The Official Choose A Director Thread

[GreenKToo]

martin scorsese.:oldrazz:

[Showtime]

I'm not sure who I'd pick for a director but I know that I'd want Bruce Timm and Paul Dini on board in an oversight position. I'm sick of Hollywood types who don't know the material rewriting it into something their little pea brains can grasp.

Whether that is the right move or not remains to be scene. If WB was willing to do that, they would have done that already. They like to keep their branches seperated.

[fabman]

DJ... DJ Caruso could pull it off!

[Antonello Blueberry]

DJ... DJ Caruso could pull it off!
And your opinion is based on which movie?

[fabman]

And your opinion is based on which movie?

I like his directing. Simple as that. I like his Disturbia. It's a fun movie. He focuses on the character without forgetting the suspense. I liked it. He's really and "old school" director, and the first in quite a few years to collaborate with Steven Spielberg. I mean, he's directing Eagle Eye, on a story by Spielberg. His projects just remind me of the good ol' 1980's blockbusters like Gremlins, The Goonies & Co.

[Excel]

JJ Abrams

[the norminator]

i would like a reboot with the next Superman movie. i enjoy Superman Returns very much but we need the start over just like Batman. Routh can still play Clark its not his felt what Singer did. if i had a say in the next movie it would be a mix of TAS and Dean Cain's Superman were Clark is the real person and Superman is just how he helps people. i have more but don't feel like typing anymore

[echostation]

Seconded for Excel's suggestion... dude you took the name right outta my mouth!

Rob Zemeckis would be great as well... James Cameron would bring the technical best side of Superman possible (I'm not saying he'd make a great film, but bar none he'd make the most visually epic and exciting one for SURE)

Ridley Scott, Spike Jonze

[bunk]

Maybe James Mangold

[raybia]

You didn't list my favorite in the poll.

That would be Brad Bird. He would be perfect for the type of Superman movie that I want which is essentially a live action version of TAS.

[bloodties]

I like James Mangold too along with Jeffrey Abrams and Sir Ridley Scott.

How about James Cameron? :wow:

[Cagefighterkip]

Robert Rodriquiz... use his Troublemaker tech from Spy Kids, Sin City, Grindhouse... just go all balls out, fun zone, cg backgrounds/settings as fun, crazy and imaginative as possible... giant robots, dinosaurs, other planets, bizzaros, etc. he could and would do all that for a small budget (the budget for sin city was like 40mill and that looked amazing for such a small budget)

[Jake Cassidy]

David Fincher

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I honestly hope Singer returns, but if he doesnt, i think Joss Whedon could do a great job, he is great at sci-fi and fantasy.

[Matt]

I honestly hope Singer returns, but if he doesnt, i think Joss Whedon could do a great job, he is great at sci-fi and fantasy.

But its not his type of movie. Whedon would be great for Fantastic Four or Wonder Woman...even Flash. Not Superman. Just because you're a good director, doesn't mean you're the right one.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But its not his type of movie. Whedon would be great for Fantastic Four or Wonder Woman...even Flash. Not Superman. Just because you're a good director, doesn't mean you're the right one.

True, but he often puts the right mix of humour, emotion, and action into his films, well, Serenity, and he has shown with Firefly his stuff isnt always dark.

Other people have suggested directors on here that have a history of making dark movies, so i dont see why Whedon but be so wrong.

Maybe we'll just agree to disagree on this one :cwink: .

[Matt]

True, but he often puts the right mix of humour, emotion, and action into his films, well, Serenity, and he has shown with Firefly his stuff isnt always dark.

Other people have suggested directors on here that have a history of making dark movies, so i dont see why Whedon but be so wrong.

Maybe we'll just agree to disagree on this one :cwink: .

I agree. Cuaron, Del Toro, Fincher, and other names people are throwing around are all wrong too. But Whedon is better for little quips and one liners and his very...unique...dialogue wouldn't really fit Superman.

[X-Maniac]

Del Toro is all wrong, too dark, he loves monsters and demons.

Whedon - i thought Buffy was too fluffy, and Serenity too dull and lacking action.

Spielberg could do the grand/epic sci-fi stuff, so could Jackson.

First we need a good script that has possibilities for action and character.

[Super Kal]

well, now looking back on what the Donnerverse has given us, yeah, I am sick of it.

It gave us a way to look at Superman fro a different perspective, but it's time to move on to other things. It's time to leave the Donnerverse in the past with the rest of the Pre Crisis era.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree. Cuaron, Del Toro, Fincher, and other names people are throwing around are all wrong too. But Whedon is better for little quips and one liners and his very...unique...dialogue wouldn't really fit Superman.

They all are indeed to dark, but Whedon managed to make a superb movie in Serenity with only a $39 million budget and it wasnt too dark.

If WB told him to restrict his types of dialogue i'm sure he could pull it off.

[bgshw44]

i would like a reboot with the next Superman movie. i enjoy Superman Returns very much but we need the start over just like Batman. Routh can still play Clark its not his felt what Singer did. if i had a say in the next movie it would be a mix of TAS and Dean Cain's Superman were Clark is the real person and Superman is just how he helps people. i have more but don't feel like typing anymore

that would be my nightmare. Superman is the real person, clark is the disguise. the only changes they need to make to the donnerverse is get rid of real estate lex and establish more of a coporate lex

[dpm07]

Know what would work on the big screen? The TAS Superman. It's an update and it's accessable by people of today who won't see it as campy silliness.. which is what a lot of S:TMP was.

Well said. I completely agree with you here.

That said, unfortunately, I don't see WB doing that on-screen. For whatever reason, they seem to want to distance themselves from the animated interpretation, which IMO is arguably one of the best interpretations of Superman or CK done yet.

[Cagefighterkip]

i have no faith in Superman sequel coming to theaters ever. no faith.

[GreenKToo]

With J.L. on hold I think M.O.S. is a real possibility now. If it happens, I hope its a reboot.

[I Am The Knight]

David Fincher

Okaaaaay....

[Dr. Fate]

Well said. I completely agree with you here.

That said, unfortunately, I don't see WB doing that on-screen. For whatever reason, they seem to want to distance themselves from the animated interpretation, which IMO is arguably one of the best interpretations of Superman or CK done yet.
Sad, really.

[mego joe]

that would be my nightmare. Superman is the real person, clark is the disguise. the only changes they need to make to the donnerverse is get rid of real estate lex and establish more of a coporate lex

They are both the 'real' person, just different facets of his personality. LIke everyone, he different depending on the situation he's in, however, unlike everyone else, the facets of his personality go to greater extremes than the rest of us.

[Doctor Baywatch]

They are both the 'real' person, just different facets of his personality. LIke everyone, he different depending on the situation he's in, however, unlike everyone else, the facets of his personality go to greater extremes than the rest of us.

I cannot see how "Clark Kent", a guy who has to hide his whole nature, is the "real person"?

That is the Superman I wanna see

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8056/supesvshulk18sq.jpg

[Mostpowerful]

Brian Singer.

[Mostpowerful]

I want more Singerverse please.

[hammy]

I cannot see how "Clark Kent", a guy who has to hide his whole nature, is the "real person"?

:huh: It's Superman who hides. He hides behind Clark. Clark doesn't hide behind Superman.

And anyway, he was Clark before he was Superman, if that makes sense. He was born Kal-El, but he wasn't really fulfilling his destiny as Superman (even though he was developing his superpowers) until many years after he'd been living as Clark. It's a difficult question and it has been discussed here at length. I tend to believe they (Clark, Superman, Kal-El) are all him, just different aspects of his personality. Like how a woman can be a wife to her husband, mother to her children and daughter to her parents. She's still the same person, but a different side of her personality comes out depending on the circumstances.

[Cagefighterkip]

Brian Singer.

huh good choice - but wait - no.

[Venom'sDad]

J.J. Abrams

[Cagefighterkip]

J.J. Abrams

considering his huge popularity, the action packed script he had, and IF (big IF) this gets made...

im all for it

[Antonello Blueberry]

considering his huge popularity, the action packed script he had, and IF (big IF) this gets made...

im all for it
Action packed but still not good.

[Cagefighterkip]

Action packed but still not good.

i dug it, just be a little more faithful to the comics

[DarkSuperman]

Peter Jackson or Steven Spielberg! :supes:

[X-Maniac]

Quite honestly, Singer would be seen as a risk by almost everyone, even though I'm curious as to what he exactly had in mind for the Superman sequels (curious what he had in mind when making the movie and what he later had in mind when forced to change tack with the new pitches later). I liked very much what he did with X-Men, not so much what he did with Superman. I don't think he'll ever return to X-Men either - he passed on doing the Wolverine movie so he's clearly moved on from the X-franchise.

[Mostpowerful]

huh good choice - but wait - no.

Yes.

[mego joe]

I want more Singerverse please.

OK, Bryan. We got it.

[Excel]

JJ Abrams

J.J. Abrams

:up:

Action packed but still not good.

It was very entaining but yet very seriuos; had a very spiderman 1 feel to it. Loved it; as good as itll get unless it is my story see the sig

[mego joe]

I cannot see how "Clark Kent", a guy who has to hide his whole nature, is the "real person"?



He doesn't hide his WHOLE nature. As Clark he's still a genuine good honest and caring man. He still works to help people and serve the public as a reporter. He has the same values and beliefs, that's all the same. He just acts on them through a different avenue as Superman than he does as Clark Kent.

Just b/c EVERYONE I meet doesn't know that I'm in a band and a musician doesn't mean I'm hiding anything, it just isn't pertinent. As I stated above. It's only pertinent for a select few to Know Superman's secret ID. Clark and SUperman are just the extremes of one man's personality.


That is the Superman I wanna see

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8056/supesvshulk18sq.jpg

I don't necessarily want to see him fight the Hulk, but I get where you're coming from with this, and I too would enjoy this SUperman.

[mego joe]

:huh: It's Superman who hides. He hides behind Clark. Clark doesn't hide behind Superman.

And anyway, he was Clark before he was Superman, if that makes sense. He was born Kal-El, but he wasn't really fulfilling his destiny as Superman (even though he was developing his superpowers) until many years after he'd been living as Clark. It's a difficult question and it has been discussed here at length. I tend to believe they (Clark, Superman, Kal-El) are all him, just different aspects of his personality. Like how a woman can be a wife to her husband, mother to her children and daughter to her parents. She's still the same person, but a different side of her personality comes out depending on the circumstances.

Exactly, nicely done. We all have different roles, but we don't change who we are when we change roles, nor are any of the roles fake and 'not real.'

It's not like when Batman dresses up as Matches Malone to actually have a completely fake identity.

[That'ssuper!]

From what I saw the first two films based on the Donnerverse had much more imagination than SR ever did. I don't know if it's necessarily a lack of modern ideas more than these films are too ancient looking to be continued.

[nintendo nerd]

Brian Singer.

[Mostpowerful]

Brian Singer.

Agreed. Bryan Singer, please.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

JJ/Bruce Timm team up ;)

[Showtime]

No Timm.

[Timstuff]

:huh: It's Superman who hides. He hides behind Clark. Clark doesn't hide behind Superman.

And anyway, he was Clark before he was Superman, if that makes sense. He was born Kal-El, but he wasn't really fulfilling his destiny as Superman (even though he was developing his superpowers) until many years after he'd been living as Clark. It's a difficult question and it has been discussed here at length. I tend to believe they (Clark, Superman, Kal-El) are all him, just different aspects of his personality. Like how a woman can be a wife to her husband, mother to her children and daughter to her parents. She's still the same person, but a different side of her personality comes out depending on the circumstances.

Very well said. That is a lot more in line with the concept of "post-crisis" Superman, and IMO that is the best version. It's not that Superman or Clark is a disguise. They are different parts of him.

I've always equated it to a "three Clarks" model. There's the mild-mannered reporter, who is the persona that he uses as a civilian in public. There's Superman, who's the walking flag icon that everyone admires and adores. Then, under both of those, there's the real Clark Kent. He's the guy who grew up in Kansas with super powers, and had to decide to use them as Superman. The "real Clark" is the one that very few people actually know. And I think that with that, there must be a lot of frustration for Superman / Clark. No-one can ever truly know him unless they know that he's both Clark and Superman, because the public "Clark Kent" and "Superman" are personas based on different parts of himself. That, IMO, would be a very interesting place to explore in a Superman movie.

[Doctor Baywatch]

I don't necessarily want to see him fight the Hulk, but I get where you're coming from with this, and I too would enjoy this SUperman.

Of course I don't want to see him fight the Hulk :cwink:
It's just the spirit I want.

And to the personality discussion. To me, "Metropolis Clark" is fake. It's just a mixture of information gathering, relaxiation/recreation & to have contact to humanity. With "Superman is the real person" I don't want to say that he should be an alien, but he should definitely be different from the "normal" humanity. I can live with the Kal-El/Clark/Superman thing, which is similar to the Catholic "trinity" concept, but post-crisis they said that Clark Kent alone and alone is the real person, he totally dismissed his kryptonian heritage and Superman is just "what he can do". So Superman was basically his "escape" and Clark Kent was this farmboy from Smallville who lived a yuppie lifestyle. Yeah. Just because Byrne wanted to mirror his own story as an immigrant in Superman. And this is Marvel-Style. THat's exactly what, for example, Spider-Man is (and please, I hope no one wants to tell me that Spider-Man is the real person :whatever: ).

[Lead Cenobite]

From what I saw the first two films based on the Donnerverse had much more imagination than SR ever did. I don't know if it's necessarily a lack of modern ideas more than these films are too ancient looking to be continued.

They aren't ancient looking imo. I think the crystalline technology thing works but Krypton doesn't have to be just an ice planet.

[Timstuff]

Of course I don't want to see him fight the Hulk :cwink:
It's just the spirit I want.

And to the personality discussion. To me, "Metropolis Clark" is fake. It's just a mixture of information gathering, relaxiation/recreation & to have contact to humanity. With "Superman is the real person" I don't want to say that he should be an alien, but he should definitely be different from the "normal" humanity. I can live with the Kal-El/Clark/Superman thing, which is similar to the Catholic "trinity" concept, but post-crisis they said that Clark Kent alone and alone is the real person, he totally dismissed his kryptonian heritage and Superman is just "what he can do". So Superman was basically his "escape" and Clark Kent was this farmboy from Smallville who lived a yuppie lifestyle. Yeah. Just because Byrne wanted to mirror his own story as an immigrant in Superman. And this is Marvel-Style. THat's exactly what, for example, Spider-Man is (and please, I hope no one wants to tell me that Spider-Man is the real person :whatever: ).

Thing that always annoyed me about the idea that "Superman is the real person" though, is that it doesn't really make sense. Clark Kent was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, so it only makes sense that he identifies more with human beings and the "Clark Kent" identity they gave him. When he thinks of himself, he would think of himself as Clark Kent first, Superman second. In the Donner Superman, I was never able to buy the notion that he'd lived his entire life as Clark Kent, and then after a few years in the Fortress, he stops being Clark Kent. That's like if you were an unknown actor who got a really great gig starring in a TV show, and you started using the character's name when you were outside the show, except for when you didn't want the paparazzi following you. I don't think that taking on the Superman mantle should have caused Clark Kent to change his self-identity, because that just doesn't make sense. It makes it seem like he's kind of crazy or something.

[Doctor Baywatch]

Thing that always annoyed me about the idea that "Superman is the real person" though, is that it doesn't really make sense. Clark Kent was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, so it only makes sense that he identifies more with human beings and the "Clark Kent" identity they gave him. When he thinks of himself, he would think of himself as Clark Kent first, Superman second. In the Donner Superman, I was never able to buy the notion that he'd lived his entire life as Clark Kent, and then after a few years in the Fortress, he stops being Clark Kent. That's like if you were an unknown actor who got a really great gig starring in a TV show, and you started using the character's name when you were outside the show, except for when you didn't want the paparazzi following you. I don't think that taking on the Superman mantle should have caused Clark Kent to change his self-identity, because that just doesn't make sense. It makes it seem like he's kind of crazy or something.

But he grows out. He is raised as a human being but when his powers develop more and more distance between him and humanity is there. It's not so important if he thinks of himself as "Clark" or "SUperman", but the "Clark Kent" who runs around in the office of the Daily Planet is not real. That is not his true nature. His true nature is Superman: His superhuman powers & his education given by the Kents & his kryptonian heritage make the :super: Which aspect is how strong - debatable. But he is not the mild-mannered glass-wearing Clark Kent. He doesn't need glasses, he has to hide his nature as Clark Kent.

[bgshw44]

But he grows out. He is raised as a human being but when his powers develop more and more distance between him and humanity is there. It's not so important if he thinks of himself as "Clark" or "SUperman", but the "Clark Kent" who runs around in the office of the Daily Planet is not real. That is not his true nature. His true nature is Superman: His superhuman powers & his education given by the Kents & his kryptonian heritage make the :super: Which aspect is how strong - debatable. But he is not the mild-mannered glass-wearing Clark Kent. He doesn't need glasses, he has to hide his nature as Clark Kent.

FINally!!! someone who gets it!!!!

[The Guard]

I think people who insist on "which side is real" are missing the damn point of the Clark/Superman angle. Neither can exist in his current form without the elements of the other.

However...

Clark Kent existed long before Superman, and Clark Kent created Superman, so Clark Kent is "real", and Superman is the "disguise", if anything. Superman is the means that allows Clark Kent to do what he's capable of without jeapardizing his normal life or the lives of his loved ones.

Don't mistake "Kal-El's powers" for "Superman". "Superman" comes from what Clark Kent learned, and how he's applied it.

[Doctor Baywatch]

I think people who insist on "which side is real" are missing the damn point of the Clark/Superman angle. Neither can exist in his current form without the elements of the other.

I disagree. Superman COULD exist without Clark.

However...

Clark Kent existed long before Superman, and Clark Kent created Superman, so Clark Kent is "real", and Superman is the "disguise", if anything. Superman is the means that allows Clark Kent to do what he's capable of without jeapardizing his normal life or the lives of his loved ones.

Don't mistake "Kal-El's powers" for "Superman". "Superman" comes from what Clark Kent learned, and how he's applied it.

When he is Superman he can show his true nature, when he is Clark Kent (I am talking about the Metropolis Clark) he hides what he is. As he gets older he had to lern - painfully - that he will never be a true human being. That's what made Superman so great. He is not some guy who puts on a costume and plays a role - Superman's personality is just who he is.

[The Guard]

Sure, "Metropolis Clark" is an act, or a guise. But the real Clark Kent still exists. It is his motivations and methods that drive both Metropolis Clark and Superman. And it has been this way since he was created. It was always Clark that created the concept of Superman to allow him to do good, not the other way around.

Now, if Superman gave up on living a human life, he could pretend he was no longer called Clark, but he would still BE Clark Kent, or what we have come to know as Clark Kent, unless he abandoned Clark Kent's ideals...at which point, this would all be moot, as he would cease being recognizeable as "Superman". He would still have to have Clark Kent's ideals and goals. How does simply being called "Superman" or dressed as Superman reflect on him showing his true nature?

That nature was taught to him, by the way. By the Kents. They taught it to Clark.

I mean, I get that you all like this "alienation" thing, but that's not the reality of the situation, and the comics don't bear that out. It always comes back to Clark and his humanity. Unless you prefer the more or less depthless Superman comics of the 30's and 40's.

[Doctor Baywatch]

We could discuss about this for eternity. ;)

What's important for me? When I read Superman when I was young I've never got the impression that this Clark "mildmannered" Kent is real. To me it was always Superman.

People who watched "Lois & Clark" might have another view.

:cwink:

[Doctor Baywatch]

I mean, I get that you all like this "alienation" thing, but that's not the reality of the situation, and the comics don't bear that out. It always comes back to Clark and his humanity. Unless you prefer the more or less depthless Superman comics of the 30's and 40's.

it's not so much the "alienation" (but this is one good point, too). If Superman were the disguise then this iconic figure, the greatest superhero on earth, would be a lie.

[Mostpowerful]

OK, Bryan. We got it.

:huh: Can you read well? My name is Mostpowerful.
You seem to be implying that I should stop expressing my opinion. Why? Are you going to stop expressing yours? Don't treat me like a child, please.

[Mostpowerful]

But he grows out. He is raised as a human being but when his powers develop more and more distance between him and humanity is there. It's not so important if he thinks of himself as "Clark" or "SUperman", but the "Clark Kent" who runs around in the office of the Daily Planet is not real. That is not his true nature. His true nature is Superman: His superhuman powers & his education given by the Kents & his kryptonian heritage make the :super: Which aspect is how strong - debatable. But he is not the mild-mannered glass-wearing Clark Kent. He doesn't need glasses, he has to hide his nature as Clark Kent.

Exactly. Very well said.

[Timstuff]

Sure, "Metropolis Clark" is an act, or a guise. But the real Clark Kent still exists. It is his motivations and methods that drive both Metropolis Clark and Superman. And it has been this way since he was created. It was always Clark that created the concept of Superman to allow him to do good, not the other way around.

Now, if Superman gave up on living a human life, he could pretend he was no longer called Clark, but he would still BE Clark Kent, or what we have come to know as Clark Kent, unless he abandoned Clark Kent's ideals...at which point, this would all be moot, as he would cease being recognizeable as "Superman". He would still have to have Clark Kent's ideals and goals. How does simply being called "Superman" or dressed as Superman reflect on him showing his true nature?

That nature was taught to him, by the way. By the Kents. They taught it to Clark.

I mean, I get that you all like this "alienation" thing, but that's not the reality of the situation, and the comics don't bear that out. It always comes back to Clark and his humanity. Unless you prefer the more or less depthless Superman comics of the 30's and 40's.

Yay, someone understands! :D

"Metropolis Clark" and "Superman" are both disguises for the real Clark Kent. Both of them, in reality, are just characters. Superman is an ideal; an icon. However, Superman can't open up to people, or share his thoughts or pains. That would be showing too much of the humanity that the Kents taught him, and Superman wouldn't really be very super anymore. And the bumbling reporter at the Daily Planet is just a character to keep people from figuring out the Clark / Superman connection. The real Clark Kent is the one that few people get the privilege of knowing, because to truly know Clark Kent, you have to know both his Kryptonian and Human traits. However, he can't show people both at the same time when he's either Metropolis Clark or Superman, and that's why the real Clark Kent is probably a pretty lonely fellow.

[The Guard]

it's not so much the "alienation" (but this is one good point, too). If Superman were the disguise then this iconic figure, the greatest superhero on earth, would be a lie.

Exactly. Although Superman's actions still exist.

It's like Jesus. If Jesus turned out to be a fabrication, would that make the ideals he taught any less powerful?

[mego joe]

I think people who insist on "which side is real" are missing the damn point of the Clark/Superman angle. Neither can exist in his current form without the elements of the other.

However...

Clark Kent existed long before Superman, and Clark Kent created Superman, so Clark Kent is "real", and Superman is the "disguise", if anything. Superman is the means that allows Clark Kent to do what he's capable of without jeapardizing his normal life or the lives of his loved ones.

Don't mistake "Kal-El's powers" for "Superman". "Superman" comes from what Clark Kent learned, and how he's applied it.

Great post!

[DavidTyler]

Yay, someone understands! :D

"Metropolis Clark" and "Superman" are both disguises for the real Clark Kent. Both of them, in reality, are just characters. Superman is an ideal; an icon. However, Superman can't open up to people, or share his thoughts or pains. That would be showing too much of the humanity that the Kents taught him, and Superman wouldn't really be very super anymore. And the bumbling reporter at the Daily Planet is just a character to keep people from figuring out the Clark / Superman connection. The real Clark Kent is the one that few people get the privilege of knowing, because to truly know Clark Kent, you have to know both his Kryptonian and Human traits. However, he can't show people both at the same time when he's either Metropolis Clark or Superman, and that's why the real Clark Kent is probably a pretty lonely fellow.

I like what both you and Guard said but I'd like to clarify one point of yours. It isn't that Clark is leary of showing his humanity while in his pose as Superman but, rather, he's trying to instill confidence so that those in need will feel he's there to protect them. To show his human 'feet-of-clay' to those he's trying to protect would be the same as a General showing his troops his own self-doubt. So his pose as Superman while in view of the general public is more so for them than to hide any part of himself.

And, yeah, I think the real Clark is the most interesting part of the character.

[The Guard]

Exactly. Well said.

[Thomas Wayne]

IMO Lois & Clark nailed it perfectly. As he said in one specific episode Superman is what I can do... Clark is who I am. They have completely gotten away from Clark with the Donner Universe.

[Mostpowerful]

IMO Lois & Clark nailed it perfectly. As he said in one specific episode Superman is what I can do... Clark is who I am. They have completely gotten away from Clark with the Donner Universe.

:whatever: Lois and Clark? Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

[Thomas Wayne]

So you want Clark to be emotionless like he was in Returns. At least in Lois & Clark he had some personality.

[bgshw44]

:whatever: Lois and Clark? Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

i second that

[Doctor Baywatch]

"Lois & Clark" was a romantic comedy. That may work for a TV show but not for a big budget movie. There we need a Superman that is real, not just a disguise of a Clark Kent.

[Doctor Baywatch]

I like what both you and Guard said but I'd like to clarify one point of yours. It isn't that Clark is leary of showing his humanity while in his pose as Superman but, rather, he's trying to instill confidence so that those in need will feel he's there to protect them. To show his human 'feet-of-clay' to those he's trying to protect would be the same as a General showing his troops his own self-doubt. So his pose as Superman while in view of the general public is more so for them than to hide any part of himself.

And, yeah, I think the real Clark is the most interesting part of the character.

But for me Superman doesn't pretend anything. He is just what he is.

[StylishHokie21]

Yes....it's time to move on.

[The Guard]

Clark wasn't emotionless in SUPERMAN RETURNS. He just wasn't overt about his emotions. He repressed them a bit.

[Street Vendor]

My opinion: I grew up with the Donnerverse. To me, it is the definitive Superman. What I like about the first Donner film, and the best imitations of it(SII and SR), is that it takes place in what is recognizable as the "real world". It's kind of a "What if there was a Superman?" take on the character. Frankly, BATMAN BEGINS and the Nolanverse are very similiar in this regard.

Burton's Batman films, while good, have an artificial air about them that makes them seem like a live action cartoon. The beautifully designed Gotham looks like nothing we've ever seen in the "real world", and that takes me out of the stories a bit. I prefer seeing Batman and Superman walking around the streets of recognizable cities, and not what looks like an elaborate soundstage.

I think any Superman sequel should not negate what has happened before. The events of the previous films can go unmentioned, the style of filmmaking can change, but Metropolis should still look like New York, and the characters should still be the classical versions, not based on the John Byrne reboot of the eighties where Clark's personality became Superman with glasses and a suit.

[Doctor Baywatch]

But to make things interesting we have to step into more "unrealistic" territories. New villains like Brainiac or Mongul.

[Dr. Fate]

IMO Lois & Clark nailed it perfectly. As he said in one specific episode Superman is what I can do... Clark is who I am. They have completely gotten away from Clark with the Donner Universe.
I agree.

[Mostpowerful]

"Lois & Clark" was a romantic comedy. That may work for a TV show but not for a big budget movie. There we need a Superman that is real, not just a disguise of a Clark Kent.

Yes. Superman as the real identity, a demi god, savior, and Metropolis Clark as the disguise is more cinematic and supports the epic storytelling of the character much better than the "Lois & Clark" type of story, which is just a romantic comedy, imo.

[DavidTyler]

That's complete nonsense. We aren't 5 year olds.

The fact that 'Lois & Clark' was a romantic comedy on TV has nothing to do with who the real identity is - either in that series or on the big screen. We, the movie going public, are not that stupid.

Superman and Clark - while in the public eye - show different sides of the personality. I'd go so far as to say they are both masks. Superman and Clark in private are exactly the same personality ... and the bottom line is that they are both 'Clark'. Clark is the basis for the whole character. The Kent's didn't raise a son called 'Superman'. They raised a son named 'Clark'. They didn't raise him to be a 'superhero', they raised him to be a good man.

That is the bottom line.

So, again, that last bunch of comments are utter nonsense.

[Mostpowerful]

That's complete nonsense. We aren't 5 year olds.

The fact that 'Lois & Clark' was a romantic comedy on TV has nothing to do with who the real identity is - either in that series or on the big screen. We, the movie going public, are not that stupid.

Superman and Clark - while in the public eye - show different sides of the personality. I'd go so far as to say they are both masks. Superman and Clark in private are exactly the same personality ... and the bottom line is that they are both 'Clark'. Clark is the basis for the whole character. The Kent's didn't raise a son called 'Superman'. They raised a son named 'Clark'. They didn't raise him to be a 'superhero', they raised him to be a good man.

That is the bottom line.

So, again, that last bunch of comments are utter nonsense.

You may disagree but you have No right to imply that the people who think differently than you are stupid for thinking so (utter nonsense comment). We all have a right to our opinion, learn to debate, please. You can't imposse your ideas on others. We are Not little children.

[DavidTyler]

You may disagree but you have No right to imply that the people who think differently than you are stupid for thinking so (utter nonsense comment). We all have a right to our opinion, learn to debate, please. You can't imposse your ideas on others. We are Not little children.

just in case the point get's lost - here is the comment from me that he's responding to:

"The fact that 'Lois & Clark' was a romantic comedy on TV has nothing to do with who the real identity is - either in that series or on the big screen. We, the movie going public, are not that stupid. "


So, you're saying that We, the movie going public, are incapable of understanding the simple concept of a character exhibiting different traits under different circumstances..... ? I'm sure that isn't what you meant.

I wasn't calling anyone stupid... quite frankly, I was saying exactly the opposite. We AREN'T that stupid. In fact, we're all pretty sharp and I think those other posters are under-estimating the overall intelligence of the public.

[The Guard]

That's complete nonsense. We aren't 5 year olds.

The fact that 'Lois & Clark' was a romantic comedy on TV has nothing to do with who the real identity is - either in that series or on the big screen. We, the movie going public, are not that stupid.

Superman and Clark - while in the public eye - show different sides of the personality. I'd go so far as to say they are both masks. Superman and Clark in private are exactly the same personality ... and the bottom line is that they are both 'Clark'. Clark is the basis for the whole character. The Kent's didn't raise a son called 'Superman'. They raised a son named 'Clark'. They didn't raise him to be a 'superhero', they raised him to be a good man.

That is the bottom line.

So, again, that last bunch of comments are utter nonsense.

Agreed.

[Dark Knight]

Spielberg

Verbinski

Rodriquez

Ridley Scott


Are the ONLY guys I would like to see considered to direct if they don't bring back Singer.


I think WB's execs need to talk to each of them and to see what there take and vision would be for the sequel.

[Jake Cassidy]

Spielberg

Verbinski

Rodriquez

Ridley Scott


Are the ONLY guys I would like to see considered to direct if they don't bring back Singer.


I think WB's execs need to talk to each of them and to see what there take and vision would be for the sequel.

Out of those I'd want Rodriguez because he could get Carla Gugino as Lois Lane. :woot:

[El Payaso]

It was very entaining but yet very seriuos; had a very spiderman 1 feel to it.

That is predictable and made for children. Doesn't convince me then.

[turtlefocker]

J.J. Abrams

HERE HERE

[Matt]

:up:



It was very entaining but yet very seriuos; had a very spiderman 1 feel to it. Loved it; as good as itll get unless it is my story see the sig

Your script idea is bad and you should feel bad :cmad: :cwink: :woot:

JJ Abrahms is a great choice though. Let him write the script with no interference from Jon Peters and I am quite sure it will be amazing.

[SuperDaniel]

Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckys, Peter Jackson.

With a script by Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Mark Waid and Jeph Loeb.

[griffolyon12]

I personally want the next director to be someone who has never really done a big budget film before, because I feel that when small, more drama oriented directors do films such as these they seem to bring actual drama to the film, not just action.

[Dr. Fate]

That's complete nonsense. We aren't 5 year olds.

The fact that 'Lois & Clark' was a romantic comedy on TV has nothing to do with who the real identity is - either in that series or on the big screen. We, the movie going public, are not that stupid.

Superman and Clark - while in the public eye - show different sides of the personality. I'd go so far as to say they are both masks. Superman and Clark in private are exactly the same personality ... and the bottom line is that they are both 'Clark'. Clark is the basis for the whole character. The Kent's didn't raise a son called 'Superman'. They raised a son named 'Clark'. They didn't raise him to be a 'superhero', they raised him to be a good man.

That is the bottom line.

So, again, that last bunch of comments are utter nonsense.
Damn Right!

[Dangerous]

If Man of Steel ever happens, I just want to see Superman throw some damn punches in the next film!

We need the villains that are actually powerful enough to have fist fights w/ Supes! More fighting, less talking = winning formula.

[DavidTyler]

You know.. I've changed my mind... I'm going to come out strongly for a live-action Bruce Timm movie. I just watched Superman Doomsday again and it's a very good movie, true (pretty much) to the character, a lot of interesting characterization, and a damn good plot. The visuals are something that can be done and play well in a live-action film. I say give Timm a shot.

[Matt]

I personally want the next director to be someone who has never really done a big budget film before, because I feel that when small, more drama oriented directors do films such as these they seem to bring actual drama to the film, not just action.

But then you get someone like Singer who has no idea how to handle action scenes or manage a big budget. If Singer were more responsible with the budget of SR, you would be looking at the first set pics right now instead of debating whether or not there will even be a sequel. He wasted close to 15 million dollars on scenes that either didn't make it into the movie or served no purpose in the movie (the Matrix-esque bullet to the eye).

Plus, action isn't a bad thing. It is needed in a Superman movie. Drama is all fine and good, but without action you get a dull, boring movie like SR.

[Billy Batson]

Frank Miller. BABY!!!

[Billy Batson]

Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller.

0r

Zack Snyder & Bruce Timm

[Billy Batson]

The future sequels should be based on, or tied to Bruce Timm's / Smallville's Superman Universe. IMHO!
I Love Donner's Superman universe though.

[VenomsMom]

If Man of Steel ever happens, I just want to see Superman throw some damn punches in the next film!

We need the villains that are actually powerful enough to have fist fights w/ Supes! More fighting, less talking = winning formula.
I would imagine we would get that in the next flick.

[Superman90]

I liked Superman Returns and what Singer did with Superman. But if he weren't to return himself, I'd say, Spielberg.

[That'ssuper!]

If Man of Steel ever happens, I just want to see Superman throw some damn punches in the next film!

We need the villains that are actually powerful enough to have fist fights w/ Supes! More fighting, less talking = winning formula.

Hopefully not lacking the drama of a story in the meantime.

[Angeloz]

Bryan Singer.

Angeloz

[Angeloz]

Bryan Singer.

Angeloz

[CrazyDavey]

If Bryan Singer doesn't return? Peter Jackson!!! I wouldn't mind a 3 hour Superman film. Although, I wouldn't mind J.J. Abrams or Kevin Smith (without Tim Burton) either.

It would be interesting to see how Nolan would handle a Superman film.

[Superman]

I loved what Donner did for the live action superhero movie and Superman himself but IMO it's time to move on.:supes:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

But then you get someone like Singer who has no idea how to handle action scenes or manage a big budget. If Singer were more responsible with the budget of SR, you would be looking at the first set pics right now instead of debating whether or not there will even be a sequel. He wasted close to 15 million dollars on scenes that either didn't make it into the movie or served no purpose in the movie (the Matrix-esque bullet to the eye).

Plus, action isn't a bad thing. It is needed in a Superman movie. Drama is all fine and good, but without action you get a dull, boring movie like SR.

I just realized...that I love you. :heart: Sigh. Almost everything you write on this subject makes perfect sense.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Bryan Singer definately, cant see them getting anyone better personally.

[Dark Knight]

I would have to say that JJ Abrams would be an interesting choice as well at this time....

[Captain Planet!]

How about a Spielberg/Bay team-up? Hehe, we'd probably wind up with Shia LaBouf as Jimmy.

[Krug3r]

How about getting a realistic offer for a director? and start a petition? or ask for a reboot? or to ask Peters to step aside...lol

[Orin]

My vote goes to James Cameron. Maybe the fact that i just recently watched the first two Terminator movies (in my opinion, the best action movies EVER) again has something to do with it... ;)

[nintendo nerd]

Frank Miller. BABY!!!

uhm..... Frank Miller is a writer, not a director. :huh:

[NotFadeAway]

The Donnerverse is dead.....we should have a funeral!

[mythicalheroes]

Yes, I chose James Cameron to direct the next Superman Returns sequel. If he makes that decision. It depends if the director is great to do it.

[terry78]

Quit getting indie directors for big budget movies. Just stop. If I wanted to watch a two hour whine fest I'd watch Fried Green Tomatoes.

[fabman]

Chuck Russell
DJ Caruso

[Angeloz]

uhm..... Frank Miller is a writer, not a director. :huh:

Didn't he co-Direct "Sin City"? But I disagree with him anyway. All I say is "Dark Knight Returns" and even "All Star Batman & Robin". So nope on that.

Angeloz

[Angeloz]

The Donnerverse is a dead.....we should have a funeral!

A dead?

On the other hand there's always Miracle Max. ;)

Angeloz

[Superman2007]

Let Snyder adapt "For the Man Who has Everything" with a few minor changes to accomodate SR.

Then sit back and watch the money roll in....

[NotFadeAway]

A dead?

On the other hand there's always Miracle Max. ;)

Angeloz

lol good find......

[That'ssuper!]

It's time for a revamp of the Timm TAS series to make an appearance on the modern movie screen.

[That'ssuper!]

If Spielberg is willing to do it, he's my man for any movie. Then again what are the chances that he would be interested in Superman?

[Doctor Baywatch]

It's time for a revamp of the Timm TAS series to make an appearance on the modern movie screen.

no, as much as I loved the Justice League and Batman series - the Superman one sucked IMO.

[Super_Ludacris]

It's time for a revamp of the Timm TAS series to make an appearance on the modern movie screen.

What as Live-Action? Cant see it

[The_Beav]

This poll should be invalidated. The title asks one thing, the poll question is the reverse (and somewhat unrelated).

Am I sick of the Donnerverse? No

Should future sequels be based on, or tied to Donner's Superman universe? Based on above, Yes. But not necessarily.

[NotFadeAway]

This poll should be invalidated. The title asks one thing, the poll question is the reverse (and somewhat unrelated).

Am I sick of the Donnerverse? No

Should future sequels be based on, or tied to Donner's Superman universe? Based on above, Yes. But not necessarily.

The question is pretty cut and dry!

[Mostpowerful]

This poll should be invalidated. The title asks one thing, the poll question is the reverse (and somewhat unrelated).

Am I sick of the Donnerverse? No

Should future sequels be based on, or tied to Donner's Superman universe? Based on above, Yes. But not necessarily.

Exactly, it's very missleading.:whatever:

IMO, the crystal technology is awesome, they just need to bring a really powerful supervillain to challenge Supes in a way that we have never seen before on the big screen. More action and faster pace, while keeping the heart of the story as in SR and that's all!! A balance of story and action.

[Mostpowerful]

The question is pretty cut and dry!

No, it's not.

There are two questions as titles and they are totally different. It's confusing, and not every one may be reading all of it or paying enough attention.

[Timstuff]

The Donnerverse is an outdated dinosaur. It's time for post-crisis Superman to fly on the big screen.

[The Guard]

I see no reason why the Donnerverse and Post Crisis Superman elements cannot co-exist.

[Timstuff]

They can't co-exist because the Donner-verse is founded in pre-crisis Superman mythology, and a lot of that was changed with post-crisis Superman.

Batman Begins did not have to be held back by the Burton-verse, so I don't see why so many people insist that Superman be held back by the Donner-verse.

[Dr. Fate]

They can't co-exist because the Donner-verse is founded in pre-crisis Superman mythology, and a lot of that was changed with post-crisis Superman.

Batman Begins did not have to be held back by the Burton-verse, so I don't see why so many people insist that Superman be held back by the Donner-verse.
Chris Reeve Stigma perhaps?

[The Guard]

They can't co-exist because the Donner-verse is founded in pre-crisis Superman mythology

I believe I indicated that elements of each could coexist. Other than Pa Kent being dead, Luthor not being a corrupt businessman, and Clark mostly being the disguise (which I chalk up to a poor attempt at characterizing "real" Clark, how do you figure a Superman sequel couldn't utilize Post Crisis elements?

[bunk]

Guard, I saw that cartoon yesterday on xkcd and thought it applied to a lot of us on SHH haha. I didn't expect to see it as someone's avvy the next day.

[bgshw44]

Exactly, it's very missleading.:whatever:

IMO, the crystal technology is awesome, they just need to bring a really powerful supervillain to challenge Supes in a way that we have never seen before on the big screen. More action and faster pace, while keeping the heart of the story as in SR and that's all!! A balance of story and action.


agree 100%

[Dark Knight]

Let Snyder adapt "For the Man Who has Everything" with a few minor changes to accomodate SR.

Then sit back and watch the money roll in....



Snyder would most definitely bring it....I agree....the visuals alone would be stunning!

[NotFadeAway]

No, it's not.

There are two questions as titles and they are totally different. It's confusing, and not every one may be reading all of it or paying enough attention.

The two questions tie into each other fairly well, don't know what your talking about, homie!

[NotFadeAway]

No, it's not.

There are two questions as titles and they are totally different. It's confusing, and not every one may be reading all of it or paying enough attention.

The two questions tie into each other fairly well, don't know what your talking about, homie!

[Angeloz]

The two questions tie into each other fairly well, don't know what your talking about, homie!

Read the thread title then read the poll question. Yes for one would be no for the other.

By the way I didn't click an answer on the poll because I wait for a film to be made and see it before judging it. Theoretically.

Angeloz

[NotFadeAway]

Read the thread title then read the poll question. Yes for one would be no for the other.

By the way I didn't click an answer on the poll because I wait for a film to be made and see it before judging it. Theoretically.

Angeloz

Hey, I created the thread, another poster placed the poll there. I'm off the hook....

[NotFadeAway]

I have grown a nice stubble beard lately!

[raybia]

...That is, if Singer doesn't return? Which director would you truely think would be suitable for the job, and do tell WHY!?

I don't know why this director gets no love but I would pick Brad Bird: director of the Iron Giant and The Incredibles.

[NotFadeAway]

Peter Jackson!

[Nirvana]

Donnerverse was never really that interesting, unfortunately. It's just they for the fifth movie they should have just done a reboot like Batman...Poor Superman :(

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Quit getting indie directors for big budget movies. Just stop. If I wanted to watch a two hour whine fest I'd watch Fried Green Tomatoes.Thankyou. I for one am sick of this this movie is fine art sillinest. No it isn't, it's movie about a dude in a silly costume saving chicks and fighting another dude in a silly costume. It shouldn't be dark and grimey, unless it's Batman and I think that even he was taken too seriously in his last movie. The truth is, in the real world, none of these characters could exist! If Batman survived one night of bullet dodging (unlikely in that bulky rubber costume) he would have almost immediately been found out by the tabloids because he has a rep as a handsome playboy billionare. He would be sent to a psych ward faster than you can say Brittney Spears.

[Mostpowerful]

The Donnerverse Rocks!

[El Payaso]

Donnerverse is what made superheroes movies what is today and in the process it became its best more appreciated specimen.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Their chance to get the best director possible was Singer. With a reboot, I don't see them moving up in "name" status at least. Any chance to get a Cameron or Bay after already having Singer is not too likely. Not to mention the task seems even more difficult when someone who is a decent name did not deliver what is considered a "box office smash" Directors were already scared of taking over from Donner (which imho is silly, someone can do better) and now seeing the difficulty Singer went through, a big name? HMMM don't think so.

[X-Maniac]

The Donnerverse was fine way back then, and is still okay in many ways today. But I'd expect a modern movie about Superman to be...well... modern! To build upon the Donnerverse, not necessarily to contradict it. But there is much more to Superman's story than the Donnerverse, which is where Singer stepped on a landmine.

[Jochimus]

The Donnerverse was fine way back then, and is still okay in many ways today. But I'd expect a modern movie about Superman to be...well... modern! To build upon the Donnerverse, not necessarily to contradict it. But there is much more to Superman's story than the Donnerverse, which is where Singer stepped on a landmine.

That's 'cuz Singer doesn't read comics.

As I said before, I see all sorts of opportunities to sweep in more elements of the comics in the framework of S:TM, SII and even SR.

[presario]

peter jackson

[fabman]

Look @ what Jon Favreau is doing with Iron Man... AWESOME!

[El Payaso]

Look @ what Jon Favreau is doing with Iron Man... AWESOME!

I've barely seen a trailer and a plastic looking CGI aminated Iron Man.

I'll watch the movie before going Awe-some or Awe-ful.

[Dark_Lord]

I've barely seen a trailer and a plastic looking CGI aminated Iron Man.

I'll watch the movie before going Awe-some or Awe-ful.

The CGI looks better in the new trailer and it will look even better by the time it get's released. That goes for all movies. The're working on the CGI until the films release.

[Mostpowerful]

I've barely seen a trailer and a plastic looking CGI aminated Iron Man.

I'll watch the movie before going Awe-some or Awe-ful.

yeah, I think it looks fun so far, but that's it.

I hope the story is good, but I have a feeling that there are going to be lots of one liners.. and some juvenile jokes? ...Hmm, we'll see.

[Christmas]

I don't know why this director gets no love but I would pick Brad Bird: director of the Iron Giant and The Incredibles.

I would agree 100% if a new director was needed. :applaud

he's a great writer, brings a lot of heart into his films, and can pace great action.

[matthooper]

Gotta go with JJ as long as he gets writers who know and love Supes.

[superbaby]

Look @ what Jon Favreau is doing with Iron Man... AWESOME!
are you joking? at best the trailer looks moderate. and the story... just lame.

[markaudette]

This is the way I see it from my Fanboy perspective:

1. The next or new director has to drop the whole 70's era look Bryan Singer unfortunately carried over from the Christopher Reeve films. A minor complaint, I know. It's just time to get 'Supes into the here and now.

2. The next director has just got to GET IT. "Get It" just like Jack Kerouac could understand the call of the open road.

"Get's it" likes he owns it.

[Jake Cassidy]

Chuck Russell
DJ Caruso

Is Chuck Russell the director of 'The Scorpion King'?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't get the Iron man love. First off not very many people have seen the flick so you can't judge whether it's good or bad and IMHO it looks like everyother summer blcokbuster. I don't see one truely special thing in the previews. Now everybody knows (ofcourse they don't because everybody doesn't know me) I hate ultra serious comicbook films but I also don't dig the ultra silly ones like Ghostrider. The new trailer seems to be quite jokey, a little too jokey for my taste, I just see RDJ making lots of jokes and other silly looking things. Is the movie completely Transformers type silly nonsence or is it going to be light and have a heart? I really hope that the advertising departement is just screwing up because the movie just plain doesn't look good too me.

[Ultimate_Superman]

To be honest I would like for Singer to direct the new movie but just have different writers. IMO Singer is a great story teller and I think Superman Returns was a well made movie. Did it have its faults sure did but I think it was still a great movie.

[Jake Cassidy]

I don't get the Iron man love. First off not very many people have seen the flick so you can't judge whether it's good or bad and IMHO it looks like everyother summer blcokbuster. I don't see one truely special thing in the previews. Now everybody knows (ofcourse they don't because everybody doesn't know me) I hate ultra serious comicbook films but I also don't dig the ultra silly ones like Ghostrider. The new trailer seems to be quite jokey, a little too jokey for my taste, I just see RDJ making lots of jokes and other silly looking things. Is the movie completely Transformers type silly nonsence or is it going to be light and have a heart? I really hope that the advertising departement is just screwing up because the movie just plain doesn't look good too me.

If 'Iron Man' is anything like 'Transformers', I'll probably like it. :woot:

It doesn't look good, though. At least they got a good villain in Jeff Bridges.

[Captain Planet!]

I don't know why this director gets no love but I would pick Brad Bird: director of the Iron Giant and The Incredibles.
Iron Giant = Best Animated Movie ever :up:

[El Payaso]

Anyone else sick of the "Freddieverse" itself? :D

[Spade]

I'm sick of the "will MOS happen or not" rumors, that's for sure.

[Nightwing1977]

Exactly every episode of the superman animated series puts Superman returns to Shame i HAVE NO FAITH IN SINGER HE's A BORING UNIMAGINATIVE TURD WHOD RATHER DO IT HIS WAY THEN THE COMIC BOOK WAY:whatever:

Turn off your caps lock & stop whining over and over....spiderfreddie. It amazed me you still can't learn how to stop posting here with being banned more than once. Don't you have more important thing to do in life than posting on a forum where you got banned more than once? Seem like you will never grow up like Michael Jackson. :oldrazz:

[fabman]

What about Florent Siri?

(I know you're going to kill me for this :D)

Okay, there ya go, what do think about...

- Florent Siri
- Nick Cassavates
- Matthew Vaughn
- Joe Carnahan

???

[griffolyon12]

The "Donnerverse" is definitely getting a tad old now, I mean after five films done in pretty much the same style it does get kind of old.

[superhotwoman]

the donnerverse was a perfect launching pad for this franchise. however all they did was remake STM pretty much

[NotFadeAway]

Anyone else sick of the "Freddieverse" itself? :D

Are you making reference to the Nightmare on Elm Street remake? What a horrible idea, not only are they remaking a great film that doesn't need touched, they aren't even using Robert Englund, my choice for Morgan Edge by the way.

I wanted to cry during the Halloween remake:csad:

[Angeloz]

The "Donnerverse" is definitely getting a tad old now, I mean after five films done in pretty much the same style it does get kind of old.

Five films? I agree four of them had Christopher Reeve but they weren't in the same style eg. "Superman III" (especially the opening).

Angeloz

[DavidTyler]

Not only am I sick of the Donnerverse but I think it's holding the franchise back.

[Dr. Fate]

Not only am I sick of the Donnerverse but I think it's holding the franchise back.
I agree.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

As do I.

[PopcornPreviews]

I voted for Proyas because of The Crow: City of Angels.

Zemeckis would want to have all the characters be CG.
Burton would darken it to Hell, not to say thats a bad thing. If in the right context, like the 1989 Batman, it worked.
Guillermo Del Toro (one of my favorite directors) would "fantasize" it (turn it too much into a fantasy).
Spielberg would focus on the father-son scenarios - to the extent of audience depression.
Michael Bay would make it go boom.
Brett Ratner would have cameos near the start of the picture, but hardly have said cameo characters involved in the main plot at all.

Singer based his Superman for today's audience. He brought everyone up to speed on the universe, the mythos and had to do a bit of back-tracking, sacrificing the action and spectacle most audiences desire today. He did the same with X-Men: establishing the universe in Part 1 so in Part 2, as Hugh Jackman said "We know the world, we know the characters. Now we can just have a hell of a lot more fun."

Singer would have gotten my vote.

[CyrusGrissom]

How would you feel?

[Jochimus]

IMO we probably would have gotten more action, more elements from the comics and less of a romantic angle with the female lead...

Unfortunately, this also means that we would probably also have gotten Superman/Clark being uncomfortably close to Jimmy instead of Lois; nipples, buttocks and an enlarged codpiece on the Super-suit - ALL versions, as you know we'd have to have at least a dozen Super-suits appear in the movie so as to whet the toy fetish; a day-glo Suicide Slum and a Fortress of Solitude draped with glitter and disco-ball lighting; and Brainiac, Mxyzptlk and Metallo all in the same movie, with Metallo reduced to a mindless hulk repeating his own name throughout the movie and the other two villains doing nothing but spout awful puns over how evil their plans are. Oh, and he might throw in Supergirl for NO REASON except to draw in the kiddies, and then mutilate her origin in the process so that she's Lucy Lane given superpowers or something.

[charl_huntress]

Hmmm...I not really big on directors. What is Schumacher famous for? I'm sure I've seen a few of his flicks, but why do you think he would have been better for Supes?

[Matt]

Chances are it would've been better than a Singer-version.

1) Schumacher gave Warners what they asked for.

2) Schumacher is an incredibly talented and accomplished director, far more so than Bryan Singer.

3) If Schumacher had full creative control, chances are he could make a decent Superman movie. Hell, chances are with full creative control he could make a pretty damn good Batman movie being as the character-type and villain-type is right up his alley.

4) Insulting Shumacher is so 1998.

[Excel]

It woulda been cool. His visiosn for Bats were too kiddy and light for the character but theyd fit supes well.

[dude love]

2) Schumacher is an incredibly talented and accomplished director, far more so than Bryan Singer.


:sleepy:

I guarantee you if you took a worldwide census Singer would completely beat Schumacher in every category.

[Matt]

:sleepy:

I guarantee you if you took a worldwide census Singer would completely beat Schumacher in every category.

Who are you asking? Fanboys who are still angry over Batman and Robin or people who actually know the business? Its not a comment against Singer. Shumacher has been around a lot longer and accomplished a lot more. Anyone familiar with Hollywood will testify to that.

[NotFadeAway]

Peter Jackson or Joss Whedon!

[Matt]

Bryan Singer wasn't there so I chose Jim Cameron because he's able to provide a good sci fi story without stupid winks or stupid humour or mindless action.

I'd be very interested in Burton's twisted version but he's not the ideal director.

Really? Your ideal choice? I can get liking his movie, but IDEAL choice? There are so many directors better suited.

I agree with Cameron though. He would never do it, but if he did...it would be one of the most amazing movies ever.

I also won't mind seeing an out of left field type of director. Someone along the lines of Jon Favreau. Who would've honestly pegged him for Iron Man and all indications are, he has made an amazing movie. I'd like someone like that with Superman. Let me think of someone who fits that description and then get back to you.

[Excel]

A real outta left fielder would be Ben Affleck.

[Dropshot]

Guillermo del toro. The man knows how to make action scenes and take you into the mythology of a character. He would portray Superman as a demi-god, and not just guy who everyone accept that can fly and lift mountains without questioning it.

[Dropshot]

Guillermo del toro. The man knows how to make action scenes and take you into the mythology of a character. He would portray Superman as a demi-god, and not just guy who everyone accept that can fly and lift mountains without questioning it.

[spiderfan970]

Guillermo Del Toro would be better for Batman I would think...

For Superman I would pick someone like Zemeckis or Ron Howard...maybe.

Fallback on Spielberg....

EDIT: Irvin Kershner is an interesting idea as well...probably too old now though

[OzzMosiz]

Schumacher is actually a decent director. Sure Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were dire (which he also realizes), but he has made good films:

The Lost Boys
Phone Booth
A Time To Kill
The Client
Falling Down
St Elmos Fire (an 80s classic)

[Jochimus]

Schumacher is actually a decent director. Sure Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were dire (which he also realizes), but he has made good films:

The Lost Boys
Phone Booth
A Time To Kill
The Client
Falling Down
St Elmos Fire (an 80s classic)

Yeah, Joel Schumacher actually doesn't do too badly when he makes a movie that's NOT a comic book movie. Same for Akiva Goldsman.

[El Payaso]

Chances are it would've been better than a Singer-version.

1) Schumacher gave Warners what they asked for.

2) Schumacher is an incredibly talented and accomplished director, far more so than Bryan Singer.

3) If Schumacher had full creative control, chances are he could make a decent Superman movie. Hell, chances are with full creative control he could make a pretty damn good Batman movie being as the character-type and villain-type is right up his alley.

4) Insulting Shumacher is so 1998.


1) Batman & Robin for example.

2) Batman & Robin proves this point wrong.

3) Batman Forever didn't need to have such a crappy Anti-Two Face. I doubt Schumacher could have screwed that character so much without putting quite some effort on it.

4) Batman & Robin's crappiness can last far more than 10 years.

[Matt]

1) Batman & Robin for example.


Umm, yes. That is what Warners asked for.


2) Batman & Robin proves this point wrong.

Not really. Countless other movies prove my comment right.


3) Batman Forever didn't need to have such a crappy Anti-Two Face. I doubt Schumacher could have screwed that character so much without putting quite some effort on it.

It is what Warners wanted. A child friendly, happy meal selling, movie. Its what they got.


4) Batman & Robin's crappiness can last far more than 10 years.

Only to fanboys who can't get over it.

[hippie_hunter]

Schumacher is actually a decent director. Sure Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were dire (which he also realizes), but he has made good films:

The Lost Boys
Phone Booth
A Time To Kill
The Client
Falling Down
St Elmos Fire (an 80s classic)

I didn't like the Lost Boys and Phone Booth.

[SuperDaniel]

IMO we probably would have gotten more action, more elements from the comics and less of a romantic angle with the female lead...

Unfortunately, this also means that we would probably also have gotten Superman/Clark being uncomfortably close to Jimmy instead of Lois; nipples, buttocks and an enlarged codpiece on the Super-suit - ALL versions, as you know we'd have to have at least a dozen Super-suits appear in the movie so as to whet the toy fetish; a day-glo Suicide Slum and a Fortress of Solitude draped with glitter and disco-ball lighting; and Brainiac, Mxyzptlk and Metallo all in the same movie, with Metallo reduced to a mindless hulk repeating his own name throughout the movie and the other two villains doing nothing but spout awful puns over how evil their plans are. Oh, and he might throw in Supergirl for NO REASON except to draw in the kiddies, and then mutilate her origin in the process so that she's Lucy Lane given superpowers or something.

LMFAO.

[Clark Kent]

How would you feel?

Like putting a Walther PPK in my mouth.

we would probably also have gotten Superman/Clark being uncomfortably close to Jimmy instead of Lois; nipples, buttocks and an enlarged codpiece on the Super-suit - ALL versions, as you know we'd have to have at least a dozen Super-suits appear in the movie so as to whet the toy fetish; a day-glo Suicide Slum and a Fortress of Solitude draped with glitter and disco-ball lighting; and Brainiac, Mxyzptlk and Metallo all in the same movie, with Metallo reduced to a mindless hulk repeating his own name throughout the movie and the other two villains doing nothing but spout awful puns over how evil their plans are. Oh, and he might throw in Supergirl for NO REASON except to draw in the kiddies, and then mutilate her origin in the process so that she's Lucy Lane given superpowers or something.

:funny:.

His visiosn for Bats were too kiddy and light for the character but theyd fit supes well.

Uh ... what?

I didn't like the Lost Boys and Phone Booth.

I liked The Lost Boys.

Haven't seen Phone Booth, :o.

[Clark Kent]

My vote is split between Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, and Steven Spielberg. That's just in alphabetical order, BTW.

[I Am The Knight]

Like putting a Walther PPK in my mouth.



:funny:.



Uh ... what?



I liked The Lost Boys.

Haven't seen Phone Booth, :o.

I liked Phone Booth. Mainly because of Kiefer Sutherland. Great voice. :grin:

[I Am The Knight]

Peter Jackson! I wanted him for JLA, also. This is all fanboy dreaming, course.

[Clark Kent]

I liked Phone Booth. Mainly because of Kiefer Sutherland. Great voice. :grin:

Kiefer Sutherland's creepy psycho voice FTW, :grin:!

[smoothbody]

Peter Jackson

Spielberg

Those gentlemen know how to do epic films,witch SUPES needs to be!!

[Gotham]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37402

I couldn't find a thread on this anywhere. I'm extremely sorry if I'm posting what many already know. (:csad:)

[FlawlessVictory]

This seems to be new info, thanks. Doesn't WB learn? They already got burned with one Marvel director! :grin: I thought TIH was really good and I'm sure it could have been even better if him and Norton were allowed to release their longer cut. Would be quite interesting if this happens. Of course it all comes down to how strong the script is. I want Singer out, so if this means WB is looking elsewhere then this is good news to me.

Edit: I'm not too sure we can trust LL with his comments though. Didn't he say Captain America was going to be in TIH and that he would be releasing an exclusive to the internet showing this? He could be just goofing around with that comment (about Superman).

[charl_huntress]

This seems to be new info, thanks. Doesn't WB learn? They already got burned with one Marvel director! :grin: I thought TIH was really good and I'm sure it could have been even better if him and Norton were allowed to release their longer cut. Would be quite interesting if this happens. Of course it all comes down to how strong the script is. I want Singer out, so if this means WB is looking elsewhere then this is good news to me.

That was my first thought!

I'd like to see more concrete proof, but as usual I'll take this with a grain of salt until I hear some more official confirmation. Seriously though, all this buzz has got to be getting around. Makes me wonder why they are so quiet.

[Showtime]

If he was offered the sequel I wouldn't be suprised at all. However, keep in mind he rebooted Hulk...

[FlawlessVictory]

If he was offered the sequel I wouldn't be suprised at all.

So you think WB would be willing to swallow that money on the "pay or play" deal?

However, keep in mind he rebooted Hulk...

What does that mean? :csad: You don't think it was good, or referring to the BO?

[Showtime]

So you think WB would be willing to swallow that money on the "pay or play" deal?

They were previously looking for ways to get around this pay or play deal as I pointed out before. Giving Singer writing and producing credits on the film and what not. I'm not sure how that worked out, considering as recent as two weeks ago, I was told it was a go with Singer at a much lower budget then first talked about. Think Batman Begins and Hulk.

What does that mean? :csad: You don't think it was good, or referring to the BO?

No No No, I think Hulk looks fun. I honestly didn't see it yet. I am refering to the fact that he rebooted Hulk, it wasn't a sequel.

[FlawlessVictory]

No No No, I think Hulk looks fun. I honestly didn't see it yet. I am refering to the fact that he rebooted Hulk, it wasn't a sequel.

Ah ok, got ya.

[Showtime]

Maybe when brought in by WB he was offered the chance to direct several WB properties
with one of them being a Superman Sequel or Reboot. He was asked to pitch some
ideas possibly and maybe he chose to go with Titans instead or WB chose Titans for
him. It isn't as if WB hasn't talked to other directors as they have talked to writers. There is a lot of give and take going on behind the scenes. There were disagreements about writers as well.

[Superark]

I don't know how much I believe this. AICN is very shotty with its news. I think if LL was offered it was probably when they were thinking reboot.

Anyways, if it is true, WB is retarded. While I liked TIH, I don't think he's be right for Supes. I believe he'll make it too popcorn and not enough story. My liking of the TIH was mainly b/c of Norton, not LL.

[Showtime]

I honestly don't think it would be such a bad thing to tell you the truth.

[SatEL]

Ok this means they are looking at other options which is good, now all they need to do is drop this guy and confirm a reboot and I will be happy.

[Ultimate_Superman]

Where does he say he was offered the role?

[FlawlessVictory]

Anyways, if it is true, WB is retarded.

Will Smith as Superman, Jack Black as Green Lantern, the fiasco with the JLA movie, need I say more?

While I liked TIH, I don't think he's be right for Supes. I believe he'll make it too popcorn and not enough story. My liking of the TIH was mainly b/c of Norton, not LL.

Keep in mind though that LL and Norton wanted a longer cut for TIH, a cut that would have given the movie a little more depth. Marvel insisted on making the film as popcorn as possible and made sure to trim its runtime.

[SatEL]

I honestly don't think it would be such a bad thing to tell you the truth.

Transporter= Medicore pop corn flick.
TIH= Medicore popcorn flick

No thanks I dont think his the guy, can you imagine him taking over the reigns of Singers messed up universe gawdddd dammmmmm.

[FlawlessVictory]

Transporter= Medicore pop corn flick.
TIH= Medicore popcorn flick

LL is not writing the script though. Get some good writers that can write a great story and let LL handle the action in the film.

No thanks I dont think his the guy, can you imagine him taking over the reigns of Singers messed up universe gawdddd dammmmmm.

Honestly, I can't imagine anyone wanting to pick up where Singer left off. You are already painted in a corner.

[Showtime]

Where does he say he was offered the role?

It doesn't, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possiblity that they talked to him previously. They talked to a good amount of people at one point.

Transporter= Medicore pop corn flick.
TIH= Medicore popcorn flick

No thanks I dont think his the guy, can you imagine him taking over the reigns of Singers messed up universe gawdddd dammmmmm.

Wow. You would take Singer over him? I think my hair just fell out.

[SatEL]

LL is not writing the script though. Get some good writers that can write a great story and let LL handle the action in the film.



Honestly, I can't imagine anyone wanting to pick up where Singer left off. You are already painted in a corner.

A director also has to have the ability to push his actors and at times to improvise and nothing this guy has done has made me think his capable of pulling this of. Yeah Singers universe is a mess any director or writer would be hard pushed to turn things around, Reboot is the only way WB need to realise this.

[Superark]

Will Smith as Superman, Jack Black as Green Lantern, the fiasco with the JLA movie, need I say more?



Keep in mind though that LL and Norton wanted a longer cut for TIH, a cut that would have given the movie a little more depth. Marvel insisted on making the film as popcorn as possible and made sure to trim its runtime.


I wasn't aware LL wanted the same cut as Norton, thanks for pointing it out.

Perhaps he could do better with Supes than Hulk. I just know that when I went and saw TIH for a 2nd time, I wasn't very impressed as I was the firt time

[Ultimate_Superman]

To be honest this whole news sounds like that JLA news when people were saying that other actor is playing Superman instead of DJ and where one fan even went as far as for him to sign his comic book. I just think that is going on here; to be honest I am at the point where I think the WB should just hold off on Superman for a while and wait till there is a demand for him because right now I don't see one.

[SatEL]

Wow. You would take Singer over him? I think my hair just fell out.

Hell no but its Singers universe his mess and if its going to carry on he should complete his mess, Personally I dont want a sequel to see the light of day.

[Showtime]

I think that is pretty obvious.

[green]

Im already fearing what's gonna happen to Clash of the Titans with this guy, the only thing giving me hope is that script by Kasdan. The action in TIH was fun but that's about the only good I can say for the direction of that movie. If they are hellbent on getting someone other than Singer they better get someone good, jeez.

[SatEL]

To be honest this whole news sounds like that JLA news when people were saying that other actor is playing Superman instead of DJ and where one fan even went as far as for him to sign his comic book. I just think that is going on here; to be honest I am at the point where I think the WB should just hold off on Superman for a while and wait till there is a demand for him because right now I don't see one.

Whatever demand the public had for big blue died with Singerman, Superman can be brought back mainstream he just needs talented people behind him. I mean people thought spiderman swinging around like a pansy was cool just imagine a Superman done properly.

[El Payaso]

If Leterrer can do for Superman what he did for Hulk we'll finally get the Superman movie with little character development, lots of action that makes less money than SR. ;)

[I Am The Knight]

Um, I don't know...He wouldn't be my pick for any reboot.

His comments are vague anyway, but very interesting...

[Showtime]

I really think it is a case where they talked to this guy previously, but we won't know until somebody does some digging.

[El Payaso]

edit

[SatEL]

I really think it is a case where they talked to this guy previously, but we won't know until somebody does some digging.

Better contact those Inside sources you talk so much about.:yay:

[Showtime]

Better contact those Inside sources you talk so much about.:yay:

I don't need to, they'll talk about it to me first. :o

...and just so you know, the article was updated, and he says he was asked to direct Superman 2...

Leterrier indeed says that "maybe they have already asked me" about directing Superman 2.

[nintendo nerd]

I don't need to, they'll talk about it to me first. :o

...and just so you know, the article was updated, and he says he was asked to direct Superman 2...

Superman 2? The one Richard Donner didn't finish? Did they offered him the part before Lester?

[SatEL]

Superman 2? The one Richard Donner didn't finish? Did they offered him the part before Lester?

Lol his not that old.

[rdh007]

I'd be shocked if they offered him the gig or if this happens at all. Shocked.

[SatEL]

I don't need to, they'll talk about it to me first. :o

...and just so you know, the article was updated, and he says he was asked to direct Superman 2...

Superman2 being Singerman2 correct?

[GreenKToo]

Like him or not, the guy is very open to the fans. He even had a Q&A in the HULK forums.

[charl_huntress]

I don't want a crap director, and I hope WB isn't stupid enough to hire one. Yet, Since I don't want Singer all I can do is cross my fingers...so that is what I will do. I liked TIH. I don't know much about this director except "Transporter", and I thought that was very good...for what it was. I thought TIH was done well too. So, if he is choosen then I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.

[El Payaso]

Like him or not, the guy is very open to the fans. He even had a Q&A in the HULK forums.


............so?

[I Am The Knight]

If WB were to reboot things, I think we can do better than him... :o

But this guy was offered the sequel apparently, not a reboot.

[SatEL]

............so?

It shows he cares what fans think and goes through the effort of hearing their opinion, unlike a certain someone.:yay:

[GreenKToo]

............so?
Did Singer?

[TheComicbookKid]

If LL had taken it, it would have been the Donner,Lester situation all over again!!!lol.

Wasn't the end of Superman 1 supposed to be used in the sequel and the beginning of SR(Return to Krypton) might be used in the sequel?

So the budget's around 150million? Damn!!! Singer better get back to his X2 level of budget control and quality.

[charl_huntress]

I didn't read the update. Did he specifically mention sequel? Anyway, reboot or sequel a new director will catch flack regardless. I really don't have a lot of faith in WB, but prior to the finish results of SR Singer did seem like a good choice. So, I have some little faith that they will attempt to chose someone good. Rather everyone thinks so...meh...unlikely. That's why I won't complain about this. Screw it. If you want a reboot you have to take that risk...IMO.

[DeaDheaD]

Is Superman's only hope Marvel film directors?

[SatEL]

If LL had taken it, it would have been the Donner,Lester situation all over again!!!lol.

Wasn't the end of Superman 1 supposed to be used in the sequel and the beginning of SR(Return to Krypton) might be used in the sequel?

So the budget's around 150million? Damn!!! Singer better get back to his X2 level of budget control and quality.

SR was horrible in fact everyone I know hated it most people think its the worst film ever made, nobody I know wants a sequel and they all say Singer's chicken finger's are gross.

[batman44]

So LL may or may not have been offered the sequel. I guess my thought is this, is Bryan off the sequel or not or is it that WB is just looking for other options.

[GreenKToo]

I didn't read the update. Did he specifically mention sequel? Anyway, reboot or sequel a new director will catch flack regardless. I really don't have a lot of faith in WB, but prior to the finish results of SR Singer did seem like a good choice. So, I have some little faith that they will attempt to chose someone good. Rather everyone thinks so...meh...unlikely. That's why I won't complain about this. Screw it. If you want a reboot you have to take that risk...IMO.
He said Superman 2. Who knows if he means a sequel or a reboot.

His words exactly.
Leterrier indeed says that "maybe they have already asked me" about directing Superman 2.

[Superark]

If LL had taken it, it would have been the Donner,Lester situation all over again!!!lol.

Wasn't the end of Superman 1 supposed to be used in the sequel and the beginning of SR(Return to Krypton) might be used in the sequel?

So the budget's around 150million? Damn!!! Singer better get back to his X2 level of budget control and quality.


I agree

[Superark]

I'd be shocked if they offered him the gig or if this happens at all. Shocked.

Love the avi! "Feed em to the pigs errol"

[FaT_tONle]

LL would be pretty good for Supes... but Spacey won't be back if Singer doesn't direct. That's all there is too it. But I thought he was gdoing Clash of the Titans so I have no clue what this is all about. Plus I don't want a reboot this soon... not 2010... not 2011... more like 2015.

[dark_b]

i would understand if TIH would make by now 2 times =# money .but it didnt. i would understand if they weere talking about FAV. but this guy is like every other guy.
but at least we would get a superfight.

[Superark]

LL would be pretty good for Supes... but Spacey won't be back if Singer doesn't direct. That's all there is too it. But I thought he was gdoing Clash of the Titans so I have no clue what this is all about. Plus I don't want a reboot this soon... not 2010... not 2011... more like 2015.


That's what I was thinking. If I were to guess, I'd think Bosworth wouldn't be back either, thats if LL was going to direct a sequel and not a reboot

[Octoberist]

The thing about Louie as a director is...he hasn't been able to pull off any dramatic weight. HIs movies so far are very action orientated (that's why maybe WB is considering him) but I don't want Superman to be braindead.

While Hulk showed improvement in Louie's style and direction, it was still failry shallow stuff. Well, that was the plan from the very start for TIH right?

NOthing against Louie, but I don't personally think he's right for Superman.