Howard the Duck...every movie has problems.

[ToddIsDead]

Howard the duck is a classic! It's perfect.

[Pickle-El]

With all due respect Pickle, old friend...I dare say, the people who say there is "nothing to fix in X1/X2" are choosing to be blind. There are always things that can be fixed in movies...be it Lord of the Rings and The Godfather or Howard the Duck...every movie has problems.


Considering how well received both movies are, and that you can pretty much 'fix' even The Godfather I'm sure, as a whole there really isn't a need for it. The story that was meant to be told (Wolverine, acceptance/understanding/etc) was done so superbly. The 'pickings' are from fanboys who are mad their favorite isn't in the spotlight...and that is what it really comes down to.

(Just as those other movies you mentioned, they were done just fine as the director saw fit)

[Zaphod]

As long as Abrams wasn't involved in any way in the screenplay or writing of a future movie, then I could see him as being a respectable choice to direct.

[Pickle-El]

As long as Abrams wasn't involved in any way in the screenplay or writing of a future movie, then I could see him as being a respectable choice to direct.


He wouldn't be my first choice, but it wouldn't bother me to no end if he made a Superman movie....he seems pretty enthusiastic about Big Blue.

Just keep him the hell away from the suit design though. :o

[Matt]

Considering how well received both movies are, and that you can pretty much 'fix' even The Godfather I'm sure, as a whole there really isn't a need for it. The story that was meant to be told (Wolverine, acceptance/understanding/etc) was done so superbly. The 'pickings' are from fanboys who are mad their favorite isn't in the spotlight...and that is what it really comes down to.

(Just as those other movies you mentioned, they were done just fine as the director saw fit)

Hostel was pretty well recieved among a teenage audience...does that make it good?

Furthermore, it is isn't nitpicking to critize X-men, both Ebert and Roeper, and practically every major critic in America critizied the first movie due to lack of action sequences.

[Erich Weiss]

Noone.

[Pickle-El]

Hostel was pretty well recieved among a teenage audience...does that make it good?

Hostel and X-Men are nothing alike. Bad comparison there....different audiences, different intentions, different execution and different mediums. Bryan Singer turned comic characters on screen into 'people'. And the audience cared about them. (Just look at the success of X2)


Furthermore, it is isn't nitpicking to critize X-men, both Ebert and Roeper, and practically every major critic in America critizied the first movie due to lack of action sequences.

I've got my own reservations about the action. I would have liked more. Not only that, but I got sick of Rogue pretty quick. I never said X1/X2 are beyond critiquing. I'm saying that it's pretty rare to get what the audience got on film, considering the 'source material' is something that major critics had only thought of as merely kids books. X1 and X2 are respected because Bryan Singer took them seriously, despite all the setbacks from the studio.

[Excel]

Does somebody know somethink about Ty-Zor?

In ABRAMS script, tyzors is this:
His father was Jor-els brother, Kata-zor. When their father died, he named Jor-el his successor, thus he was the king of the krypton. Enraged, Kata-zor pulls a hitler n conquers the planet, the house of jor-el the last place. as the machine crash through the barriors, jor-el sends kal0-el to earth, while he is captured but lara escapes. its great action. anyways, tyzor is katazors first and only son and hes kal-elsage. ther prophecy of krypton is that kal-el will return to defeat katazor, so kata-zor maksit his number one priority to find kal-el.

this is where ty-zort comes in. they find kal-el when he becomes superman on earth, and they send tyzor and 2 of his croonies-a hottst girl in town type girl named BAZ AL and a jacked beast named CAAN.

Tyzor himself, is much like supes. 6'3, huge, jet black, sauve hair. he has all superman spowers but he has a mean streak to him. "evil" in his eyes. he's clad in black tights(ala VENOM from SPIDEY) with a black cloak over his shoulders and huge black boots, and wields a red weapn called a "blasstaff" that, in the later drafts, became a sword/rocket launchers thats razor sharp and fires from both ends.

[Nightwing1977]

Brett Ratner. He seems to be combining everything Singer did right and fixing everything Singer did wrong on X-men...no reason he couldn't do that here.



LMAO! You're joking, right? Ratner can't direct a good movie with good script. I hope he stay away from Superman. And how you know he cab fix what Singer did wrong with X-Men? For all we know, Ratner barely got involve with the script, so your point is incorrect. Even if he got involve, I doubt it would be good. I mean Ratner direct music videos too for God's sake!!

[dr collossus]

Don't judge Nightwing - wait till you see X3.

Regards,

Happy member of DoRv: Defenders of Ratner's Vision

[SolidSnakeMGS]

HAHAHA!! Ratner is "fixing" X-Men??? HAHAHA!!!

Happy member of DoRV : Derider of Ratface's Vision

[Saint]

Joss Whedon.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Hell, get Donner back if Singer can't. Imagine that 'circle is now complete' scenario!

[Star&BucWild]

Brett Ratner. He seems to be combining everything Singer did right and fixing everything Singer did wrong on X-men...no reason he couldn't do that here.

Alternativley...James Cameron, who is a fantastic sci-fi director. David Fincher...just because he's David Fincher. Or Peter Jackson who knows how to make epics.EXACTLY! Ratner for Superman Sequel Could care Less if singer Comes back even if This Movie Did well! Superman the Movie Did Great and Donner didnt Come back, this is one of those times where i Pray History Repeats itself in Terms of Singer NOT Returning! even if the Movie is a Hit!

[Star&BucWild]

HAHAHA!! Ratner is "fixing" X-Men??? HAHAHA!!!

Happy member of DoRV : Derider of Ratface's Visionratner has Fixed xmen, for once an xmen movie doesnt Look like TOTAL Crap like the last two!:o:down

[Star&BucWild]

LMAO! You're joking, right? Ratner can't direct a good movie with good script. I hope he stay away from Superman. And how you know he cab fix what Singer did wrong with X-Men? For all we know, Ratner barely got involve with the script, so your point is incorrect. Even if he got involve, I doubt it would be good. I mean Ratner direct music videos too for God's sake!!and Singer cant Direct two xmen films, he proved it with Crappy x-men Films he made! Ratner was Directing way before singer moron, and singer Could NOT direct a Good action scene to save his worthless life!:down:o

[SolidSnakeMGS]

So you're saying X3 doesn't look like crap? If I smoke the same thing you do, can I see X3 BEFORE IT COMES OUT too?

and singer Could NOT direct a Good action scene to save his worthless life!

Many, MANY people disagree with you.

It's hard to take the opinion of someone that compares two VERY GOOD movies to a third movie THAT ISN'T OUT YET. I think you're the moron here, Ratnerfan.

[Star&BucWild]

actually MANY People agree with me,your the moron thats Been Smoking too much Crack, and its REALLLY bad crack if it makes u even Consider The first two x-movies as Actually good, lay off the Drugs Crackhead, x3 looks way better.:o:down

[SolidSnakeMGS]

actually MANY People agree with me,your the moron thats Been Smoking too much Crack, and its REALLLY bad crack if it makes u even Consider The first two x-movies as Actually good, lay off the Drugs Crackhead, x3 looks way better.:o:down

Actually, a sign of habitual crack use is the inability to master proper capitalization.

Oh, here's some stats for you (if you can actually comprehend numbers and what they mean):

X-Men
Budget: $75,000,000
US Total Gross: $158,000,000 (oh, if that's too many zeros for your feeble mind to grasp, that's in millions)

Rotten Tomatoes: 80% positive
IMDb: 7.3/10

X-Men 2
Budget: $110,000,000
US Total Gross: $215,000,000

Rotten Tomatoes: 87% positive
IMDb: 7.9/10

I think the only people that agree with you are the ones who provide you with your very bad crack. Perhaps you should consider new vendors.

[Star&BucWild]

Actually, a sign of habitual crack use is the inability to master proper capitalization.

Oh, here's some stats for you (if you can actually comprehend numbers and what they mean):

X-Men
Budget: $75,000,000
US Total Gross: $158,000,000 (oh, if that's too many zeros for your feeble mind to grasp, that's in millions)

Rotten Tomatoes: 80% positive
IMDb: 7.3/10

X-Men 2
Budget: $110,000,000
US Total Gross: $215,000,000

Rotten Tomatoes: 87% positive
IMDb: 7.9/10

I think the only people that agree with you are the ones who provide you with your very bad crack. Perhaps you should consider new vendors.no dude i dont smoke crack like u and u need to lay off it its giving u habitually horriud taste in movies, your a jackass.:o

[Star&BucWild]

With all due respect Pickle, old friend...I dare say, the people who say there is "nothing to fix in X1/X2" are choosing to be blind. There are always things that can be fixed in movies...be it Lord of the Rings and The Godfather or Howard the Duck...every movie has problems.Exactly there Blind Morons, x1 &x2 are Extremley Flawed, and lame, and can definitley be fixed.:o

[Sverdlovski]

Hello Spiderfreddie... I mean, Star&BucWild...

[Star&BucWild]

hi sverd a like superman i just dont kiss singer's ass hes an EXTREMLEY OVERRATED Director! with no real Vision of his own thats why he's Using donner's:o

[Mr. Socko]

I'm not a huge fan of Bryan Singer but I can't comment on him as a Superman director until I see the movie. If Superman Returns is atleast a good movie with good reviews and nice boxoffice returns then you can bet that Singer will be returning. If not, I'd like to see Bob Zemeckis, Peter Jackson, Sandy Corolla, Steven Spielberg, or maybe even Donner return. Thats not a list of possibilities, but who I would personally like to see direct a Superman movie. And maybe in the future even me lol.

Well as long as Ang Lee nor Uwe Boll directs it.

[skruloos]

If Singer were not to return, I'd pick Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott. James Cameron would be an interesting choice as well. Spielberg would be a dream but he'd take a lot of convincing.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Star&BucWild, you sure are shooting off your obviously ignorant mouth alot considering the movie isn't even out yet. He had his own vision for X-Men and he clearly has his own vision for Superman. Instead of taking the easy route and padding the movie with an hour worth of origin, he's developing brand new material to continue the story with. I know you're quite stupid and can't see that now, but just wait and you'll soon shut up.

Just to make the playing field even, why don't you list the movies you do like.

Not that I'm going to listen to anyone who can't even communicate above the level of your average retarded kid. Seriously, were you dropped on your head numerous times when you were younger?

no dude i dont smoke crack like u and u need to lay off it its giving u habitually horriud taste in movies, your a jackass.

That's some retort there, genius. I list facts and specs and all you can do is ramble on incoherently. Ever made a post that made some semblance of sense? Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of kindergarten because you couldn't count past your IQ level.

[Mr. Socko]

Instead of taking the easy route and padding the movie with an hour worth of origin, he's developing brand new material to continue the story with.

Thank God! I didn't want to see another Superman origin.

[CConn]

A cross-section of lucky Superman, Spider-Man, and Spawn fans.

[Nightwing1977]

Don't judge Nightwing - wait till you see X3.

Regards,

Happy member of DoRv: Defenders of Ratner's Vision

LMAO! I know X3 won't be as good without Singer. And funny how you think I shouldn't judge X3 because I could ask you the same for SR. Talk about irony. :p

and Singer cant Direct two xmen films, he proved it with Crappy x-men Films he made! Ratner was Directing way before singer moron, and singer Could NOT direct a Good action scene to save his worthless life!:down:o

That your opinion. Not a fact. IMO he made X-Men movies great. If you think X1 was crappy, how else they were able to do X2 & it made even more than X-Men. That is a sign of good films. And Ratner was directing way before Singer? Actually, Singer directed first, kiddo. Singer's first film was "Lion's Den" in 1988 & Ratner's first film is "Whatever happend to Mason Reese" in 1990. Now who is the moron here? And you need to grow up with your ranting & rambling comments. Plus, you whine too much that you're making nonsense talking & unsupported opinions. You need to lay off the marijuana, man. Too much can destroy your brain cells. :p

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Who would i like?

richard donner..with todays effects..

:up:

[skruloos]

LMAO! I know X3 won't be as good without Singer. And funny how you think I shouldn't judge X3 because I could ask you the same for SR. Talk about irony. :p
He's got a point, Nightwing. It's a bit hypocritical to say not to judge SR without seeing it but then turning around and judging X3.

[boywonder13]

JJ Abrams!!! Superman Flyby Owns!

[BareKnucklez]

10 years ago I would have said Speilberg... But his last few movies have sucked! So I think now I would either want Kevin Smith or J.J. Abrams.

I wouldn't mind Ratner but I need to see what he does with Xmen3 before I would allow him near Superman.

I will wait to judge Singer on his work in the movie but since it's because if his ideas the movie's had such a negative buzz thru out the production if he walks after this one I wont miss him.

[BareKnucklez]

no dude i dont smoke crack like u and u need to lay off it its giving u habitually horriud taste in movies, your a jackass.:o

My uncle says that smoking crack is kinda cool! :up::p

[skruloos]

10 years ago I would have said Speilberg... But his last few movies have sucked!
That's such an odd comment. Most people have been praising most of Spielberg's films because he's not as saccharine as he used to be. He actually makes movies that have an edge to them.

[CConn]

No director want nothing do with superman. They just do it for the money and to make their resumes bigger.Now I just want to note that, technically, ex just said every director in the world wants something to do with Superman.

Let's just let that sink in.

[skruloos]

Now I just want to note that, technically, ex just said every director in the world wants something to do with Superman.

Let's just let that sink in.
I also don't understand what the point of making your resume bigger would be. I'd think that 8.5" by 11" is more than enough.

[Tojo]

If MI3 bombs, he will not direct it.



MI3 won't bomb.

[Retroman]

Singer should return if his first outing proves to be a succes. If not Abrams (depends on how MI: 3 recieved), Ratner (why not?) or Michael Mann.

[Mentok]

Singer should return if his first outing proves to be a succes. If not Abrams (depends on how MI: 3 recieved), Ratner (why not?) or Michael Mann.

Mann could direct it drunk and I would love the end product :)

[CGHulk]

First of all I'd want to know the director's vision? Superman Returns seems to be a stand alone script from what we've heard, and the ending has a lead into a possible sequel. We don't know if their are any outlines to sequels! I can't pick a director, I'm still sick of what Ratner, Burton and the other directors wanted for their Superman flicks. Well I assume the next director would follow where Singer left off, but you never know! *cough-Schumacher-cough*

[LordSuperhero]

Peter Jackson with Fran Walsh after The Hobbit and maybe even Silmarillion.

A man can dream :)

[Lightning Strykez!]

no dude i dont smoke crack like u and u need to lay off it its giving u habitually horriud taste in movies, your a jackass.:o

What's the deal with all the insults? Check your PM inbox for your custom-made warning.

And that goes for all of you--discuss this civilly or the thread will be closed.

[That-Guy]

If the information I've learned about the Superman film history is correct, then I don't want Ratner to direct a Superman movie EVER after all the crap he tried to pull when he had the helm before... however, I've read SO many contradicting things that I honestly don't know what to believe anymore although I will say that if the truth can ever be proven, it would make a hell of an interesting bio movie. Regardless, I'd prefer that neither Ratner or Abrams gets the rights to work on Superman again, simply because of the possibly horrible things that could come out of it... Abrams in particular, because he wrote that horrid Superman: Episode I script... I know some of you liked it, but I personally don't see the appeal of a Superman movie that is basically just a rip off of Star Wars and The Matrix with a villain who is just General Zod with a different name. Now, most likely, if Abrams did get to take another stab at a Superman film that follows Singer's, few or none of these ideas would make it in, but that still doesn't guarantee that he wouldn't introduce new, worse ones.

That being said, we really have no guarantee that any of our favorite directors will make a good Superman movie (and even though I'm really looking forward to SR and feel it will be great, there's always the chance it will be a huge letdown). But if i could pick a director other than Singer for this sequel, here are some ideas...

1. Gore Verbinski - One of the most talented and versatile directors out there today, he's done everything from thrilling epics (Pirates of the Carribean), to horror (The Ring), to human drama/comedy (The Weather Man). I'd love to see what he could do with Superman because his films are unique and he makes an effort to make sure the characters are central and don't get lost in the mix.

2. Andrew Adamson - Although Adamson doesn't have all that many films under his belt, I think that his work on The Chronicles of Narnia has has shown him to be a top talent. In my humble opinion, he stuck very close to the source material and then outdid it. It's a great book, but Adamson and WETA turned it into a spectacular movie. They fleshed out the characters more, added some thrilling battle sequences, and created a Narnia that was (almost) as fascinating as Tolkien's (and Peter Jackson's) Middle-Earth.

[LordSuperhero]

1. Gore Verbinski - One of the most talented and versatile directors out there today, he's done everything from thrilling epics (Pirates of the Carribean), to horror (The Ring), to human drama/comedy (The Weather Man). I'd love to see what he could do with Superman because his films are unique and he makes an effort to make sure the characters are central and don't get lost in the mix.

2. Andrew Adamson - Although Adamson doesn't have all that many films under his belt, I think that his work on The Chronicles of Narnia has has shown him to be a top talent. In my humble opinion, he stuck very close to the source material and then outdid it. It's a great book, but Adamson and WETA turned it into a spectacular movie. They fleshed out the characters more, added some thrilling battle sequences, and created a Narnia that was (almost) as fascinating as Tolkien's (and Peter Jackson's) Middle-Earth.

Very true, also Ron Howard is a very good director aswell.

[Excel]

adamson and verbinski wuld be fantastic. probaly 2 and 3 of my top 3 after abrams. i think chris colombus woudnt be bad either.

[Sverdlovski]

If Singer can't do it, I'd like to see Brad Bird (Iron Giant, The Incredibles) with Bryan producing.

[LordSuperhero]

If Singer can't do it, I'd like to see Brad Bird (Iron Giant, The Incredibles) with Bryan producing.

Good call, Zemeckis is classy aswell.

What about a Ridley Scott version of Superman?

[That-Guy]

Ron Howard would be interesting, though I don't see him doing it. Zemeckis is kind of hit or miss in my opinion... I love some of his movie like Forrest Gump and Back to the Future but loathe others like What Lies Beneath, so it's hard to say. Ridley Scott could certainly make a cinematically stunning Superman film and probably a good one too as long as he doesn't allow key scenes wind up on the cutting room floor (Kingdom of Heaven).

[LordSuperhero]

Ron Howard would be interesting, though I don't see him doing it. Zemeckis is kind of hit or miss in my opinion... I love some of his movie like Forrest Gump and Back to the Future but loathe others like What Lies Beneath, so it's hard to say. Ridley Scott could certainly make a cinematically stunning Superman film and probably a good one too as long as he doesn't allow key scenes wind up on the cutting room floor (Kingdom of Heaven).

While Kingdom of Heaven was not at all historically accurate it was cinematically stunning. So if he were to film Superman, I say it would not be a cheesy film. FOX decided to chop up his film then alow him to release his "true version" on the extended dvd set.

Just a fan's dream really.

[Matt]

If Singer can't do it, I'd like to see Brad Bird (Iron Giant, The Incredibles) with Bryan producing.

Brad Bird is an animated movie director. He has never done live action...there is a huge difference. While he is great at animation, there is a damn good chance he would make a horrible live action director.

Anyway, great call on Gore Verbenski That-Guy!

[That-Guy]

Brad Bird is an animated movie director. He has never done live action...there is a huge difference. While he is great at animation, there is a damn good chance he would make a horrible live action director.

Anyway, great call on Gore Verbenski That-Guy!


Thanks, Matt! Yeah, I'm a huge Gore fan (no pun intended). He's definitely one of the best directors out there today.

[Sverdlovski]

Brad Bird is an animated movie director. He has never done live action...there is a huge difference. While he is great at animation, there is a damn good chance he would make a horrible live action director.


Yes, there is.

[Cinemaman]

MI3 won't bomb.

I hope it will make more than MI2.

[skruloos]

adamson and verbinski wuld be fantastic. probaly 2 and 3 of my top 3 after abrams. i think chris colombus woudnt be bad either.
Please keep Columbus away from Superman. He is a weaker version of Zemeckis and Spielberg. He's more generic and pedestrian than Ratner. The man cannot direct emotional scenes and engaging characters for the life of him.

[skruloos]

Brad Bird is an animated movie director. He has never done live action...there is a huge difference. While he is great at animation, there is a damn good chance he would make a horrible live action director.

There is also a damn good chance that he would make a terrific live action director. He obviously knows how to pace his films. Both his animated films were incredibly character oriented and had a lot of heart so he could handle the story. He knows how to create memorable action scenes and makes great use of CGI. With the amount of CGI and special effects expected in movies like Superman, he could simply direct it as if he WERE directing an animated film. Technically, he would be capable of it. The only thing we wouldn't really know is if he would be capable of directing actors or not. Everything else wouldn't really be THAT different. Instead of telling an animator how to frame and light the shot, he'd tell the cinematographer. There you go.

[Sverdlovski]

There is also a damn good chance that he would make a terrific live action director. He obviously knows how to pace his films. Both his animated films were incredibly character oriented and had a lot of heart so he could handle the story. He knows how to create memorable action scenes and makes great use of CGI. With the amount of CGI and special effects expected in movies like Superman, he could simply direct it as if he WERE directing an animated film. Technically, he would be capable of it. The only thing we wouldn't really know is if he would be capable of directing actors or not. Everything else wouldn't really be THAT different. Instead of telling an animator how to frame and light the shot, he'd tell the cinematographer. There you go.

Yeah, that too.

[King Krypton]

I think J.J. Abrams isn't bad choice for Superman.

A Krypton that doesn't explode.

Gay Jimmy Olsen.

Lex Luthor, Kryptonian double agent.

Suit in a can.

Hara-kiri Jor-El.

Super wire-fu.

Sorry, but Abrams had his shot, and he blew it. He has no right whatsoever to be anywhere near a Superman movie, let alone direct it.

Brett Ratner. He seems to be combining everything Singer did right and fixing everything Singer did wrong on X-men...no reason he couldn't do that here.

Ratner was one of the Abrams' script's biggest champions! Why in God's name would anyone want to go back to that mess?

And why are the "fans" rallying behind the people who were going to knife them in the back in the first place as replacements for Singer? Do you people really want a horrible Superman movie that much?!

[dr collossus]

Do you people really want a horrible Superman movie that much?!

You know what dude? That's pretty much how I feel about SR.

[That-Guy]

I hope it will make more than MI2.

I hope it will make more SENSE than MI2.

[dr collossus]

LMAO! I know X3 won't be as good without Singer. And funny how you think I shouldn't judge X3 because I could ask you the same for SR. Talk about irony.

You do, frequently. I was being sarcastic. I happen to think you are perfectly entitled to form an informed opinion about what you can expect from X3, based on what you know so far and what you think of the director's previous work. I, for example, didn't think much of the X-Men films (and fully expect X3 to be worlds ahead), and so am wary about what Singer will do with SR.

[Nightwing1977]

He's got a point, Nightwing. It's a bit hypocritical to say not to judge SR without seeing it but then turning around and judging X3.

I know. I'm just annoyed when some say something like this with SR that I do the same for X3, even thought I'm a big X-fan. Gotten a little carried away here. But it just Ratner is never consider a good story telling like Singer with doing too much bad movies with too much action like Rush Hour 1 & 2. Even if he did some work on the scripts, I still don't think he was right for X3. But I hope he will prove me wrong.

[CConn]

I also don't understand what the point of making your resume bigger would be. I'd think that 8.5" by 11" is more than enough.Y'know how it is. Everyone wants to be "legal-sized" nowadays. :o

[Fatboy Roberts]

Brad Bird is a GREAT choice, not only because he knows how to craft perfect character beats, and how to pace his movies, and set up astounding action sequences--but he GETS Superman. Check out Iron Giant for proof of that. SUPERMAN is at the center of that movie.

Plus, his background in animation isn't a knock. Someone had to direct those voice actors to those performances. They didn't direct themselves. Bird was in there coaching, cajoling and working those performances out of them.

I'm very surprised at the number of mediocre, ill-fitting and unproven directors getting thrown around in here. Let me dredge up a name from the past that has done nothing BUT great genre-fare with almost NO missteps whatsoever:

Joe Dante.

Director of Gremlins, The Burbs, innerspace, The Howling. He's got some clunkers on his plate, but the man KNOWS how to direct, and he knows what buttons to push and when. Give him a great Superman Script (preferably written by Dini) and I think you could come up with something approaching Donner's work on the first movie in terms of cinematography and camera-work.

And to throw in my own suggestion as long as we're using pretty much unproven rookie directors:

Francis Lawrence, director of Constantine

Yeah, the screenplay wasn't very faithful--but Lawrence solidly directed that thing, VERY well. People were surprised by the direction, the look, the performances. The movie shouldn't have been as enjoyable as it was, and I think that's solely due to Lawrence's handling of the mishmash he was handed.

Another below the radar pic: Joe Johnston. Not just because of his work on Jurassic Park III, a movie that had NO right to be as entertaining as it was, but for his work in the smaller scale October Sky, mostly a character piece dealing with a lot of the same themes a good Superman movie would deal with. Of course, he's also responsible for "The Rocketeer." as well, and that's one of the best examples of a Comic Book movie there is--even if it's not really based on a Comic.

So there we go. My picks:

Brad Bird
Joe Dante
Francis Lawrence
Joe Johnston

And just for the hell of it:

Frank Darabont.

[explode7]

I want Clint Eastwood to direct SR sequel. Someone who has alot of experience in directing, acting and action.

[SUPERSEBAS]

Peter Jakson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[explode7]

^ Nah! He might make a 3 HR + superman movie having a totally CGI superman with that same guy he used for King Kong in that motion censor suit.

[Matt]

Brad Bird is a GREAT choice, not only because he knows how to craft perfect character beats, and how to pace his movies, and set up astounding action sequences--but he GETS Superman. Check out Iron Giant for proof of that. SUPERMAN is at the center of that movie.

Plus, his background in animation isn't a knock. Someone had to direct those voice actors to those performances. They didn't direct themselves. Bird was in there coaching, cajoling and working those performances out of them.

I'm very surprised at the number of mediocre, ill-fitting and unproven directors getting thrown around in here. Let me dredge up a name from the past that has done nothing BUT great genre-fare with almost NO missteps whatsoever:

Joe Dante.

Director of Gremlins, The Burbs, innerspace, The Howling. He's got some clunkers on his plate, but the man KNOWS how to direct, and he knows what buttons to push and when. Give him a great Superman Script (preferably written by Dini) and I think you could come up with something approaching Donner's work on the first movie in terms of cinematography and camera-work.

And to throw in my own suggestion as long as we're using pretty much unproven rookie directors:

Francis Lawrence, director of Constantine

Yeah, the screenplay wasn't very faithful--but Lawrence solidly directed that thing, VERY well. People were surprised by the direction, the look, the performances. The movie shouldn't have been as enjoyable as it was, and I think that's solely due to Lawrence's handling of the mishmash he was handed.

Another below the radar pic: Joe Johnston. Not just because of his work on Jurassic Park III, a movie that had NO right to be as entertaining as it was, \.

See, your post was good until right there. Suddenly everything you said is worthless, because lets face it...Jurrassic Park 3 sucked ass.

[Matt]

^ Nah! He might make a 3 HR + superman movie having a totally CGI superman with that same guy he used for King Kong in that motion censor suit.

What? Did you just make a CGI joke about Peter Jackson? He used CGI for Gollum and Kong, two characters who require CGI. It is not like he is George Lucas and probably would make Superman CGI. That being said I would love it if WB got WETA to do the effects for SR.

[explode7]

^ I see u prefer WETA over Sony.

[Matt]

^ I see u prefer WETA over Sony.

That's because WETA's effects are better than Sony's.

[Fatboy Roberts]

See, your post was good until right there. Suddenly everything you said is worthless, because lets face it...Jurrassic Park 3 sucked ass.

Did you stop reading there? I didn't say it was a good movie, just that it was WAY more entertaining than it should have been. I also mentioned that he was responsible for October Sky and The Rocketeer, both REALLY good movies.

But I figure you're just making an easy one-liner so that's cool :)

to be obnoxious and pretentious: I maintain my 5 picks are the best ones here. Nyeah ;)

[explode7]

That's because WETA's effects are better than Sony's.

No it isn't sony is better. Just look at Spiderman 1 & 2 before u judge Sony's effects ok:) .

[Sverdlovski]

Fatboy, great choices. Nice to see you're back. You too Matt. ;)

The Rocketeer is one of the best superhero movies IMO. Right up there with STM.

[explode7]

Weta's effects only looked so good in Kong because Peter Jackson was the director one who is very experienced in that field.

[explode7]

ILM owns them all Matt!!!

[TheBat812]

WETA is the best out there at the moment.

[explode7]

You all are letting one movie(KONG) judge WETA's effects for you.

[TheBat812]

no, all three LOTRs, "I, Robot", "King Kong", "Chronicles of Narnia", etc. All incredible visual effects, regardless of the quality of the actual movies.

[KaptainKrypton]

Spielberg, Zemeckis, Verbinski, Cameron, or Jackson. Spielberg can still direct wonderfully in my opinion. Zemeckis knows how to make great dialogue in his films. Verbinski did something I thought was impossible and made a movie about an amusement park ride slighty entertainable. If Jim Cameron stuck with the source material and had input on the dialogue, then the film would be sharp. Most people don't realize that is the strength of his films like I do. The Terminator films in particular have great dialogue (spare III, though). Peter is a great director of very large films (even if they can be a bit long-winded). No matter which director would do it, the writing would determine the overall quality because all of these directors know how to work in the visual medium well, but a poorly written film can't be saved by a shiny exterior in my opinion.

[explode7]

no, all three LOTRs, "I, Robot", "King Kong", "Chronicles of Narnia", etc. All incredible visual effects, regardless of the quality of the actual movies.

Really i thought ILM did LOTR, Sony did I Robot and Rhythm and Hues Chronicles. Maybe I'm mistaken but thats who I think did it.

[Octoberist]

Nope. Peter Jackson co-owns WETA, my explodsive friend. So WETA did Lord of the Rings.

With I, Robot and Lion,Witch...it's a mixture of different CGI companies. I think Rhythm and Hues did the MAJORITY of the CGI in 'Lion' while WETA Workshop did the make up/costumes and WETA DIGITAL did the extra CGI.

Don't know who did the majority of I, Robot though..

[Fatboy Roberts]

Really i thought ILM did LOTR... Maybe I'm mistaken

You're mistaken.

Thanks for the welcome, Lovski :)

Kap: I think Zemeckis has lost it, myself. Whatever he had once--it's atrophied. Spielberg is ALWAYS the a #1 choice, but I don't know if THIS Spielberg even wants to do it. You offer this to Spielberg back in 85 and it's the perfect match.

Verbinski's a good choice, but there's no way he's taking this now that he's got his own huge franchise to see to fruition. This reminds me of when everyone wanted the Wachowski's to get Superman after Matrix 1. No one's saying that after 2 and 3, although they appear to have ghost-directed "V for Vendetta" rather well.

I really have no problems with either Jackson or Cameron, but I wouldn't see them taking the job. I CAN see the 5 I listed concievably taking the job if offered, though. But I can't deny, if reality didn't factor in, I'd be saying Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg all day long. Great picks :)

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I thought I recognized you, Roberts, from another forum. Guess I was right.

[Fatboy Roberts]

...I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. ;)

I'm guessing HTF forum, because everywhere else, I use this name.

[KaptainKrypton]

You're mistaken.

Thanks for the welcome, Lovski :)

Kap: I think Zemeckis has lost it, myself. Whatever he had once--it's atrophied. Spielberg is ALWAYS the a #1 choice, but I don't know if THIS Spielberg even wants to do it. You offer this to Spielberg back in 85 and it's the perfect match.

Verbinski's a good choice, but there's no way he's taking this now that he's got his own huge franchise to see to fruition. This reminds me of when everyone wanted the Wachowski's to get Superman after Matrix 1. No one's saying that after 2 and 3, although they appear to have ghost-directed "V for Vendetta" rather well.

I really have no problems with either Jackson or Cameron, but I wouldn't see them taking the job. I CAN see the 5 I listed concievably taking the job if offered, though. But I can't deny, if reality didn't factor in, I'd be saying Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg all day long. Great picks :)
I do like a majority of Zemeckis' work. Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, and I'm a sucker for the Polar Express. What Lies Beneath was also pretty passable for me, as I'm pretty fickle when it comes to thrillers and their effects on me. As for Spielberg, I really think that a couple of his last films are my favorites, but then again, my tastes vary from a lot of people's. I loved Minority Report, and I almost cried my eyes out at the end of A.I. The other sad thing is that if Alexander Salkind wasn't ultra-patient, then the first Superman film (and likely the second) would've been directed by Spielberg. He would be a dream pick. As would Cameron and Jackson because they're both doing other stuff at present.

[skruloos]

So there we go. My picks:

Brad Bird
Joe Dante
Francis Lawrence
Joe Johnston

And just for the hell of it:

Frank Darabont.
All really great picks. I'm especially liking Francis Lawrence since his direction and visual style in Constantine really surprised me. Johnston, to me, is iffy though. He didn't really wow me.

Frank Darabont is great and I'd especially love it if he took a pass at a Superman script. I'd have to see how he does action or who he picks as an action director/choreographer before I settle on him, however.

[Fatboy Roberts]

Kap: I'm with you on Spielberg. I think people will wake up in 10 years and recognize AI for the hidden masterpiece it truly is. That movie is like a succession of punches in the gut you didn't even realize had happened until like 10 minutes later. I like modern-day Spielberg, I just don't think he's the same guy that would have taken a Superman flick in the early 80's, and I'm not sure he wants to make that kind of movie right now. And I'm not sure I'd want him to, I like what he's doing now way too much.

I like Zemeckis older stuff, but so much of what he's gotten behind recently is bland as hell, to me.

I can't WAIT for Cameron's "Avatar" to hit screens. Cannot wait.

Metal Gear: Yeah--I figured out who you are and where you know me from. Good to see you round here, man. I THINK it's a good thing that you recognized me, but I dunno if YOU think that ;)

[SolidSnakeMGS]

No, it's cool, Roberts. Good to see you too, bro. Unfortunately, it looks like I may not be seen around the HTF realms anymore as Reuben banned me. It was a minor slip of the forum rules and I didn't get so much as a warning. I even sent a letter up the chain stating my neglect, but to no avail. Since then, I've been spending my time here talking about my #1 anticipated movie ever!:up:

[skruloos]

Spielberg, Zemeckis, Verbinski, Cameron, or Jackson. Spielberg can still direct wonderfully in my opinion. Zemeckis knows how to make great dialogue in his films. Verbinski did something I thought was impossible and made a movie about an amusement park ride slighty entertainable. If Jim Cameron stuck with the source material and had input on the dialogue, then the film would be sharp. Most people don't realize that is the strength of his films like I do. The Terminator films in particular have great dialogue (spare III, though). Peter is a great director of very large films (even if they can be a bit long-winded). No matter which director would do it, the writing would determine the overall quality because all of these directors know how to work in the visual medium well, but a poorly written film can't be saved by a shiny exterior in my opinion.
All good choices though I'd replace Zemeckis with Ridley Scott. Give them a script by Frank Darabont or Paul Dini and I'd be happier than the proverbial pig.

[Fatboy Roberts]

Unfortunately, it looks like I may not be seen around the HTF realms anymore

Weak sauce, man. The guys who run that place sometimes make me scratch my head.

You can still READ that joint, right? if not, let me know, I can post pertinent info over here--but typically, this board and the bluetights board scoops that place by like a week or so.

Skru: Ridley Scott's an interesting choice. I think he could do it, I'm just not sure it would have the proper FEEL. There's always something a little brittle and edgy about Ridley's films, even something as blatantly fairytale as "Legend" but that's not to say he COULDN'T do it. He's one of the 10 best living directors right now, I think.

[Mike]

You know for a "who should direct Superman 2 topic," There sure are a lot of people responding.

[Fatboy Roberts]

It's fun to pie-in-the-sky stuff, I guess. but yeah, technically, I guess this is off topic.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Weak sauce, man. The guys who run that place sometimes make me scratch my head.

You can still READ that joint, right? if not, let me know, I can post pertinent info over here--but typically, this board and the bluetights board scoops that place by like a week or so.


Ha, tell me about it! I hate it though as there are a lot of smart people there and I learned tons about stuff. I can still peruse it (so far), so it isn't a total loss.

To get back on topic, maybe I missed it, but did anyone suggest the W. Brothers? In Reloaded when Neo is flying, I could almost hear the Bros. telling the audience "pretend Neo is Superman and imagine what a kickass Superman movie we could make!" I really can't help but to think that too, so much that it distracts me from the movie.

[Showtime]

My belief is that if Returns is anywhere near succesfull Singer will give it a shot at a sequel, if not finally see through the trilogy that he didn't with X-Men.

That being said I think Peter Jackson or Steven Spielberg are best suited for the job, and I would love to see it. However, my sleeper would be M. Night for a variety of reasons:

1) He was offered the job previously and would have excepted if they let him
write his own script.
2) He loves the character of Superman and has since a child.
3) I love his take on the superhero genre with his work on Unbreakable.

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

The only thing that scares me about Peter Jackson is that the guy can't seem to make a movie under 3 hours.

[Fatboy Roberts]

Shyamalan is a good pick. I completely forgot Warners talked to him about it. He DOES have good storytelling sensibilities, and his respect for comics and their conventions is VERY obvious in "unbreakable."

Obi-Wan: Jackson's Heavenly Creatures is well under three hours, as is The Frighteners. And Heavenly Creatures is a POWERFUL piece of filmmaking. LOTR's length can be explained by the source material, and King Kong's length was his geek jones completely taking over. I don't think the same thing would extend to Superman. That said--I'm not sure I'd like the idea of Jackson directing Superman.

[Showtime]

Shyamalan is a good pick. I completely forgot Warners talked to him about it. He DOES have good storytelling sensibilities, and his respect for comics and their conventions is VERY obvious in "unbreakable."

Obi-Wan: Jackson's Heavenly Creatures is well under three hours, as is The Frighteners. And Heavenly Creatures is a POWERFUL piece of filmmaking. LOTR's length can be explained by the source material, and King Kong's length was his geek jones completely taking over. I don't think the same thing would extend to Superman. That said--I'm not sure I'd like the idea of Jackson directing Superman.

I agree with you in regards to Heavenly Creatures, great flick. Frighteners, although it was under three hours, wasn't what I hoped.

I would me more interested in seeing M. Night get a shot. I think he would have been great to re-start the franchise, whether an origin or a semi-sequel as Singer is giving us.

[Nightwing1977]

See, your post was good until right there. Suddenly everything you said is worthless, because lets face it...Jurrassic Park 3 sucked ass.

But he did "The Rocketeer", which was consider a great comic book movie. Sure he did JP3 which suck, but I wouldn't blame it entirely on him. I mean he didn't wrote that movie, did he? But if he did, well maybe it didn't suit him. Doesn't mean he would suck with Superman. It would be interesting if he were to do Superman. He could bring what he did to the Rocketeer for Superman. :)

[SolidSnakeMGS]

The Rocketeer. Talk about a severly underrated film. Too bad there wasn't sequels. There isn't even a good DVD, right Fatboy?:)

[skruloos]

Okay...here would be my dream crew:

Director: Steven Spielberg
Writers: Paul Dini with a rewrite by Frank Darabont
Animatics/Pre-Vis/Storyboard Supervisor: Kerry Conran and Brad Bird
Cinematographer: Janusz Kaminski (he'd have to stay away from his overuse of bleach bypass lately, however)
Editor: Michael Kahn
Composer: John Williams
Visual Effects: Weta Digital or ILM

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Composer: John Williams


Haven't much thought about your other ideas, but this one I automatically agree with. Williams is one of the finest composers ever, classical or film-wise. :up:

[Fatboy Roberts]

There isn't even a good DVD, right Fatboy?

Nope, and that's a DAMNED shame. I remember there was talk of maybe re-releasing it this year, but Disney I don't think really knows what to do with it. Best bet is that it either hits on Blu-Ray or Joe Johnston does something REALLY BIG in the next year or so, making it easy for Disney to say "Oh, from the maker of "blah blahblah blah"

I forgot Johnston did Jumanji, too.

Williams on Superman is a no-brainer. Ottman, I've got faith in him, his "Usual Suspects" score is CLASSIC as far as I'm concerned, and his work on X2 was pretty decent, but man...Don Davis did a decent job re-working Williams' themes in JP3, but the score didn't REALLY stand out. I'm hoping that's not the case with Ottman.

Skru: I think, if we're going dream cinematographers--I'd go with Roger Deakins over Janusz Kaminski--largely for the reason you cited: Kaminski is too addicted to those filters now. Deakins, however--beautiful Cinematography every time. EVERY time. Breathtaking images. Now, if Conrad Hall or John Alonzo were still with us, it'd be one of those too. But as of now, I'm taking Deakins. Or hell, Lesnie, for that matter.

And since Spielberg is so huge on "father/child" relationship themes in ALL of his works--I'd want them to straight up adapt "Secret Identity" by Busiek and Immonen. Can you imagine Spielberg bringing THAT to the screen?

It'd win Oscars. I'm tellin you. It would transcend the genre. That book is right up classic Spielberg's alley.

[skruloos]

Skru: I think, if we're going dream cinematographers--I'd go with Roger Deakins over Janusz Kaminski--largely for the reason you cited: Kaminski is too addicted to those filters now. Deakins, however--beautiful Cinematography every time. EVERY time. Breathtaking images. Now, if Conrad Hall or John Alonzo were still with us, it'd be one of those too. But as of now, I'm taking Deakins. Or hell, Lesnie, for that matter.
It's funny that you mention Deakins as he would be one of my other choices. The reason I went with Kaminski was because of his relationship with Spielberg. I find it hard to break the relationship between director and cinematographer. Also on my list would be Michael Ballhaus, Dante Spinotti or even John Schwartzman (but only because I think he films great iconic shots even if he DOES work with Michael Bay). Top of my alternate list would be Christopher Doyle though.


And since Spielberg is so huge on "father/child" relationship themes in ALL of his works--I'd want them to straight up adapt "Secret Identity" by Busiek and Immonen. Can you imagine Spielberg bringing THAT to the screen?

It'd win Oscars. I'm tellin you. It would transcend the genre. That book is right up classic Spielberg's alley.
Haven't read "Secret Identity" yet but I have heard others bring it up many a time. I must put it on my "to read" list.

[CGHulk]

Nope. Peter Jackson co-owns WETA, my explodsive friend. So WETA did Lord of the Rings.

With I, Robot and Lion,Witch...it's a mixture of different CGI companies. I think Rhythm and Hues did the MAJORITY of the CGI in 'Lion' while WETA Workshop did the make up/costumes and WETA DIGITAL did the extra CGI.

Don't know who did the majority of I, Robot though..
Digital Domain did most of the work on I Robot, and Weta Digital did the underground freeway sequence where all the robots attacked Will Smith's car!

BTW the only reason Weta Digital is of a higher standard globally is due to New Zealands lack of Labor Laws so they can work people like work horses around the clock until production is finished, and it's 3 times cheaper in New Zealand. Disneytoon studios in Australia is a fine example of quality where people are treated like cattle, they make those strait to video Disney sequels like Mulan 2 Jungle Book 2. Disneytoon Studios employees have been given a year to find other jobs because they are going to be shutting down and moving everything to India. Harry Osbourne the Producer of Lord of the Rings is opening a visual effects studio in India too, his reasons are that visual effects are to expensive, and with expense it effects quality, so better effects through cheaper labor. Hanna Barbera started all of this by outsourcing all of their animation to Korea, I should know my grandfather was asked by Joe Barbera to teach Korean's how to animate, but he refused, he thought American animators/artists should keep their jobs!

OK back on topic! :D

[Rex Calibur]

A Krypton that doesn't explode.

Gay Jimmy Olsen.

Lex Luthor, Kryptonian double agent.

Suit in a can.

Hara-kiri Jor-El.

Super wire-fu.

Sorry, but Abrams had his shot, and he blew it. He has no right whatsoever to be anywhere near a Superman movie, let alone direct it.



Ratner was one of the Abrams' script's biggest champions! Why in God's name would anyone want to go back to that mess?

And why are the "fans" rallying behind the people who were going to knife them in the back in the first place as replacements for Singer? Do you people really want a horrible Superman movie that much?!I hope you understand the difference here. You see, J.J Abrams and Ratner agreed on these changes for their own original Superman movie. They wouldn't be able to make such huge changes directing a sequel, will they?

[Cinemaman]

A Krypton that doesn't explode.

Gay Jimmy Olsen.

Lex Luthor, Kryptonian double agent.

Suit in a can.

Hara-kiri Jor-El.

Super wire-fu.

Sorry, but Abrams had his shot, and he blew it. He has no right whatsoever to be anywhere near a Superman movie, let alone direct it.



Ratner was one of the Abrams' script's biggest champions! Why in God's name would anyone want to go back to that mess?

And why are the "fans" rallying behind the people who were going to knife them in the back in the first place as replacements for Singer? Do you people really want a horrible Superman movie that much?!

It were Ratner's ideas.

And Abrams is damn good director.

[Cinemaman]

I know. I'm just annoyed when some say something like this with SR that I do the same for X3, even thought I'm a big X-fan. Gotten a little carried away here. But it just Ratner is never consider a good story telling like Singer with doing too much bad movies with too much action like Rush Hour 1 & 2. Even if he did some work on the scripts, I still don't think he was right for X3. But I hope he will prove me wrong.

I think X-men time will be soon over.

And third movie will suck, I think so.

Script was bad and Ratner can't do anything good for superheroes.

[Cinemaman]

That's because WETA's effects are better than Sony's.

And ILM's effects are better than WETA.

And Sony made Spidey 2, so they also have OSCAR AWARD.

[Cinemaman]

no, all three LOTRs, "I, Robot", "King Kong", "Chronicles of Narnia", etc. All incredible visual effects, regardless of the quality of the actual movies.

But ILM also made effects for Narnia.

[Weadazoid]

Goes into Old School Will Ferrel mode

in real deep voice


"I like you man... I like you but your crazy.."

Smacks some kids around and falls in the pool

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If the movie is a hit, he will come back.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

My belief is that if Returns is anywhere near succesfull Singer will give it a shot at a sequel, if not finally see through the trilogy that he didn't with X-Men.

That being said I think Peter Jackson or Steven Spielberg are best suited for the job, and I would love to see it. However, my sleeper would be M. Night for a variety of reasons:

1) He was offered the job previously and would have excepted if they let him
write his own script.
2) He loves the character of Superman and has since a child.
3) I love his take on the superhero genre with his work on Unbreakable.It would have been really interesting to see one of my favorite directors take on the "Man of Steel" and it would have been really interesting to see him finally do an action film.

[Cinemaman]

If the movie is a hit, he will come back.

I really hope that he ill come back.

[Showtime]

It would have been really interesting to see one of my favorite directors take on the "Man of Steel" and it would have been really interesting to see him finally do an action film.

One of my favorites, if not my favorite as well. I would love to see it, you never know.

[Cinemaman]

If Singer doesn't come back, I think we will have a new director. But who?
In real, I think WB will find a normal director, who made good movies.
But I also hope we will have J. J. Abrams. or M. Night Shyamalan as a director.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

One of my favorites, if not my favorite as well. I would love to see it, you never know.Yeah, I think that Unbreakable has to be the best superhero movie ever and it put the suppose realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame.

[Cinemaman]

Yeah, I think that Unbreakable has to be the best superhero movie ever and it put the suppose realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame.

Unbreakable was really great movie based on superhero :up:

[Showtime]

Yeah, I think that Unbreakable has to be the best superhero movie ever and it put the suppose realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame.

I agree, it was very realistic and should be looked at when creating a superhero movie.

[Showtime]

Unbreakable was really great movie based on superhero :up:

Very underated movie. I love it.

[Octoberist]

I just didn't like the ending..with the bubbles and it felt abrupt.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I didn't have a problem with the ending, what should it have been? Did you wan't to see the cops take Mr. Glass away or something?

[That-Guy]

Yeah, I think that Unbreakable has to be the best superhero movie ever and it put the suppose realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame.

You couldn't resist it, could you? Unbreakable's realistic feel "put the supposed realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame" because it was SUPPOSED to be more realistic. Shayamalan was making a movie about a regular guy in the real world who finds out that superhero myth isn't just a work of fiction. Batman Begins and X-Men were placed in a real world type setting as well, but both film franchises were attempting to adhere to a separate world that exists in comic books. There is no Gotham City in the real world. In the real world, the Government is not having debates about what to do with mutants (well, maybe George W. Bush is). Nolan and Singer, while taking some liberties, were attempting to adapt largely unrealistic comic book stories and make them as real and relatable as possible while still staying true to the source material (although I'm sure that you didn't feel they did that). Shayamalan was creating an original, human phenomenon drama based on comic book and superhero mythology but was not actually confined to the guidelines of a typical movie based on a comic book. They're two completely different things and all three films, in my opinion (and many other people's as well) are all very well-made pictures.

[Zigno]

i preffer a NEW -talented- unknow director.

[kalelinri]

a joint vention of donner and singer

[dr collossus]

You couldn't resist it, could you? Unbreakable's realistic feel "put the supposed realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame" because it was SUPPOSED to be more realistic. Shayamalan was making a movie about a regular guy in the real world who finds out that superhero myth isn't just a work of fiction. Batman Begins and X-Men were placed in a real world type setting as well, but both film franchises were attempting to adhere to a separate world that exists in comic books. There is no Gotham City in the real world. In the real world, the Government is not having debates about what to do with mutants (well, maybe George W. Bush is). Nolan and Singer, while taking some liberties, were attempting to adapt largely unrealistic comic book stories and make them as real and relatable as possible while still staying true to the source material (although I'm sure that you didn't feel they did that). Shayamalan was creating an original, human phenomenon drama based on comic book and superhero mythology but was not actually confined to the guidelines of a typical movie based on a comic book. They're two completely different things and all three films, in my opinion (and many other people's as well) are all very well-made pictures.

Agreed. I didn't think Unbreakable was any more realistic than BB, just contextually different.

[That-Guy]

Agreed. I didn't think Unbreakable was any more realistic than BB, just contextually different.


Yeah, in a way, it could be argues that BB was more realistic, simply because it didn't feature anyone with superhuman or supernatural abilities.

[SuperDaniel]

If Singer leaves, Donner, Jackson or Steven Spielberg should direct the sequels

[LordSuperhero]

If Singer leaves, Donner, Jackson or Steven Spielberg should direct the sequels

I liked Steven's work in the past, but truly his recent work has all this libral propoganda/agenda and with his "happy" endings.

[skruloos]

I liked Steven's work in the past, but truly his recent work has all this libral propoganda/agenda and with his "happy" endings.
It's funny that you mention that. Most people applaud Spielberg for actually making statements with his work now and not just focusing on purely commercial ventures. Also, critics have lauded his edgier films and the fact that his "happy" endings are not just saccharine ways of tying up loose ends.

In any case, it would seem to me, that someone who is capable of "happy" endings would be perfect for making Superman.

[SuperDaniel]

Thats what i think too. It would be too good to be true to have Superman being directed by Spielberg.

[Showtime]

You couldn't resist it, could you? Unbreakable's realistic feel "put the supposed realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame" because it was SUPPOSED to be more realistic. Shayamalan was making a movie about a regular guy in the real world who finds out that superhero myth isn't just a work of fiction. Batman Begins and X-Men were placed in a real world type setting as well, but both film franchises were attempting to adhere to a separate world that exists in comic books. There is no Gotham City in the real world. In the real world, the Government is not having debates about what to do with mutants (well, maybe George W. Bush is). Nolan and Singer, while taking some liberties, were attempting to adapt largely unrealistic comic book stories and make them as real and relatable as possible while still staying true to the source material (although I'm sure that you didn't feel they did that). Shayamalan was creating an original, human phenomenon drama based on comic book and superhero mythology but was not actually confined to the guidelines of a typical movie based on a comic book. They're two completely different things and all three films, in my opinion (and many other people's as well) are all very well-made pictures.

I agree with your points about the differences between Batman Begins and Unbreakable. I do however think that Unbreakable is a nice take on superheroes and anybody involved in the making of a superhero movie should check it out.

[Mr. Socko]

i preffer a NEW -talented- unknow director.

I agree:up:

[explode7]

Are u guys crazy? Speilberg only directs Alien movies and yes I know superman is an alien an all but still he has to be treated as a superhero above all else he will become tooo unrelatable. WOTW was good though.

[BrollySupersj]

Are u guys crazy? Speilberg only directs Alien movies and yes I know superman is an alien an all but still he has to be treated as a superhero above all else he will become tooo unrelatable. WOTW was good though.

SO T-rex is an alien monster brought back to life on earth?

[explode7]

^ Oh c'mon u know what I mean.

[BrollySupersj]

I do I'm just pulling your leg.

[explode7]

Ok cool.

[skruloos]

Are u guys crazy? Speilberg only directs Alien movies and yes I know superman is an alien an all but still he has to be treated as a superhero above all else he will become tooo unrelatable.
Alien movies? Out of all of his movies, he's made 3 alien movies. If you're trying to be funny you need to try harder.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I think Spielberg has moved on for good now, except with Indy 4 that will (NEVER) be made soon. I don't know if anyone has seen Munich. It's a brilliant film.

[That-Guy]

I agree with your points about the differences between Batman Begins and Unbreakable. I do however think that Unbreakable is a nice take on superheroes and anybody involved in the making of a superhero movie should check it out.


Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, it's the best of Shayamalan's films and the only people who don't like it or respect it are simply those who feel that comic books and superheroes are "stupid" and "for dorks only." But like it or not, comic books have a place in history and its great that Unbreakable attempts to expand upon that by offering up a greater reason for it. It certainly works as a superhero movie as well, and yes, it should be considered by directors who are attempting to make more realistic-style comic book films.

[Weadazoid]

I loved unbreakable it took realism..and comic lore to a whole new level.

But all that being said

I wouldn't want him any where near Superman it would be too strange IMO

I also would not want Cameron or Spielberg.

Peter Jackson would be interesting but I don't think he would do it


I think Singer will be back for a 2nd, I would not mind Ratner either.

Part of me thinks Ridley Scott production would be truly epic, Or if you wanted to recreate some of Supermans Villains you could go with Demme or Depalme.... that is if the movie is a shineing success and I think it will be.

Just imagiens Deplames take on a villain like parasite

[Showtime]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, it's the best of Shayamalan's films and the only people who don't like it or respect it are simply those who feel that comic books and superheroes are "stupid" and "for dorks only." But like it or not, comic books have a place in history and its great that Unbreakable attempts to expand upon that by offering up a greater reason for it. It certainly works as a superhero movie as well, and yes, it should be considered by directors who are attempting to make more realistic-style comic book films.

Very well said, I share your sentiments. :up:

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I wouldn't want him any where near Superman it would be too strange IMO
I also would not want Cameron or Spielberg.
Peter Jackson would be interesting but I don't think he would do it
I think Singer will be back for a 2nd, I would not mind Ratner either.


So you would like a very mediocre director who lacks his own vision over a slew of directors that are not only infinitely better, but have their own style that could benefit Superman?? :down

[Weadazoid]

Ratner has his own ideas, much like Singer he wanted to cast an unknown for the part of Superman

As I said if I had my chocie and Singer was gone I would want Depalme or Demme... mostly because they would put a trully interesting spin of some of Spuermans villains.

if Cameron took the reigns we may get a metallo or Brainiack that would just look like the Terminator on crack.

Spielberg would over do it IMO

[That-Guy]

Thanks Showtime!

As for the directors...

Shayamalan is a gifted director, but I'm not sure I'd want to see him do a Superman film. His unusual cinematography benefitted films like Unbreakable, but became extremely annoying in The Village (IMO). I remember one scene in particular at the beginning of that film, where William Hurt was talking to his daughter (not Bryce Dallas Howard, the other one)... both of their backs were to the camera and they looked like they were about 100 feet away. I guess the idea was to give it that feel like we, the audience, were like the "creatures" peering in on the villagers. But I really don't think it worked. It just left me thinking, why they can't I see these people's faces when they talk to each other? Why do I feel like the cameraman went to take a smoke break when he was supposed to zoom in?

I don't mean to sound like the kind of guy who only likes mainstream stuff, but I just think that some of this conceptual stuff doesn't work in certain films, and superhero films (that are specifically based on comic books... again, not talking about Unbreakable here) fall into this category. I know a lot of people criticized Ang Lee's Hulk film for trying to be to psychological and analytical, and also because they felt the CG Hulk didn't look right, but I didn't mind those things. What got on my nerves in that movie was the annoying 70's style split screen "panel" look that was intended to make it look like a comic book page but instead made me feel like I was watching "More American Graffitti." What was that? You didn't know that they made a sequel to American Graffitti? Yeah, there's a reason for that.
A stupid concept (or a well-meaning concept that simply doesn't work) can kill a movie for an audience. Weadazoid brought up Brian De Palma... De Palma is a very gifted director, but take a look at his film, Raising Cain. It's a brilliant movie up until the last 15 minutes or so, when De Palma apparently got a bug up his ass to try and be Alfred Hitchcock and concocted this ridiculous scene where all of these goofy circumstances were occuring in an effort to build suspense. Its kind of hard to explain, but watch the end of Raising Cain and then go watch the end of Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, and you'll see what I mean. What actually happens in both movies are completely different sequences, but it's just the way they are both set up that it's easy to see that De Palma was being very derivative stylistically.

[Fatboy Roberts]

DePalma's ALWAYS had that bug up his ass to be Hitchcock. One of the few times he tried to go around that SERIOUSLY and tackle genre fare that didn't involve, noir, crime or men fighting men over women, was Mission to Mars--and that movie was the WORST MOVIE the year it came out.

Jonathan Demme would be an interesting choice, but I dont' think there's any way a studio would consider him, or that he would take it.

[Cinemaman]

So you would like a very mediocre director who lacks his own vision over a slew of directors that are not only infinitely better, but have their own style that could benefit Superman?? :down

Ratner's vissual style sucked.

[dr collossus]

I would have been quite pleased if it had been Raimi that had jumped ship instead of Singer.

[dr collossus]

much like Singer he wanted to cast an unknown for the part of Superman

Only a complete moron wouldn't.

[Weadazoid]

DePalma's ALWAYS had that bug up his ass to be Hitchcock. One of the few times he tried to go around that SERIOUSLY and tackle genre fare that didn't involve, noir, crime or men fighting men over women, was Mission to Mars--and that movie was the WORST MOVIE the year it came out.

Jonathan Demme would be an interesting choice, but I dont' think there's any way a studio would consider him, or that he would take it.

wow kinda harsh words for a guy who restarted Mission Imposible, made an all time classic in Scar Face, raised the bar of a classic TV show and made a great Movie in the Untouchables, and did some interesting stuff with Multiple personalites in Raisng Cain.

I loved all of those movies


How in the hell is a movie like Casualties of War Hitschcock esque?

[Weadazoid]

Ratner's vissual style sucked.

Not in Red Dragon

[Cinemaman]

Not in Red Dragon

I meant his style and point of view about Superman.

[Weadazoid]

I meant his style and point of view about Superman.

I wasn't aware he had one Doesn't visual style normaly come in part from the script/screen play

[Cinemaman]

I wasn't aware he had one Doesn't visual style normaly come in part from the script/screen play

Can you give me review of Abrams's script?

And who had idea to make Luthor kryptonian and Olsen gay?

[Fatboy Roberts]

Doesn't visual style normaly come in part from the script/screen play

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.

And again, saying Ratner's visual style in Red Dragon was good is largely like saying Puff Daddy's musical style on "Come With Me" was good because he sampled Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir." Puffy sampled (looped) Zeppelin, Ratner sampled Demme. Ratner, on his own, without someone to ape--is pretty pedestrian, visually. He's not a BAD director. He's just mediocre.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

^^^

Jon peters.

[Weadazoid]

Can you give me review of Abrams's script?

And who had idea to make Luthor kryptonian and Olsen gay?

I don't have the script but That was mainly probubly the work of guys like Peters ect ect...

[Weadazoid]

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.

And again, saying Ratner's visual style in Red Dragon was good is largely like saying Puff Daddy's musical style on "Come With Me" was good because he sampled Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir." Puffy sampled (looped) Zeppelin, Ratner sampled Demme. Ratner, on his own, without someone to ape--is pretty pedestrian, visually. He's not a BAD director. He's just mediocre.

But here is the thing..

Red Dragon realy felt like it belonged with Silence of Lambs while Hannibal felt out of whack IMO

Even though Scott is very accomplished I hated Hannibal

but I loved Red Dragon, it seemed to fit

I suppose people will say all Ratner did was bite off Singer for X3... but damn we X men fans want it to feel the same.


I hear what you are saying about the backbone in a screen play action isn't detailed and the way things look is not detailed from a novle monipotent like styand point, that is left up to the director..

But the basic are laid out to the director as far as what the action is.

[Rex Calibur]

And again, saying Ratner's visual style in Red Dragon was good is largely like saying Puff Daddy's musical style on "Come With Me" was good because he sampled Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir." Puffy sampled (looped) Zeppelin, Ratner sampled Demme. Ratner, on his own, without someone to ape--is pretty pedestrian, visually.
Which is great if Ratner is doing a sequel, then he'd 'ape' Singer.

[skruloos]

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.
True. In fact, a lot of script readers will passover a script if there is too much visual description in it.

[Showtime]

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.


Very true. You seem like you've been reading David Trottier.

[skruloos]

But here is the thing..

Red Dragon realy felt like it belonged with Silence of Lambs while Hannibal felt out of whack IMO

Even though Scott is very accomplished I hated Hannibal

but I loved Red Dragon, it seemed to fit

I suppose people will say all Ratner did was bite off Singer for X3... but damn we X men fans want it to feel the same.


I hear what you are saying about the backbone in a screen play action isn't detailed and the way things look is not detailed from a novle monipotent like styand point, that is left up to the director..

But the basic are laid out to the director as far as what the action is.
Of course Red Dragon seemed like it was an extension of Silence of the Lambs. The story was essentially the same framework. Hannibal, on the other hand, took the story to a completey different place. Also the script and book had a different feel to it than both Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon.

Finally, because Scott didn't want to just copy Demme he did something completely different to go with the romantic overtones in the script. Scott is a director with talent. He leaves his stamp on his movies, as did Demme. Ratner has no such stamp. He has yet to prove he even has his own visual style. Hopefully X3 will show this.

Also, a script does not necessarily detail action. That's what an action choreographer is for.

[Fatboy Roberts]

Very true. You seem like you've been reading David Trottier.

Nah, just read a lot of screenplays. Written 4 of them, too, although I never seem to make the top 10 in any of the contests I've entered them in. Which says something about my screenwriting skills, I think ;) My prose descriptions are too dry. It causes a sort of clincal detachment on the part of the reader if the dialog and situations are loosey-goosey and naturalistic and then I come in with the descriptions that read like closed captioning.

But Skru is also right--you put too much stage direction in your screenplay, the director (or actor) is going to toss it, if they ever get to see it in the first place, since paid script readers at studios are EVIL about that stuff. Don't you dare presume to hold either the director, cinematographer or actor's hands in your screenplay. They'll resent you for it. You just give them the story, the lines, and some solid plotting and characterization, chances are they're going to make whatever you had in your head, visually, look like a hi-8 home movie anyway.

As far as Ratner--it seriously looks like he's aping Michael Bay more than anyone on this. Looking at the trailer and the cinematography and such--it really DOES look like a Michael Bay movie and less like a Bryan Singer movie. But I've only got a teaser trailer to work from. We'll see, I guess, but visually, I can't think of a single stunning shot of Ratner's from ANY of his films. Not one. MAYBE the flaming wheelchair in Red Dragon, but to tell the truth, the mental picture I have in my head, I can't tell if it's really his version of that shot or Michael Mann's.

[Gold Samurai]

I don't have the script but That was mainly probubly the work of guys like Peters ect ect...


luckly i saved it so i can show people the horror!


1. Krypton doesn’t explode. Instead it’s a Naboo rip-off overrun
by robot soldiers, walking war machines, and civil war (can you say,
Star Wars: Episode I?). Jor-El is literally
the king of Krypton and leader of the Kryptonian Senate (thus Superman
is a prince), and he and Lara send Kal-El to Earth because he is "the One"
whom a prophecy states will save
Krypton from destruction (rip-off of The Matrix). The villains, Jor-El’s
evil brother and nephew Kata-Zor and Ty-Zor, take Jor-El prisoner and send
probe pods out to find and kill the
baby Kal-El. 14 years later, Lara and her shell-less turtle servant Taga
(shades of Jar Jar Binks) are found by Ty-Zor, and Lara gets tortured to death.
2. Superman’s costume is a living entity housed in a can, and it climbs onto
him when he needs it. He first discovers it in a closet when he’s 14 (Jor-El
visited Earth and picked the Kents
out to be Kal-El’s new parents, leaving them his picture, some S-shield metal
pieces signifying the virtues Kal-El must represent, and the costume), and the
costume rips his clothes off and
stuffs him into itself. So teen Clark is flying around in a suit that’s way
too big for him.
3. Lex Luthor is an evil CIA agent obsessed with UFO phenomena.
When Superman reveals himself to the world, Luthor demands that the
government allow him to hunt
Superman down and kill him.
The government refuses, so Luthor allies himself with the evil
Kryptonians out to kill Kal-El…because Luthor himself is an evil
Kryptonian, working undercover as a
human to set up an invasion of Earth!
4. All the Kryptonians get into airborne kung-fu fights straight out of
The Matrix. Even Luthor gets in on the act at the end of the script.
5. An aerial kung-fu fight between Superman and Ty-Zor results in Superman
being lured into a trap: Lois is drowning in a tank filled with
kryptonite. (This begs the question of how there can be kryptonite when
Krypton didn’t even explode, but….) Superman is given a choice: save
her and die from radiation poisoning in the act, or stand by and watch her
drown. So he goes in, saves her, and dies. Jor-El magically senses Superman’s
death from across the galaxy, commits hara-kiri
with a rock he sharpens in his prison cell, goes to Heaven, and talks Superman
into coming back to life so he can fulfill the prophecy of saving Krypton from
its civil war. So Superman’s soul returns to
his body, and he proceeds to trash Ty-Zor and his cronies. And at the end of
the film, Superman flies off in a rocket to save Krypton (which is where the second
film is planned to take place).
6. A dialogue scene at The Daily Planet implies that Jimmy Olsen—a horny skirt-chaser
in the comic books—is gay, as Abrams describes him as "effeminate" and Perry White rags
on him for having a boyfriend.

[Showtime]

Nah, just read a lot of screenplays. Written 4 of them, too, although I never seem to make the top 10 in any of the contests I've entered them in. Which says something about my screenwriting skills, I think ;) My prose descriptions are too dry. It causes a sort of clincal detachment on the part of the reader if the dialog and situations are loosey-goosey and naturalistic and then I come in with the descriptions that read like closed captioning.

But Skru is also right--you put too much stage direction in your screenplay, the director (or actor) is going to toss it, if they ever get to see it in the first place, since paid script readers at studios are EVIL about that stuff. Don't you dare presume to hold either the director, cinematographer or actor's hands in your screenplay. They'll resent you for it. You just give them the story, the lines, and some solid plotting and characterization, chances are they're going to make whatever you had in your head, visually, look like a hi-8 home movie anyway.


Didn't realize you had written anything, you've written one more than I have then. I need to catch up. I find dialogue to be the toughest, but when I find myself in tune with the characters, it flows much better. Contests are tough, I haven't had much success on that circuit either.

What studios are looking for now are good storys. If you have a good and original story they will bite on it even if the format is a little off or you drone out cliche dialogue. If the story is unoriginal and lacking substance, you have no shot.

[explode7]

I would have been quite pleased if it had been Raimi that had jumped ship instead of Singer.

I agree. Riami has his Comic Book movie organized unlike most we have seen lately. I'm sure Riami will be the only guy to have had a massive comic book movie interest remain through many sequels. Go Riami.

[Weadazoid]

Of course Red Dragon seemed like it was an extension of Silence of the Lambs. The story was essentially the same framework. Hannibal, on the other hand, took the story to a completey different place. Also the script and book had a different feel to it than both Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon.

Finally, because Scott didn't want to just copy Demme he did something completely different to go with the romantic overtones in the script. Scott is a director with talent. He leaves his stamp on his movies, as did Demme. Ratner has no such stamp. He has yet to prove he even has his own visual style. Hopefully X3 will show this.

Also, a script does not necessarily detail action. That's what an action choreographer is for.

did you actualy like Hannibal.

I thought it was crap

Many critics also thought it was awful

[Superman \S/]

I never liked Hannibal, Silence of The Lambs is great.

[skruloos]

did you actualy like Hannibal.

I thought it was crap

Many critics also thought it was awful
I did actually and much more than Red Dragon. Hannibal was better shot, better designed, and better acted. It was a beautiful movie that really set itself apart from Silence of the Lambs, which IMO could not be topped.

The only thing lacking was the script. Not even Ted Tally could have saved that book though.

[Weadazoid]

wow I geuss you really like Gore for the sake of Gore.


Personaly I found myself laughing at the general ridiculousness of most of it

Feeding Ray Liota his own brains was soooooooooooo far over the top didn't like it not a bit.

[explode7]

^ I prefer saw or maybe hostel?

[Superman \S/]

Red Dragon was great also.

[Superman \S/]

^ I prefer saw or maybe hostel?

Saw and Saw 2.

[explode7]

^ Or how about Kill BIll Vol2. MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Top that will ya.

[skruloos]

wow I geuss you really like Gore for the sake of Gore.


Personaly I found myself laughing at the general ridiculousness of most of it

Feeding Ray Liota his own brains was soooooooooooo far over the top didn't like it not a bit.
Yes. That was the point. It was grand guignol. It was gothic romanticism at it's best. I mean, the script is already a twisted love story encompassing grisly murders. Scott juxtaposed the beauty of the love story and Italy with the carnage and Lecter's almost complacent treatment of the subject. I'd much rather have that then something by-the-numbers and pedestrian.

Also, if I like Gore for the sake of Gore then Hannibal wouldn't be at the top of my list. Movies like Saw, Saw II, House of 1000 corpses, and Hostel would be up there. Hannibal treated the subject matter like a dark comedy and crafted a strange love affair. It certainly wasn't gore for the sake of gore. Silence of the Lambs had its fair share of gore too. Feeding a guy his own brain or stripping off someone else's face and wearing it. Both seem pretty disgusting to me.

[Mr. Socko]

We start out with who should direct the next Superman movie to our favorite gore movies.







L.........O............L

[Superman \S/]

^ Or how about Kill BIll Vol2. MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Top that will ya.

I like the first Kill Bill alot more.

[BrollySupersj]

First Kill Bill sucks BUT the second is good. Know lets back on topic with Superman and leave Ninja chicks who wear crappy yellow suites for later shall we?

[Mr. Socko]

Yes, I just hate Kill Bill in general.

That gives me an idea, Quentin for director of Superman 2 lol

[SolidSnakeMGS]

You know what they call a whopper on Krypton?

[Superman \S/]

Um no?

[That-Guy]

A Whopper would simply be a Whopper... but they wouldn't have a Quarter Pounder with Cheese because a society as advanced as Krypton would most deifnitely use the metric system. Therefore, they'd call it something like "Soy/Ground Beef Composite With Cheese."

[Cinemaman]

luckly i saved it so i can show people the horror!


1. Krypton doesn’t explode. Instead it’s a Naboo rip-off overrun
by robot soldiers, walking war machines, and civil war (can you say,
Star Wars: Episode I?). Jor-El is literally
the king of Krypton and leader of the Kryptonian Senate (thus Superman
is a prince), and he and Lara send Kal-El to Earth because he is "the One"
whom a prophecy states will save
Krypton from destruction (rip-off of The Matrix). The villains, Jor-El’s
evil brother and nephew Kata-Zor and Ty-Zor, take Jor-El prisoner and send
probe pods out to find and kill the
baby Kal-El. 14 years later, Lara and her shell-less turtle servant Taga
(shades of Jar Jar Binks) are found by Ty-Zor, and Lara gets tortured to death.
2. Superman’s costume is a living entity housed in a can, and it climbs onto
him when he needs it. He first discovers it in a closet when he’s 14 (Jor-El
visited Earth and picked the Kents
out to be Kal-El’s new parents, leaving them his picture, some S-shield metal
pieces signifying the virtues Kal-El must represent, and the costume), and the
costume rips his clothes off and
stuffs him into itself. So teen Clark is flying around in a suit that’s way
too big for him.
3. Lex Luthor is an evil CIA agent obsessed with UFO phenomena.
When Superman reveals himself to the world, Luthor demands that the
government allow him to hunt
Superman down and kill him.
The government refuses, so Luthor allies himself with the evil
Kryptonians out to kill Kal-El…because Luthor himself is an evil
Kryptonian, working undercover as a
human to set up an invasion of Earth!
4. All the Kryptonians get into airborne kung-fu fights straight out of
The Matrix. Even Luthor gets in on the act at the end of the script.
5. An aerial kung-fu fight between Superman and Ty-Zor results in Superman
being lured into a trap: Lois is drowning in a tank filled with
kryptonite. (This begs the question of how there can be kryptonite when
Krypton didn’t even explode, but….) Superman is given a choice: save
her and die from radiation poisoning in the act, or stand by and watch her
drown. So he goes in, saves her, and dies. Jor-El magically senses Superman’s
death from across the galaxy, commits hara-kiri
with a rock he sharpens in his prison cell, goes to Heaven, and talks Superman
into coming back to life so he can fulfill the prophecy of saving Krypton from
its civil war. So Superman’s soul returns to
his body, and he proceeds to trash Ty-Zor and his cronies. And at the end of
the film, Superman flies off in a rocket to save Krypton (which is where the second
film is planned to take place).
6. A dialogue scene at The Daily Planet implies that Jimmy Olsen—a horny skirt-chaser
in the comic books—is gay, as Abrams describes him as "effeminate" and Perry White rags
on him for having a boyfriend.

I read that all these ideas (also the last idea) had John Peters.

And McG also wanted kung-fu fight for Superman.

Ratner wanted Krypton to stay alive.

Other ideas were also from Abrams.

[Weadazoid]

I think a large part of the problem with alot of the new superman ideas from the late 90's was they felt for whatever misguided reason there was need to reinvent Superman.


We should all be gald that Singer vision really didn' reinvent him in anyway so much and that he decided what was really neededwas to go back to the first 2 films and draw from them

I think part of the reinvent idea came out of what Burton did for batman, but really Superman is oh so different. He needs to have the classic unfirom, with no armor no wierd suit in a can, I mean all of that was for the reinvent and thank god the WB never actualy green lighted any of it.

DC fans may hate to hear this but I think Marvel films had alot to do with this recent idea that the character doesn't need to be that reinvented, I mean Spiderman doesn't have Armor, and his gear is an exact replication of the comics so why shouldn't Superman have that same feel.

[That-Guy]

Yeah, those Abrams/McG/Peters/Ratner/Burton Superman ideas were HORRIBLE, whether you're talking about the Superman Lives project of the 90's or the "reinvention" of Superman from a few years back. I feel bad for Kevin Smith because apparently, in his original "Superman Lives" draft, he stayed very faithful to the comic books before Peters went medieval on it and forced him to add giant spiders and polar bears and such. Does anyone know if a copy of Smith's pre-Peters script exist online somewhere? I'd be interested in reading it and seeing what could have been.

I think the biggest problem right now with adaptations right now is this... Hollywood has such a complete lack of originality these days that they're going back and remaking everything, only they don't want to be accused of rehashing the past, so they feel a need to "reinvent" everything. That can work some of the time if it is a story that isn't all that particularly memorable or iconic. But Superman? You can't GET anymore iconic than that. EVERYONE knows Krypton is supposed to be destroyed. EVERYONE knows Lex Luthor is 100% human.

While it may have been interesting to see a new origin style Superman movie, I think we all can agree that there's also a good chance that it would have felt old and tired. I mean, Donner already nailed this perfectly, and whether you're talking about pre-Crisis or post-Crisis Superman, let's face it... the origins are similar enough that they really wouldn't have felt that different. The only reason Nolan's reboot of Batman worked was because Burton's original Batman film didn't delve nearly as deep into his origins as it should have. It still left a lot of things up to speculation. What kind of mental anguish did his childhood trauma cause him? Did he make the decision to fight crime right then and there, or did it take years of wandering aimlessly until he found his purpose? Where did he get all of his training? How did he gain such detective skills? Where did he learn to build all of these fantastic gadgets and vehicles? Those of us who read the comics know, obviously... and I suppose anyone with a brain could figure it out... but its still better to actually see these things take shape onscreen. It gives a sense of completion instead of sitting there wondering if all of these scenes were filmed but wound up on the cutting room floor just so Burton could give Nicholson maximum screentime.

[Weadazoid]

Yeah, those Abrams/McG/Peters/Ratner/Burton Superman ideas were HORRIBLE, whether you're talking about the Superman Lives project of the 90's or the "reinvention" of Superman from a few years back. I feel bad for Kevin Smith because apparently, in his original "Superman Lives" draft, he stayed very faithful to the comic books before Peters went medieval on it and forced him to add giant spiders and polar bears and such. Does anyone know if a copy of Smith's pre-Peters script exist online somewhere? I'd be interested in reading it and seeing what could have been.

I think the biggest problem right now with adaptations right now is this... Hollywood has such a complete lack of originality these days that they're going back and remaking everything, only they don't want to be accused of rehashing the past, so they feel a need to "reinvent" everything. That can work some of the time if it is a story that isn't all that particularly memorable or iconic. But Superman? You can't GET anymore iconic than that. EVERYONE knows Krypton is supposed to be destroyed. EVERYONE knows Lex Luthor is 100% human.

While it may have been interesting to see a new origin style Superman movie, I think we all can agree that there's also a good chance that it would have felt old and tired. I mean, Donner already nailed this perfectly, and whether you're talking about pre-Crisis or post-Crisis Superman, let's face it... the origins are similar enough that they really wouldn't have felt that different. The only reason Nolan's reboot of Batman worked was because Burton's original Batman film didn't delve nearly as deep into his origins as it should have. It still left a lot of things up to speculation. What kind of mental anguish did his childhood trauma cause him? Did he make the decision to fight crime right then and there, or did it take years of wandering aimlessly until he found his purpose? Where did he get all of his training? How did he gain such detective skills? Where did he learn to build all of these fantastic gadgets and vehicles? Those of us who read the comics know, obviously... and I suppose anyone with a brain could figure it out... but its still better to actually see these things take shape onscreen. It gives a sense of completion instead of sitting there wondering if all of these scenes were filmed but wound up on the cutting room floor just so Burton could give Nicholson maximum screentime.

I agree with you 100% that guy I feel bad for kevin as well, it seemed he had some pretty good ideas, and I liked the fact he wanted to bring in Brainack stragiht away.

I find it oh so hillarious that Peters didn't know who Kal El was.... nor did he know that Krypton blew up. Supermans robotic guards.. COME ON

[Dr. Fate]

I'd want this guy to direct
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e201/Clarkparker/MightyMouse.jpg

[That-Guy]

I agree with you 100% that guy I feel bad for kevin as well, it seemed he had some pretty good ideas, and I liked the fact he wanted to bring in Brainack stragiht away.

I find it oh so hillarious that Peters didn't know who Kal El was.... nor did he know that Krypton blew up. Supermans robotic guards.. COME ON


Yeah, well... Peters might be the biggest moron in Hollywood. And in a land populated by Michael Bay, Chris Columbus and Paul Walker, that's saying a lot.

[Showtime]

Yeah, well... Peters might be the biggest moron in Hollywood. And in a land populated by Michael Bay, Chris Columbus and Paul Walker, that's saying a lot.

Heh Heh...Paul Walker.

[Weadazoid]

Yeah, well... Peters might be the biggest moron in Hollywood. And in a land populated by Michael Bay, Chris Columbus and Paul Walker, that's saying a lot.

the thing that is hardest for me tobeleive is this guy Peters actualy had a big hand in Batman...

I mean... I guess that explains Jokers dance number

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You couldn't resist it, could you? Unbreakable's realistic feel "put the supposed realism of the X-Men movies and Batman Begins to shame" because it was SUPPOSED to be more realistic. Shayamalan was making a movie about a regular guy in the real world who finds out that superhero myth isn't just a work of fiction. Batman Begins and X-Men were placed in a real world type setting as well, but both film franchises were attempting to adhere to a separate world that exists in comic books. There is no Gotham City in the real world. In the real world, the Government is not having debates about what to do with mutants (well, maybe George W. Bush is). Nolan and Singer, while taking some liberties, were attempting to adapt largely unrealistic comic book stories and make them as real and relatable as possible while still staying true to the source material (although I'm sure that you didn't feel they did that). Shayamalan was creating an original, human phenomenon drama based on comic book and superhero mythology but was not actually confined to the guidelines of a typical movie based on a comic book. They're two completely different things and all three films, in my opinion (and many other people's as well) are all very well-made pictures.I felt that Batman Begins stayed pretty close to the source material and was a very good movie. X-Men is a completely different other story though! You'll be shocked to know that the biggest problem I had, with the first one especially, is the fact that half of the actors were miscast, the story was pure silliness (IMHO Spider-Man is a more simplistic character, and story so his storylines can be sillier) the action was very poorly directed, and (This is mostly the studio's fault but HellBoy and The Blade films had lower budgets than both X-films and still looked good) the movie looked cheap.

Let me be honest: Personally I don't want all comicbook movies to be realistic like some people do and I for one wanted the X-Men movies to be better and more fantasic movies than they are. That being said, I don't rate movies by how close they stay to the comics I rate them based on how good they are to me, period. To me some of Singers idea's just screamed, I DON'T HAVE AN IMAGENATION!!! thats why I think that this new Superman movie is doomed to be slightly above adverage like X-Men or FF, or still not good enough, like X2. So I guess I don't totally agree with "many people"

I hope that I am sorely mistaken about Superman Returns. I hope that the film rocks the casbah and that I have to come into a Superman review thread and bow before it's movie greatness.

Yes That-Guy! I couldn't resist coming into this thread and saying that Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan are less than perfect directors! You really nailed it:rolleyes:

BTW I think that Nolan is a very fine director and I liked most of the X-Men movies. Excuse me if I have different standards than you.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

First Kill Bill sucks BUT the second is good. Know lets back on topic with Superman and leave Ninja chicks who wear crappy yellow suites for later shall we?I liked both movies.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I liked them both, but the second one was so much better, which was a surprise.

I was completely wrong about both KB movies beforehand. I had about a million reasons why they would fail, but they certainly didn't.

[Weadazoid]

Yes. That was the point. It was grand guignol. It was gothic romanticism at it's best. I mean, the script is already a twisted love story encompassing grisly murders. Scott juxtaposed the beauty of the love story and Italy with the carnage and Lecter's almost complacent treatment of the subject. I'd much rather have that then something by-the-numbers and pedestrian.

Also, if I like Gore for the sake of Gore then Hannibal wouldn't be at the top of my list. Movies like Saw, Saw II, House of 1000 corpses, and Hostel would be up there. Hannibal treated the subject matter like a dark comedy and crafted a strange love affair. It certainly wasn't gore for the sake of gore. Silence of the Lambs had its fair share of gore too. Feeding a guy his own brain or stripping off someone else's face and wearing it. Both seem pretty disgusting to me.



But see... the face thing was brilliant it showed how increadibly smart Lector was, showed how he could lower his heart rate to a flutter and get out of that brid cage

There was nothing cunning about feeding a man his own brain nothing cunning about his escape from the pigs nor the victims death from his own pigs.

To place a killer like Lecter in the same light as a man like the Jig Saw killer is repulsive IMO

Don't get me wrong I loved Saw but Lecter should be treated as something very different.

Take for instance the Tooth Fairys capture and subsequent torture of the reproter in Phillip Seymore Hoffman.

that was some how much on the same level as something created in Silence there was a true sense of agony for him, the idea of being glued down.. to a chair the idea of the Tooth fairy showing him those grisly movies it was ...Brilliant dare I say more combabtative and uncomfortable then anything we saw Wild Bill do to the girl in the well, because it was psychological. It was all about his trasformation, much like Bill wanted to trasfrom into a woman... but couldn't.

The one thing the mvoei didn't quite convey that the book did, but this in a movie would require the NC 17 rateing was the fact that tooth fairy made those movies and then used them in a masturbatory fashion, as in that was the only way his twisted mind could possibly have gratification, hence the extream hesitation with the blind woman.

[Red X]

Would the next movie be called...

Superman Forever?

[Red X]

Edit.

[Red X]

Edit again

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Yeah, these filmmakers shoot themselves in the foot with these self-aware verb titles. Now they have to have all of their following titles in similiar fashion. It severly limits their options.

Just as long as it isn't 'Superman Still Here' as jokingly reported today.

[Showtime]

Yeah, these filmmakers shoot themselves in the foot with these self-aware verb titles. Now they have to have all of their following titles in similiar fashion. It severly limits their options.

Just as long as it isn't 'Superman Still Here' as jokingly reported today.

I assume it will be Superman with another verb after the title, just like the Batman sequel will be.

Personally I think that the horror movies should stick to the second word verbs, not superhero movies.

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Yeah, but what are your choices:

Superman Continues
Superman Endures
Superman Returns Again
Superman Overcomes

Those are all corny yet they're the best I can think of at the moment. I TOO wish superhero movies would simply be numerical, but it's a different case for Superman and Batman since they already have respective series out there. Could you really have called Batman Begins just plain Batman? Maybe they should have called it Batman : The Beginning or something similiar?

[Showtime]

Yeah, but what are your choices:

Superman Continues
Superman Endures
Superman Returns Again
Superman Overcomes

Those are all corny yet they're the best I can think of at the moment. I TOO wish superhero movies would simply be numerical, but it's a different case for Superman and Batman since they already have respective series out there. Could you really have called Batman Begins just plain Batman? Maybe they should have called it Batman : The Beginning or something similiar?

I agree, you run out of verbs after awhile. Your alternative are titles like:

Superman vs Metallo
Superman: The Quest for Redemption
Superman: The Man of Steel

Batman and Superman are exceptions to the rule because there already is Superman 2 and a Batman Returns.

Its a tough call with titles but in some instances they can help or hurt a movie. If you have an average movie with a title people can't understand it might hurt box office. There are exceptions, Indiana Jones and Radiers of the Lost Ark. Bad title, but the movie spoke for itself.

[Weadazoid]

I agree, you run out of verbs after awhile. Your alternative are titles like:

Superman vs Metallo
Superman: The Quest for Redemption
Superman: The Man of Steel

Batman and Superman are exceptions to the rule because there already is Superman 2 and a Batman Returns.

Its a tough call with titles but in some instances they can help or hurt a movie. If you have an average movie with a title people can't understand it might hurt box office. There are exceptions, Indiana Jones and Radiers of the Lost Ark. Bad title, but the movie spoke for itself.


Out of all of them I like Man of Steel best.

Quest for Redmption ..is eww..reminciet of Quest for Peace

[Showtime]

Out of all of them I like Man of Steel best.

Quest for Redmption ..is eww..reminciet of Quest for Peace

I would like to see them follow the life and death of Superman story arc and use that as a title:

The Life and Death of Superman

[That-Guy]

I felt that Batman Begins stayed pretty close to the source material and was a very good movie. X-Men is a completely different other story though! You'll be shocked to know that the biggest problem I had, with the first one especially, is the fact that half of the actors were miscast, the story was pure silliness (IMHO Spider-Man is a more simplistic character, and story so his storylines can be sillier) the action was very poorly directed, and (This is mostly the studio's fault but HellBoy and The Blade films had lower budgets than both X-films and still looked good) the movie looked cheap.

Let me be honest: Personally I don't want all comicbook movies to be realistic like some people do and I for one wanted the X-Men movies to be better and more fantasic movies than they are. That being said, I don't rate movies by how close they stay to the comics I rate them based on how good they are to me, period. To me some of Singers idea's just screamed, I DON'T HAVE AN IMAGENATION!!! thats why I think that this new Superman movie is doomed to be slightly above adverage like X-Men or FF, or still not good enough, like X2. So I guess I don't totally agree with "many people"

I hope that I am sorely mistaken about Superman Returns. I hope that the film rocks the casbah and that I have to come into a Superman review thread and bow before it's movie greatness.

Yes That-Guy! I couldn't resist coming into this thread and saying that Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan are less than perfect directors! You really nailed it:rolleyes:

BTW I think that Nolan is a very fine director and I liked most of the X-Men movies. Excuse me if I have different standards than you.

I never said they were perfect directors; only that they were good. Sure, there are things both of them could have done better, but perhaps another director who did said things would have missed out on other stuff.

Anyway, the only reason I felt a need to comment on your post was due to past posts you've made where you flat out attacked Singer and his X-Men films completely... back then it seemed like you didn't like ANYTHING about his movies... apparently your position has changed somewhat. Regardless, if his films seemed to lack imagination, I think it was because he was trying to blend realism with fantasy and also spent a lot of time developing the characters. I know that I'd much rather see a superhero movie where I give a crap about the hero versus one where I get to see some guy I don't give a rat's ass about throw cars at people. As for the story... what was so wrong with it? I'll admit, the "change humans to mutants" machine felt a little forced and silly, but everything else... the political parallelism, the character development and interaction... it was all well-done in my opinion except for 2 characters... Cyclops and Storm. These two were not only miscast, but also should have been much more central and interesting (Cyke anyway... Storm I've always found pretty dull, even in the comics). Other than that though... how can you say Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, etc. were miscast? Who would you have casted?
I will agree that Fantastic 4 was pretty bad though. It was almost like watching a plotless superhero movie. As I watched that film and saw the heroes and the villain wander around aimlessly because they didn't know what to do with their powers, I began to realize that this may have been a metaphor for what the screenwriter and the director did while making this movie. And making Dr. Doom a complete Norman Osborn clone (the villain story was almost word-for-word the same as Spider-Man 1) was unforgiveable.

[Showtime]

I never said they were perfect directors; only that they were good. Sure, there are things both of them could have done better, but perhaps another director who did said things would have missed out on other stuff.

Anyway, the only reason I felt a need to comment on your post was due to past posts you've made where you flat out attacked Singer and his X-Men films completely... back then it seemed like you didn't like ANYTHING about his movies... apparently your position has changed somewhat. Regardless, if his films seemed to lack imagination, I think it was because he was trying to blend realism with fantasy and also spent a lot of time developing the characters. I know that I'd much rather see a superhero movie where I give a crap about the hero versus one where I get to see some guy I don't give a rat's ass about throw cars at people. As for the story... what was so wrong with it? I'll admit, the "change humans to mutants" machine felt a little forced and silly, but everything else... the political parallelism, the character development and interaction... it was all well-done in my opinion except for 2 characters... Cyclops and Storm. These two were not only miscast, but also should have been much more central and interesting (Cyke anyway... Storm I've always found pretty dull, even in the comics). Other than that though... how can you say Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, etc. were miscast? Who would you have casted?
I will agree that Fantastic 4 was pretty bad though. It was almost like watching a plotless superhero movie. As I watched that film and saw the heroes and the villain wander around aimlessly because they didn't know what to do with their powers, I began to realize that this may have been a metaphor for what the screenwriter and the director did while making this movie. And making Dr. Doom a complete Norman Osborn clone (the villain story was almost word-for-word the same as Spider-Man 1) was unforgiveable.

I am not sure where all this Singer backlash is coming from. He reinvented comic book movies along with Blade and later Spiderman.

[skruloos]

But see... the face thing was brilliant it showed how increadibly smart Lector was, showed how he could lower his heart rate to a flutter and get out of that brid cage

There was nothing cunning about feeding a man his own brain nothing cunning about his escape from the pigs nor the victims death from his own pigs.
No. Instead of cunning it showed how far Lecter would go to torture the man that disgraced the woman of his infatuations.


To place a killer like Lecter in the same light as a man like the Jig Saw killer is repulsive IMO
I did not. I specifically used the example as opposites. I said that if I wanted to watch gore for the sake of gore, I'd watch something like Saw therefore implying that I did not think Hannibal was for the sake of gore.


that was some how much on the same level as something created in Silence there was a true sense of agony for him, the idea of being glued down.. to a chair the idea of the Tooth fairy showing him those grisly movies it was ...Brilliant dare I say more combabtative and uncomfortable then anything we saw Wild Bill do to the girl in the well, because it was psychological. It was all about his trasformation, much like Bill wanted to trasfrom into a woman... but couldn't.
Again, that's because of the type of subject matter. The brains eating part was not to be cunning or about agony. It was an act of revenge and a symbol of love, albeit in a psychotic way.

[bgshw44]

I Want Donner if Singer cant do it, but he will!

[explode7]

Are you guys forgetting Ang Lee. He would make another great director. What do u guys think.

[Showtime]

Are you guys forgetting Ang Lee. He would make another great director. What do u guys think.

I think Ang Lee has a real talent for character devolpment in some instances but I don't know if he can capture the character of Superman.

[The Punisher]

Let Ang be with Hulk, i don't see him for a Superman director IMO.

[Showtime]

Let Ang be with Hulk, i don't see him for a Superman director IMO.

I agree, let him try to figure out why he went wrong with the animated hulk in the first version.

[The Punisher]

My point exactly.

[myword]

Who else but Michael Bay?

[The Game]

There are only 4 guys that I would like to see:

-Bay
-Mann
-Abrams
-Senor Spielbergo

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

george lucas.

:o

[Cinemaman]

People why we need it, if Singer comes back.

Soon he will say it.

[The Punisher]

Who else but Michael Bay?

Bay would be ok, visually his movies are great.

[Cinemaman]

Bay would be ok, visually his movies are great.

Vissualy yeah, BUT his movies don't has intersting script.