Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion [Archive] - Page 20

FlawlessVictory

12-15-2008, 02:58 PM

I was watching the show Iconoclasts on the Sundance Channel the other day with Jon Favreau and Tony Hawk.
Favreau said making a superhero movie is "sort of a backward process."
When he made Swingers, the movie manifested itself naturally. He wrote it, got the funding, put together a cast, filmed it, cut it, sold it, then came up with a marketing strategy. "We came up with a poster, a release date and it went out. With a superhero movie, it's the opposite."
He said after the first one was successful, it was: "Iron Man 2. 2010. April 30. 'What's the movie about?' It's April 30. So now the clock's ticking. And the last thing you do is get the script right. And oftentimes, the clock runs out before that happens."
He said they have to do a lot of rewriting on the set.
Because of the lead time, he said, they basically have to come up with set pieces and almost weave the story around those, and "if you don't prioritize things properly, you end up doing just that."
He said he is scared because he only has two years to get it all done and he wants to make sure it's as good as possible because he cares so much about it.
At the end, he said "it's amazing [superhero] movies ever come out good."

So, if anything, it seems like WB is trying to not do that. It seems like they are aiming to get the stories right first, and then move on from there. At least that's what I hope. Nolan certainly seems to be doing that.

Favreau had a couple of quotes about TDK's script particularly the admiration he had for how Nolan didn't start filming TDK until he and his brother had the script absolutely perfect. So yea, hopefully WB continues to allow the time needed to get these scripts as best as it could be before it goes before the camera with these other superhero projects. You can tell the sense of pressure Favreau has and the feeling of being "rushed" and I would hate for that to happen to the next director who takes on Superman.

FlawlessVictory

12-15-2008, 03:01 PM

You have to be lucky and get a director(s) such as rami, nolan, or fav.to start with.
Someone that won't look at just one aspect of Superman, but the whole entire spectrum. A director that will try and incorporate all of Superman into a film(s).
Superman is much more than just the comics or the Donner films. He's an idea. Get a director that understands that and will hire like minded writers, and you would/could have a recipe for success IMO.
But you must start with a good director.

Agreed. I remember hearing interviews when Favreau was just announced as director and just listening to him talk about Iron Man throughout the years and specifically reference his approach in mining the character's history throughout the comics. It was such a great thing to hear. We need that for the next director of Superman.

GreenKToo

12-15-2008, 03:08 PM

Agreed. I remember hearing interviews when Favreau was just announced as director and just listening to him talk about Iron Man throughout the years and specifically reference his approach in mining the character's history throughout the comics. It was such a great thing to hear. We need that for the next director of Superman.
Yeah. you could tell the man was a fan and not just giving lip service. I liked that.

Double Down

12-15-2008, 03:10 PM

I know to most people who post here, the reaction was "Jon Favreau is doing Iron Man?" But to me, I was more, "Iron Man is Favreau's next movie. Cool." I've been a big Favreau fan since Swingers. I knew he would do a good job with Iron Man.

GreenKToo

12-15-2008, 03:23 PM

I am looking forward to knowing who gets the job directing, as I am in seeing who gets cast as Supes.(just in case it isnt routh)

BlackLantern

12-15-2008, 03:24 PM

Im neutral about Routh...if they bring him back fine, if they don't that's fine too

dark_b

12-15-2008, 03:27 PM

GreenKToo

12-15-2008, 03:35 PM

just because they wont make a superman movie in 5 years that doesnt mean it wont be rushed. tehy can wait 4 years and then in the last year they can rush everything.

looks like that now they have terminator in 2009 right? then they have harrypotter movies,hobbit and batman.
You are correct. Terminator, 3 more Harry potters, two Hobbit films, G.L., and Batman. They could take their sweet time with Superman if they so chose.

dark_b

12-15-2008, 03:37 PM

You are correct. Terminator, 3 more Harry potters, two Hobbit films, G.L., and Batman. They could take their sweet time with Superman if they so chose.good for them......bad for me.

GreenKToo

12-15-2008, 03:38 PM

Yup. I fear it will be awhile before we see him again. I hope not though.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-15-2008, 03:38 PM

^And as much as I want some news I believe that they should take their time. Bring on good screenwriters and a director and let them take as long as they need to develop the film. A good film.

GreenKToo

12-15-2008, 03:40 PM

^And as much as I want some news I believe that they should take their time. Bring on good screenwriters and a director and let them take as long as they need to develop the film. A good film.
I'd be all for that if we knew thats what was going on.

DChero

12-15-2008, 07:42 PM

I'd be all for that if we knew thats what was going on.
I'd be for that if they knew what was going on. It's been 2 years since they knew that statistical returns of SR, it's time for a decision. If they want a sequel it's time to tell Routh and crew to start hinting towards it. If they are going another way, announce writers and targeting dates. There's been enough time since SR to decide one way or the other.

Superman Prime

12-15-2008, 10:40 PM

I have nothing against them taking their time on this one. There needs to be no rush to decide everything right now. If they're being picky about the director, writers, cast, then that's good.

Man of Tomorrow

12-15-2008, 10:43 PM

Well they took their time with Superman Returns as well. It took them 14 years before going with Bryan Singer's approach.

Superman Prime

12-15-2008, 11:02 PM

Which, from what I've read, is better than the scripts proposed in that time. And we aren't going to have to wait so long again. They already know the general direction they want to take the franchise.

DChero

12-15-2008, 11:07 PM

I have nothing against them taking their time on this one. There needs to be no rush to decide everything right now. If they're being picky about the director, writers, cast, then that's good.
It's good to be careful, but two years is ridiculous to make a decision on that. Keep in mind they have been getting pitches long before Bryan Singer's was accepted. They should be able to decide on at least the release or continuation of Bryan Singer. By releasing contradictory information they look they're either slow or have internal differences. Remember that they only hire the creative team, they certainly aren't them. They worry about budget and returns. Over the last two years I'm sure they've had opportunities for good stories, but they haven't given Bryan Singer a yes or no yet. That's just unprofessional.

I don't want this to sound like I'm attacking anyone individually, it's just the collective decisionmaking of the character.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-15-2008, 11:11 PM

We don't know if they've given him a yes or a no, so none of us can say so.

Double Down

12-15-2008, 11:13 PM

Does Singer even know? I'm not even sure he does after reading his past three or four interviews.

DChero

12-15-2008, 11:21 PM

Does Singer even know? I'm not even sure he does after reading his past three or four interviews.
Well, if he knew where he stood he would have something to say. For example, if he was definitely in, then he'd be happy to clarify. If he was definitely out, then he'd simply move on. He's acting too carefully to show one way or the other. I assume this means WB isn't giving him any explanation. Like I mentioned before, I don't find it very professional in general.

Double Down

12-15-2008, 11:26 PM

Since the WB/DC Summit a few months back, we haven't heard anything. All information seems to be locked up tight. Some are surmising we will hear something in January. The New York Comic Con and the Oscars are the next two big events they could be waiting for.

Superman Prime

12-15-2008, 11:39 PM

It's good to be careful, but two years is ridiculous to make a decision on that. Keep in mind they have been getting pitches long before Bryan Singer's was accepted. They should be able to decide on at least the release or continuation of Bryan Singer. By releasing contradictory information they look they're either slow or have internal differences. Remember that they only hire the creative team, they certainly aren't them. They worry about budget and returns. Over the last two years I'm sure they've had opportunities for good stories, but they haven't given Bryan Singer a yes or no yet. That's just unprofessional.

I don't want this to sound like I'm attacking anyone individually, it's just the collective decisionmaking of the character.

It's not like we know all the implications yet. Have patience, and all will be revealed.

RachelDawes

12-16-2008, 12:16 AM

If WB waits too long this whole superhero movie trend will pass us by and we won't have our modern Superman trilogy. :csad:

Superman Prime

12-16-2008, 12:38 AM

Naw. The superhero film phase is here to stay.

DChero

12-16-2008, 03:44 AM

Naw. The superhero film phase is here to stay.
I'd like to think that, but we're in a phase of utilizing previous interpretations of stories. Things like books, older television shows, and reimaginings are the trend. I'd like to believe that comic characters are here to stay, but there's no assurance to it. Hancock is a good example of where these movies end up when we've seen our share of characters that we know so well.

I really don't expect any transition anytime soon, but the future is hard to predict.

RachelDawes

12-16-2008, 01:39 PM

Naw. The superhero film phase is here to stay.

Well, there's a limit to how much can be done with the superhero genre, isn't there? These aren't original characters and the GA isn't going to support the same popular superheroes forever. I can't see a Spider-Man 17 doing well at the BO. At some point, studios are going to have to resort to movies about less popular heroes, spinoffs, and reboots. I'm concerned that the well of ideas isn't limitless.

X-Maniac

12-16-2008, 04:50 PM

Well, there's a limit to how much can be done with the superhero genre, isn't there? These aren't original characters and the GA isn't going to support the same popular superheroes forever. I can't see a Spider-Man 17 doing well at the BO. At some point, studios are going to have to resort to movies about less popular heroes, spinoffs, and reboots. I'm concerned that the well of ideas isn't limitless.

Studios already are looking at more obscure heroes - the number of graphic novel adaptations being developed into films is phenomenal.

The genre won't disappear, not now we have the technology to make these things look believable.

bunk

12-16-2008, 05:02 PM

Studios already are looking at more obscure heroes - the number of graphic novel adaptations being developed into films is phenomenal.

The genre won't disappear, not now we have the technology to make these things look believable.

Not mention, as long as people continue little creating little movie-watching copies of themselves, the market will continue to rejuvenate itself. It's just a question of how consistently it can thrive.

RachelDawes

12-16-2008, 10:14 PM

Studios already are looking at more obscure heroes - the number of graphic novel adaptations being developed into films is phenomenal.

The genre won't disappear, not now we have the technology to make these things look believable.

I wonder how well these obscure heroes will do at the BO. If the budget's low enough, I guess they won't have to perform all that highly.

Spider-Fan

12-16-2008, 11:39 PM

Comic movies won't die entirely. They keep making money and generate buzz. I mean, Iron Man passed 300 mil domestic. Who saw that in 2006? If a character like Iron Man can do that, that shows how much appeal the non-Spidey/Batman's of the world can have. We're getting these for a long time. Now, it may die down for a period, but I don't see the genre having a long term death.

X-Maniac

12-17-2008, 03:24 AM

I wonder how well these obscure heroes will do at the BO. If the budget's low enough, I guess they won't have to perform all that highly.

I guess so. There's also the factor that many of these other comic book characters are so obscure that, to mainstream audiences, they are not obviously from the superhero/comic genre. And the material itself may not be glaringly 'comicbooky' (no costumes, etc).

Right now, on the Hype's front page is news of an adaptation of a comic called Priest and there have been similar announcements regularly over this past year of other comics and graphic novels being adapted.

These projects have a built-in fanbase so there is immediate interest in them. Of course, that's a double-edged sword as fans can also be outraged if the adaptation isn't done in the way they want.

Showtime

12-17-2008, 11:59 AM

You also wonder how many of these proposed adaptations will see the light of day.

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 01:42 PM

I know this has been said to death but with a few rewrites Abrams script is not hat bad for a Superman movie. To be honest looking back on things we (the fans) should have let him get the shooting script out before raising all hell like we did. I think this movie could have worked if you changed Lex from being from Krypton to being from Earth and if you took away the whole suit in a can/Venom thing (although the suit didn't give him his powers). It would have worked IMO you could have still blown up Krypton but have the Ty-Zor thing. IMO the script is a really good set up for Superman Returns if you really read it and if you don't want to go the Returns route just really sets up for a get Trilogy either way. Because as I said before it sets up for so many possibilities and it was only the first draft with a few rewites it could have worked.

BlackLantern

12-17-2008, 02:31 PM

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 02:41 PM

part of the krux to Superman is that Lex, as far as he knew, was the most powerful man in Metropolis and then Superman shows up and challenges that....making Lex from Krypton is ****ing retarded....and so was giving Superman an illegitimate child....who should be killed in the next film, simply for my enjoymentBut that was the first draft. I feel that in the second and third draft Lex would have changed. I am just saying the story he had was a good story. I just think he needed to change a few things (as I said before Suit in a can, Lex and Krypton not blowing up) and it could have worked. The script did have the makings to be an epic trilogy that could go from Earth to space and where ever else. I just would have loved to have seen another draft because it is not that bad.

BlackLantern

12-17-2008, 02:44 PM

But that was the first draft. I feel that in the second and third draft Lex would have changed. I am just saying the story he had was a good story. I just think he needed to change a few things (as I said before Suit in a can, Lex and Krypton not blowing up) and it could have worked. The script did have the makings to be an epic trilogy that could go from Earth to space and where ever else. I just would have loved to have seen another draft because it is not that bad.

How about you stop ****ing Abrams for 2 seconds....Lex is NOT from Krypton....the fact that he's a human and stands against a guy who could physically pound him into nothing is who Lex is.....

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 02:53 PM

How about you stop ****ing Abrams for 2 seconds....Lex is NOT from Krypton....the fact that he's a human and stands against a guy who could physically pound him into nothing is who Lex is.....Did I say that I liked that Lex was from Krypton? No I said that needed to be changed. But for a first draft Lex and somethings aside it is pretty good.

For example you are a SV fan are you not? Did Lara and Kara ever visit Earth before hand in the comics no that is not who they are. Did Jor-El ever brand Kal-El for not listening to him and treat him like a dog in the comics? No. Was Doomsday ever the Hulk in the comics? No. As I said before it was a first draft and needed work but it was not a final meaning the Lex you saw in that draft is more then likely not the Lex you would see in the final so calm down.

Showtime

12-17-2008, 03:03 PM

Whoa Whoa Whoa...let's keep this sophisticated.

FlawlessVictory

12-17-2008, 03:03 PM

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 03:08 PM

Is it too much to ask for to get a director willing to do some research on the character and his world and not make his movie either a complete fanny kiss to Donner or change it so that human characters come from other planets? Is that really too much to ask for? Why is it so damn hard for a director to get Superman right? :huh:What I saying is that for a first draft it was pretty good. Now I am not saying it is on the level of Batman Begins or Spider-Man but I am saying that I see potential in that script and I think given another draft we could have had a good movie.

Showtime

12-17-2008, 03:13 PM

We aren't going to see Abrams script, we could very well see some elements, Singer used some from Abrams script and from the Batman vs Superman script.

BlackLantern

12-17-2008, 03:14 PM

Did I say that I liked that Lex was from Krypton? No I said that needed to be changed. But for a first draft Lex and somethings aside it is pretty good.

For example you are a SV fan are you not? Did Lara and Kara ever visit Earth before hand in the comics no that is not who they are. Did Jor-El ever brand Kal-El for not listening to him and treat him like a dog in the comics? No. Was Doomsday ever the Hulk in the comics? No. As I said before it was a first draft and needed work but it was not a final meaning the Lex you saw in that draft is more then likely not the Lex you would see in the final so calm down.

I watch SV, but I view it as its own show.....I'm no more a fan of it than any other show I watch

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 03:19 PM

I watch SV, but I view it as its own show.....I'm no more a fan of it than any other show I watch
But look at the stuff SV has pulled which a lot of times is how they would not act. Lana is walking proof of that. All I am saying is that was the first draft and for a first draft somethings aside it was not that bad. Now as usual for the second draft thats when you have the screen writers and WB step in and make the edits that wouldn't work like Lex or suit in can and shape it up but we never saw that draft. I am just saying it does work good as a first draft.

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 03:21 PM

We aren't going to see Abrams script, we could very well see some elements, Singer used some from Abrams script and from the Batman vs Superman script.I understand that but I am just saying looking back on it the script was not as bad as I thought it was.

Showtime

12-17-2008, 03:21 PM

What we're going to get is a Superman film using the same template Nolan used.

Venom'sDad

12-17-2008, 03:30 PM

You know, to go back to the origin of this thread.... Singer said that's exactly what "Superman Returns" was. A re-introduction of Superman; and in a way, he did that. I and many others may total dislike what he did; but thta's what he did. So it make NO SENSE to re-re-introduce him again.

Either reboot the franchise, allow Singer to finish whatever he was trying to do, or do a prequel to SR and cover the events that led to him abruptly journey back to Krypton because of some villain that he faced before the SR. I don't know. I just know I prefer a reboot minus Singer.

To re-introduce him after he has been re-introduced makes little sense and makes the franchise appear to revolving around in circles.

Ultimate_Superman

12-17-2008, 03:35 PM

I wouldn't go as far as to say many people disliked it but I would say many people just thought it was okay when the WB felt they should have loved it. Now I would say it did how ever split the Superman fan base into two.

Sam

12-17-2008, 06:51 PM

What we're going to get is a Superman film using the same template Nolan used.

U mean, be inspired by several stories from comics to create a live action version?

Showtime

12-17-2008, 06:52 PM

For the most part. I am thinking will likely get a Superman Begins story with multiple comic related arcs sewn together with an original take.

Sam

12-17-2008, 06:53 PM

Venom'sDad

12-17-2008, 06:55 PM

^ Well it should be; but That came directly from Singer's mouth.

Showtime

12-17-2008, 06:57 PM

He also called it Superman 2, Superman 3, and claimed it was unrelated to Superman 2 then said it was related to both STM and Superman 2. He didnt even know what it was.

Sam

12-17-2008, 06:58 PM

For the most part. I am thinking will likely get a Superman Begins story with multiple comic related arcs sewn together with an original take.

I think this is great news, and the right direction to take!

Venom'sDad

12-17-2008, 07:01 PM

He also called it Superman 2, Superman 3, and claimed it was unrelated to Superman 2 then said it was related to both STM and Superman 2. He didnt even know what it was.

Well that's obvious... the reason we got this junk. Neitherless, he said it was a re-introduction.

RachelDawes

12-17-2008, 07:02 PM

Venom'sDad

12-17-2008, 07:07 PM

Well if you choose to look at it that, yes it certainly is. However, I think most here understands the semantics of the statements. Batman Begins was a re-introduction by that philosophy... come on.

Showtime

12-17-2008, 07:10 PM

I think this is great news, and the right direction to take!

Hopefully.

Well that's obvious... the reason we got this junk. Neitherless, he said it was a re-introduction.

I was being funny. Superman Returns is a reintroduction of the character, as was Batman Begins.

Superark

12-17-2008, 07:39 PM

What we're going to get is a Superman film using the same template Nolan used.

Hmm another origin, Geoff Johns maybe?

GreenKToo

12-17-2008, 08:46 PM

For the most part. I am thinking will likely get a Superman Begins story with multiple comic related arcs sewn together with an original take.
We can only hope.

mego joe

12-18-2008, 12:31 AM

For the most part. I am thinking will likely get a Superman Begins story with multiple comic related arcs sewn together with an original take.

That is exactly what we need.

X-Maniac

12-18-2008, 05:46 AM

That is exactly what we need.

I agree. A re-establishing of the mythos to make Superman's motivations clear and to allow for more sci-fi villains to appear...

Showtime

12-18-2008, 06:48 AM

Alan Horn Clears Up Dark Knight Sequel Rumors
Source:Collider.com December 18, 2008

With all the rumors swirling around the internet about possible casting for Warner Bros.' sequel to the record-breaking box office blockbuster The Dark Knight--absolutely none of them true as yet--Collider had a chance to talk briefly with Alan Horn, the President of Warner Bros, and probably the one man who would know more than anyone else about anything going on with this highly-anticipated project.

He got straight to the point when asked about progress on the sequel: “We’ve been talking to Chris Nolan and what we have to do is get him in the right place and have him tell us what he thinks the notion might be for a great story, but Chris did a great job and we’d love to have him come back and do another one.”

As far as the timing of the project, he went onto say: "The story is everything and we are very respectful of Chris. We have a wonderful relationship with him and we are going to be respectful of his timing and we want to get it right. Also, I think the fans expect that – they want us to make a terrific movie – we have to give them another great movie.”

In the interview, Horn also expressed interest in bringing back Superman and confirmed that they're very close to rolling on a movie starring DC's other power player, Green Lantern. (In fact, earlier this week Dark Horizons reported that Australia was vying for the latter project, but nothing has been confirmed as far as a start date.)

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/10194/tcid/1
I ask when does he think we might hear rumblings of another "Dark Knight" movie… he says “We’ve been talking to Chris Nolan and what we have to do is get him in the right place and have him tell us what he thinks the notion might be for a great story, but Chris did a great job and we’d love to have him come back and do another one.”

I ask if he’s the type of filmmaker that they wouldn’t rush and that he wouldn’t have to meet a certain release date. Basically, the story is more important than a release date. He says, “Yes. The story is everything and we are very respectful of Chris. We have a wonderful relationship with him and we are going to be respectful of his timing and we want to get it right. Also, I think the fans expect that – they want us to make a terrific movie – we have to give them another great movie.”

I then ask when we might be seeing another Superman. “Probably in the next couple of years. We’re very anxious to bring Superman back also.”

I then say Green Lantern? “Also on the board. On the runway. Hasn’t taken off yet, but we’re close.”

I finally ask what he thinks the next Superhero property might be from Warner Bros. He says “I think Green Lantern is probably the best guess but I can’t promise it at this moment.”

And Justice League? “Not yet.”

dark_b

12-18-2008, 07:11 AM

couple of years? well i know but couldnt he said like 3 or 4 years?

Ita-KalEl

12-18-2008, 07:42 AM

couple of years? well i know but couldnt he said like 3 or 4 years?

Two years? Great! So the 2009 it's the year of Superman.

Ultimate_Superman

12-18-2008, 07:49 AM

Two years? Great! So the 2009 it's the year of Superman.
More like 2011-2012 because 2010 will be the year of GL if it keeps moving at the speed it is. After that we should see Superman or Batman.

Ita-KalEl

12-18-2008, 07:59 AM

More like 2011-2012 because 2010 will be the year of GL if it keeps moving at the speed it is. After that we should see Superman or Batman.

At least we'll know the new director and the writers :)

GreenKToo

12-18-2008, 08:00 AM

Key word is ''PROBABLY" in that quote. It could be more like 3 or 4 yrs.

FlawlessVictory

12-18-2008, 08:28 AM

^Agreed. And with the way things move at WB, I would say 2012 would be the earliest we see the next Superman film.

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 08:29 AM

Key word is ''PROBABLY" in that quote. It could be more like 3 or 4 yrs.

Everything is "probably" with WB's superhero movies. I found the appropiate response to that a long time ago **Pulls out a bottle of Vodka**

batman44

12-18-2008, 08:56 AM

I'm thinking 2012 or 2013, but if Batman 3 comes in 2012, I could possibly see WB putting Superman in for a 2011 release date.

GreenKToo

12-18-2008, 09:00 AM

Everything is "probably" with WB's superhero movies. I found the appropiate response to that a long time ago **Pulls out a bottle of Vodka**
**pulls up a chair** You better have a case of the stuff, gonna be a long wait.:word:

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 09:13 AM

**pulls up a chair** You better have a case of the stuff, gonna be a long wait.:word:

At least I'll have company :woot:

GreenKToo

12-18-2008, 09:22 AM

At least I'll have company :woot:
(squeezes some oranges) yup, i'll be here.:word:

FilmNerdJamie

12-18-2008, 09:23 AM

I ask if he’s the type of filmmaker that they wouldn’t rush and that he wouldn’t have to meet a certain release date. Basically, the story is more important than a release date. He says, “Yes. The story is everything and we are very respectful of Chris. We have a wonderful relationship with him and we are going to be respectful of his timing and we want to get it right. Also, I think the fans expect that – they want us to make a terrific movie – we have to give them another great movie.”

It's not a coincidence that Horn says this just days after the announcement that WB has greenlit another Terminator sequel for Summer 2011 - which was originally when Batman III was aiming for release.

Also him saying the next Superman film being "probably in the next couple of years" doesn't contradict what Showtime or I have said and/or been hearing recently (i.e. 2011/2012 release!)

Horn gave insanely coy answers...

GreenKToo

12-18-2008, 09:25 AM

Nothing like stirring up the fanboy pot. Bet he loves it too.:D

bgshw44

12-18-2008, 10:46 AM

It's not a coincidence that Horn says this just days after the announcement that WB has greenlit another Terminator sequel for Summer 2011 - which was originally when Batman III was aiming for release.

Also him saying the next Superman film being "probably in the next couple of years" doesn't contradict what Showtime or I have said and/or been hearing recently (i.e. 2011/2012 release!)

Horn gave insanely coy answers...

If Terminator goes summer 2011, i think we could see a winter 2011 superman release and a summer 2012 date for batman

FilmNerdJamie

12-18-2008, 10:50 AM

If Terminator goes summer 2011, i think we could see a winter 2011 superman release and a summer 2012 date for batman

Or Superman goes along with Terminator 5 (and Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows - Part II) for WB's summer 2011 lineup.

bunk

12-18-2008, 10:57 AM

Or Terminator bombs and Superman gets fast tracked.

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 11:02 AM

I think Star Trek has more chances of bombing or underperforming than Terminator.

FilmNerdJamie

12-18-2008, 11:07 AM

Personally, I think both Star Trek and Terminator Salvation are going to surprise audiences in terms of quality and solid box-office.

Showtime

12-18-2008, 11:10 AM

Will it be much of a surprise though, that is what they are supposed to do. The surprise would be if they bombed.

FilmNerdJamie

12-18-2008, 11:14 AM

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 11:17 AM

Star Trek's a big question-mark, although Paramount is insanely confident it'll do gangbusters. Not to mention if Wolverine is as bad as it appears and has been rumored, that will only help Trek.

Glad I'm not the only one aprehensive about Wolvie. The trailer reminded me of a bad vamp film.

I feel like Star Trek will kind of underperform, despite seemingly a good product. Kind of like TIH, the public might snub it undeservedly. Terminator on the other hand is a well enough stablished franchise, and it looks kickass.

BlackLantern

12-18-2008, 11:20 AM

Glad I'm not the only one aprehensive about Wolvie. The trailer reminded me of a bad vamp film.

I feel like Star Trek will kind of underperform, despite seemingly a good product. Kind of like TIH, the public might snub it undeservedly. Terminator on the other hand is a well enough stablished franchise, and it looks kickass.

Trek also carries that uber nerd Trekkie stigma.....

solidsnake86

12-18-2008, 11:36 AM

After that trailer for terminator I'm excited to see that film. You also have to remember though, all terminator really has to do is succeed as an action film because thats what most people view it as. Terminator 2, I believe to this day, is still one of the best action films.

Mostpowerful

12-18-2008, 12:11 PM

I then ask when we might be seeing another Superman. “Probably in the next couple of years. We’re very anxious to bring Superman back also.”

I liked the "very anxious" part. Promising. And as long as Brandon comes back as Supes, I'll be happy. :yay:

At least we'll know the new director and the writers :)

yeah, hopefully (please, God!)

It's not a coincidence that Horn says this just days after the announcement that WB has greenlit another Terminator sequel for Summer 2011 - which was originally when Batman III was aiming for release.

Also him saying the next Superman film being "probably in the next couple of years" doesn't contradict what Showtime or I have said and/or been hearing recently (i.e. 2011/2012 release!)

Horn gave insanely coy answers...

True

Nothing like stirring up the fanboy pot. Bet he loves it too.:D

But I hate it.. :cmad:

Or Superman goes along with Terminator 5 (and Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows - Part II) for WB's summer 2011 lineup.

I'd love that. I think a release during the holidays suits Supes better.

I think Star Trek has more chances of bombing or underperforming than Terminator.

I hope Trek does well. Me loves Trek. BTW, I just watched Star Trek: Wrath of Khan ON THE BIG SCREEN. :o It was AWESOME! Especially in a theater full of geeks and Trek fans.

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-18-2008, 12:56 PM

Personally, I think both Star Trek and Terminator Salvation are going to surprise audiences in terms of quality and solid box-office.

Why are they both meant to be very good Jamie? I am asking more about Terminator than ST as well :cwink:.

Star Trek's a big question-mark, although Paramount is insanely confident it'll do gangbusters. Not to mention if Wolverine is as bad as it appears and has been rumored, that will only help Trek.

As for T4, to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it did $500 million+ box-office - I'm speaking worldwide numbers of course.

Has it been rumoured in the industry that the movie is poor Jamie? Because while that doesnt surprise with Fox, it would be very depressing as a big X-Men fan.

Showtime

12-18-2008, 12:58 PM

Wolverine has had a tough time of it behind the scenes. Issues with the director and the production.

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 01:03 PM

I hope Trek does well. Me loves Trek. BTW, I just watched Star Trek: Wrath of Khan ON THE BIG SCREEN. :o It was AWESOME! Especially in a theater full of geeks and Trek fans.

I've never seen Wrath Of Khan. Or maybe I have, but as baby and I don't remember anymore :o

Wolverine has had a tough time of it behind the scenes. Issues with the director and the production.

Fox production? No surprise there :o

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-18-2008, 01:09 PM

Wolverine has had a tough time of it behind the scenes. Issues with the director and the production.

Yeah I kne that, but thats just Rothman pokong his nose were it isnt wanted as usual I have heard.

GOD I hate that guy.

Superark

12-18-2008, 01:15 PM

Well its very good to hear WB is anxious to have Superman back on screen. Let's just hope it gets a worthy treatment and nothing rushed.

I'm also pleased to hear Green Lantern is close to being finalized. I wonder if they will keep the proposed Clark Kent cameo.

If they do we will know for sure who our Superman is going to be in the next year.

The next Superman will probably be best served to come out during a winter season.

Superman Prime

12-18-2008, 02:08 PM

Or in the summer.

Dark Knight

12-18-2008, 02:20 PM

Star Trek's a big question-mark, although Paramount is insanely confident it'll do gangbusters. Not to mention if Wolverine is as bad as it appears and has been rumored, that will only help Trek.

As for T4, to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it did $500 million+ box-office - I'm speaking worldwide numbers of course.

Interesting that you say Wolverine may not be so great afterall.

What have you heard about it?

Anyhow, I expect Star Trek to make good #s, but not great #'s at the BO. Never underestimate the power of Trekkies and Trekkers! LOL...

A fresh origin style Star Trek film on Kirk and Spocks early days has long been overdue and sci fi fans in general will want to see it as well.

Superark

12-18-2008, 02:25 PM

Or in the summer.

Summers are usually crowded with competition. Much less in the Winter/December.

Dark Knight

12-18-2008, 02:27 PM

Wolverine has had a tough time of it behind the scenes. Issues with the director and the production.

Not a surprise since it is.....FOX. Avi Arad and Rothman working together on a project is a scary thought.

Mostpowerful

12-18-2008, 02:28 PM

I've never seen Wrath Of Khan. Or maybe I have, but as baby and I don't remember anymore :o

You are seriously missing out. :o

:woot:

Seriously, some of the Trek movies are awesome, especially Wrath Of Khan. I SOO recommend it. But if you have never watched the original tv series with Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and the others, as well as The New Generation tv series with Captain Picard, Data, etc; well, you will surely miss on a lot of the jokes and character interaction stuff. Trek is really a subculture. :word:

X-Maniac

12-18-2008, 02:33 PM

Wolverine has had a tough time of it behind the scenes. Issues with the director and the production.

But still, the reaction to the Comic-Con teaser and the official trailer has been largely positive. Audiences won't judge the film based on the behind the scenes issues, they probably aren't even aware of it. Only ardent film followers will be aware of all that stuff.

I find it hard to predict how this film or any of next year's offerings will do. Will Star Trek and Terminator ignite the general audience's interest? Will audiences be able to get past the iconic earlier Star trek and Terminator films to accept revamped versions? Hard to say.

It's so hard to predict audience reaction. Everyone was taken aback by Iron Man, we analysed it in hindsight but we didn't predict it in foresight. There were reports on here that Hancock would bomb, based on test screenings, and yet it did very well indeed.

X-Maniac

12-18-2008, 02:37 PM

I see SR more of a closure than a reintroduction.

I think SR works great as a finish for Donner movies. But i really dont see it as a reintroduction.

I agree. SR was in no way a reintroduction. It is light years away from the approach in Batman Begins, which WAS a reintroduction.

Superman Prime

12-18-2008, 02:45 PM

Summers are usually crowded with competition. Much less in the Winter/December.

True. But this is a Superman film, and if the marketing is spot-on, they could use those swollen theater crowds to their advantage.

Superark

12-18-2008, 02:52 PM

True. But this is a Superman film, and if the marketing is spot-on, they could use those swollen theater crowds to their advantage.

True also. Either way I think the next Superman film will make money. The question is which time of year will allow it to make the most?

I agree. SR was in no way a reintroduction. It is light years away from the approach in Batman Begins, which WAS a reintroduction.

Well it was a reintroduction in the sense it reintroduce a Superman from the previous films. But no not a BB style reintroduction.

You are seriously missing out. :o

:woot:

Seriously, some of the Trek movies are awesome, especially Wrath Of Khan. I SOO recommend it. But if you have never watched the original tv series with Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and the others, as well as The New Generation tv series with Captain Picard, Data, etc; well, you will surely miss on a lot of the jokes and character interaction stuff. Trek is really a subculture. :word:

Wrath of Khan is highly overrated

BlackLantern

12-18-2008, 03:07 PM

I understand people want to vilify Avi Arad, but he's the reason why we got the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, and other Marvel cartoons during the nineties....

Mostpowerful

12-18-2008, 03:33 PM

Wrath of Khan is highly overrated

:huh: hater! :cmad:

:woot: :oldrazz: lol, Why do you say that? I think it's a great film, and the best Trek movie so far.

GreenKToo

12-18-2008, 03:46 PM

I have to agree. WoK is the best Trek film for me.

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 03:48 PM

But still, the reaction to the Comic-Con teaser and the official trailer has been largely positive. Audiences won't judge the film based on the behind the scenes issues, they probably aren't even aware of it. Only ardent film followers will be aware of all that stuff.

I find it hard to predict how this film or any of next year's offerings will do. Will Star Trek and Terminator ignite the general audience's interest? Will audiences be able to get past the iconic earlier Star trek and Terminator films to accept revamped versions? Hard to say.

It's so hard to predict audience reaction. Everyone was taken aback by Iron Man, we analysed it in hindsight but we didn't predict it in foresight. There were reports on here that Hancock would bomb, based on test screenings, and yet it did very well indeed.

We'll see about Wolverine. The trailer might have been good (I didn't like it) but the finished product could be craptastic. Fox is good at cutting a good trailer for underwhelming movies.

Superman Prime

12-18-2008, 03:49 PM

Even better than "The Motion Picture", IMO.

Dark Knight

12-18-2008, 03:52 PM

I have to agree. WoK is the best Trek film for me.

Easily...

Showtime

12-18-2008, 03:56 PM

Showtime

12-18-2008, 03:59 PM

I agree. SR was in no way a reintroduction. It is light years away from the approach in Batman Begins, which WAS a reintroduction.

It may be far from the template Nolan used for Batman Begins but if you want to get technical they are both reintroductions of the characters. I'm not sure how you can say it was no way a reintroduction?

Superark

12-18-2008, 04:02 PM

:huh: hater! :cmad:

:woot: :oldrazz: lol, Why do you say that? I think it's a great film, and the best Trek movie so far.

It's a decent film, but I don't think it's the gem its made out to be. I enjoyed the revenge aspect of Khan, but the rest felt a little dull. But it is a vast improvement over the original

But I reckon a large part of it is I am not that much of a Trek fan either.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-18-2008, 04:19 PM

We'll see about Wolverine. The trailer might have been good (I didn't like it) but the finished product could be craptastic. Fox is good at cutting a good trailer for underwhelming movies.I had a mixed reaction to the trailer too, then again I had a mixed reaction to all three X-Men movies so Fox probably doesn't care about my opinion anyways.

Showtime

12-18-2008, 04:24 PM

I thought it looked terrible personally.

I Am The Knight

12-18-2008, 04:27 PM

Agreed with you two, ISS and Showy. Like I said in my previous post, it reminded me of a bad vampire movie.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-18-2008, 04:33 PM

Agreed with you two, ISS and Showy. Like I said in my previous post, it reminded me of a bad vampire movie.That scene with Wolverine boxing that fat blob character looks embarrassing and the bad wire work (a mainstay of the series) at the end of the trailer gets a big fat thumbs down from me.

Superark

12-18-2008, 04:46 PM

I thought the Wolverine trailer looked good.

Some scenes look like they have the potential to be bad, but overall looks fairly decent.

It doesn't look near as bad as X3. I hope it can be as good as X2, but I doubt that.

Dammit WB! See what happens with no news?!

RachelDawes

12-18-2008, 05:29 PM

We'll see about Wolverine. The trailer might have been good (I didn't like it) but the finished product could be craptastic. Fox is good at cutting a good trailer for underwhelming movies.

The trailer was polished and basically well-made, but something was missing. I think it's that the movie comes off as having little plot and is instead a vehicle for stunts and cameos. There's more I didn't like about it but I can't explain it.

X-Maniac

12-18-2008, 06:00 PM

I thought it looked terrible personally.

I thought it was okay as teaser material but quite 'bitty' with no coherent story thread. Perhaps, as an early teaser, that is all it could be or was intended to be. I didn't get a 'wow' from it, but liked the Gambit and Storm parts.

Hole Shot

12-18-2008, 06:04 PM

It may be far from the template Nolan used for Batman Begins but if you want to get technical they are both reintroductions of the characters. I'm not sure how you can say it was no way a reintroduction?

Batman Batman begins was reintroducing the character and audiences to a brand new world. SR was reintroducing audiences into a world already established but hadn't been visited in almost 30 years and it was designed to stand on its own without having to refer back to other films to understand what is going on. So I guess I just took the long route in saying I agree with you.

X-Maniac

12-18-2008, 06:38 PM

It may be far from the template Nolan used for Batman Begins but if you want to get technical they are both reintroductions of the characters. I'm not sure how you can say it was no way a reintroduction?

I know what you mean. Although we are debating semantics, I don't see SR as a reintroduction. But, as a comeback film that introduced the character again, it is a reintroduction. I mean reintroduction as in a total relaunch rather than a new film that was a continuation of the Donnerverse.

BlackLantern

12-18-2008, 06:54 PM

NeoRanger

12-18-2008, 07:35 PM

^^ With the only difference that movies aren't passing on encyclopedic knowledge, they're telling stories. And if they're going with an origin story and taking their time to introduce Superman, they'll do it, because they'll have a good story to tell.

Dark Knight

12-18-2008, 07:47 PM

I think they need to dispense with the "getting to know you" BS when it comes to Superman....if you are going to a Superman movie and you don't know that Superman comes from another planet and goes by Clark Kent, you should be smacked in the head and forced to wear a shirt that says "Full Retard"

I kind of agree with you on that....but if they do it different by tying a villain like Braniac into the destruction of Krypton, it would be whole lot more interesting.

Showtime

12-18-2008, 07:49 PM

I thought it was okay as teaser material but quite 'bitty' with no coherent story thread. Perhaps, as an early teaser, that is all it could be or was intended to be. I didn't get a 'wow' from it, but liked the Gambit and Storm parts.

I definitely liked seeing Gambit, but you're right, it did not have a wow factor.

Showtime

12-18-2008, 07:54 PM

Batman Batman begins was reintroducing the character and audiences to a brand new world. SR was reintroducing audiences into a world already established but hadn't been visited in almost 30 years and it was designed to stand on its own without having to refer back to other films to understand what is going on. So I guess I just took the long route in saying I agree with you.

That is how I look at it for the most part.

I know what you mean. Although we are debating semantics, I don't see SR as a reintroduction. But, as a comeback film that introduced the character again, it is a reintroduction. I mean reintroduction as in a total relaunch rather than a new film that was a continuation of the Donnerverse.

Understood. I look at it this way. We have seen Batman on film, we've seen Superman on film, then WB reintroduced the characters with Batman Begins and Superman Returns.

Anita18

12-18-2008, 08:36 PM

That scene with Wolverine boxing that fat blob character looks embarrassing and the bad wire work (a mainstay of the series) at the end of the trailer gets a big fat thumbs down from me.
The fat blob character screamed, "CHEESE AND CAMP!" to me. That took it right over the edge. Bad wire work is one thing, but why the heck is Wolverine fighting a fat blob character?

If he's a famous villain from the comics, I apologize...but couldn't they have made him cooler-looking, at least?

The trailer was polished and basically well-made, but something was missing. I think it's that the movie comes off as having little plot and is instead a vehicle for stunts and cameos. There's more I didn't like about it but I can't explain it.
That's what trailers for action movies are supposed to do, really. Even the trailers for TDK barely revealed the story. But I'm :funny: at how epic they're making Wolverine sounding. Lord of the Rings, it's never going to be, so cut out the overwrought singing!

And conveniently-edited cool quips are never a good sign when it comes to the actual movie. :o

I think they need to dispense with the "getting to know you" BS when it comes to Superman....if you are going to a Superman movie and you don't know that Superman comes from another planet and goes by Clark Kent, you should be smacked in the head and forced to wear a shirt that says "Full Retard"
But I think we should have that, not for the background stuff you can find on Wikipedia, but to give you an idea of what they're doing with the character. How they're interpreting him. Dunno if they'd have to devote an entire movie to it, but we need at least that.

mego joe

12-18-2008, 08:45 PM

The fat blob character screamed, "CHEESE AND CAMP!" to me. That took it right over the edge. Bad wire work is one thing, but why the heck is Wolverine fighting a fat blob character?

If he's a famous villain from the comics, I apologize...but couldn't they have made him cooler-looking, at least?

He is from the comics and his name oddly enough is The Blob. FIrst appearance X-Men #3 I believe. And how cool can you make a fat naked guy?

That's what trailers for action movies are supposed to do, really. Even the trailers for TDK barely revealed the story. But I'm :funny: at how epic they're making Wolverine sounding. Lord of the Rings, it's never going to be, so cut out the overwrought singing!

And conveniently-edited cool quips are never a good sign when it comes to the actual movie. :o

But I think we should have that, not for the background stuff you can find on Wikipedia, but to give you an idea of what they're doing with the character. How they're interpreting him. Dunno if they'd have to devote an entire movie to it, but we need at least that.

I think you're on to something, but if what they're doing has nothing to do with the origin, you probably don't need it or it can be introduced in other ways. As it was said before by someone else, it's all about telling a good story.

Hunter Rider

12-18-2008, 08:46 PM

Blob is a character from the comics and that is how he looks........but why is Wolverine being discussed in a Superman thread ?

mego joe

12-18-2008, 08:47 PM

Blob is a character from the comics and that is how he looks........but why is Wolverine being discussed in a Superman thread ?

Beat you to it!! :)

AND

There's nothing going on in SUperman world and there's always that SInger connection to both film franchises.

Anita18

12-18-2008, 08:49 PM

He is from the comics and his name oddly enough is The Blob. FIrst appearance X-Men #3 I believe. And how cool can you make a fat naked guy?
Not have him in the movie? :funny:

Or at least, don't put him in the trailer for God's sake. It's fun having comic book characters in the movie as cameos, but some are better suited for showing in the trailer than others. The insert shot of him slamming Wolverine just looked bad in the trailer.

I think you're on to something, but if what they're doing has nothing to do with the origin, you probably don't need it or it can be introduced in other ways. As it was said before by someone else, it's all about telling a good story.
Right, and have the character DO things right from the get-go, so we can get a feel for what he's like. You can tell a lot about someone from their decisions. Superman in SR spent too much time at the beginning just looking around and going, "Whoa, things have changed."

Blob is a character from the comics and that is how he looks........but why is Wolverine being discussed in a Superman thread ?
I don't know! :lmao:

mego joe

12-18-2008, 08:57 PM

Not have him in the movie? :funny:

That is certainly an option that would work.

Or at least, don't put him in the trailer for God's sake. It's fun having comic book characters in the movie as cameos, but some are better suited for showing in the trailer than others. The insert shot of him slamming Wolverine just looked bad in the trailer.

DIdn't have any complaints with the trailer, but like I See Spidey, I'm not really a big X-Men fan.

Right, and have the character DO things right from the get-go, so we can get a feel for what he's like. You can tell a lot about someone from their decisions.

Definitely one of the biggest failings of SR- Superman doing the wrong thing...

Superman in SR spent too much time at the beginning just looking around and going, "Whoa, things have changed."

Is THAT what he was thinking! From the portrayal I wasn't sure he had any thoughts in his head at all!

I don't know! :lmao:

That's got to be a sign to WB to get the ball rolling!!

Anita18

12-18-2008, 09:26 PM

Definitely one of the biggest failings of SR- Superman doing the wrong thing...
Or the lame thing. :o

But yeah, really have Superman DO something from the get-go. In TDK we didn't need an over-long introduction for Harvey Dent, and especially not for the Joker. Joker robs a bank in the opening sequence, and Harvey Dent punches a witness on the stand. :funny:

Is THAT what he was thinking! From the portrayal I wasn't sure he had any thoughts in his head at all!
To be fair, Brandon doesn't have the mindless stare that Keanu Reeves has down. :funny:

RachelDawes

12-18-2008, 09:30 PM

Not have him in the movie? :funny:

Or at least, don't put him in the trailer for God's sake. It's fun having comic book characters in the movie as cameos, but some are better suited for showing in the trailer than others. The insert shot of him slamming Wolverine just looked bad in the trailer.

Based on their reaction to the trailer, I'd say fans were pleased to see the Blob. I have the feeling that one of the film's major selling points is going to be all the cameos by famous X-Men like Gambit and young Storm, even if they aren't on screen that long.

In regards to Superman: Singer spent too much time building up to Lex's big plot. Superman should've had more to do in the meantime other than mope over Lois and ponder how much the world had changed. All I can remember him doing is is saving the plane, rescuing Kitty, and foiling some robbers. The plane part was good, but Supes needed to fight more epic battles before he caught up to Lex (this is where another supervillain would've come in handy). Failing that, the subplot between Superman and Lois should've been more interesting.

mego joe

12-18-2008, 09:41 PM

Or the lame thing. :o

But yeah, really have Superman DO something from the get-go. In TDK we didn't need an over-long introduction for Harvey Dent, and especially not for the Joker. Joker robs a bank in the opening sequence, and Harvey Dent punches a witness on the stand. :funny:

Lame is a word that definitely describes Superman Returns.

To be fair, Brandon doesn't have the mindless stare that Keanu Reeves has down. :funny:

True, Keanu is in a league all his own when it comes to mindless stares!! But to be honest- there wasn't a whole lot of interest going on with Routh's portrayal of Superman, besides doing the Reeve impression.

dark_b

12-19-2008, 03:41 AM

Or the lame thing. :o

But yeah, really have Superman DO something from the get-go. In TDK we didn't need an over-long introduction for Harvey Dent, and especially not for the Joker. Joker robs a bank in the opening sequence, and Harvey Dent punches a witness on the stand. :funny:

because tehy spend time to find a way to have a good complex story for the summer.
the movie is going fast. super fast. because how it was written and because of the editing. the pacing was amazing in TDK. you can hae a 2:00 movie that feels like a 4 hour movie and at teh same time you can have a movei that is 2:30 and feels like 1 hour. the editing is where the magic happens with the material that you have.
SR was waaay to slow for summer and waay to slow for a superman movie .and Singer who wanted to make a movie also for the kids..........well IMO it fails as a movie for kids.

Anita18

12-19-2008, 04:55 AM

SR was waaay to slow for summer and waay to slow for a superman movie .and Singer who wanted to make a movie also for the kids..........well IMO it fails as a movie for kids.
Just looked up some SR clips on YouTube to remind myself of what the editing was like. It does have an older retro feel, and each shot of the runaway car scene is juuuust long enough so that you actually have time to sit back and start pondering. About things like, "Wouldn't the car slow down even a little bit if it was bumping into things?" :funny: You actually don't feel like anyone's ever in danger. It feels too "safe" like that.

And for some reason the standing ovation in the baseball field just pisses me off. It's his first appearance and I don't feel the character has "earned" it yet, even if he's just saved a planeload of people. :funny: Then again I only buy thousands-strong standing ovations and general cheering at the END of a film. Preferably if the main character has really been put through the wringer. See: Slumdog Millionaire.

Some parts are still great though. The recharge scene is gorgeous, and feels waaay too short because of how beautiful it is. The scenes of Superman actually rescuing people are also awesome to watch.

dark_b

12-19-2008, 05:35 AM

Just looked up some SR clips on YouTube to remind myself of what the editing was like. It does have an older retro feel, and each shot of the runaway car scene is juuuust long enough so that you actually have time to sit back and start pondering. About things like, "Wouldn't the car slow down even a little bit if it was bumping into things?" :funny: You actually don't feel like anyone's ever in danger. It feels too "safe" like that.

And for some reason the standing ovation in the baseball field just pisses me off. It's his first appearance and I don't feel the character has "earned" it yet, even if he's just saved a planeload of people. :funny: Then again I only buy thousands-strong standing ovations and general cheering at the END of a film. Preferably if the main character has really been put through the wringer. See: Slumdog Millionaire.

Some parts are still great though. The recharge scene is gorgeous, and feels waaay too short because of how beautiful it is. The scenes of Superman actually rescuing people are also awesome to watch.
i dont remember everything. i dont know if this was a rumor or if this was 100% true. but there was some talking that Singer said that he didnt want to much danger in the movie because of the little kids.

dark_b

12-19-2008, 05:40 AM

And for some reason the standing ovation in the baseball field just pisses me off. It's his first appearance and I don't feel the character has "earned" it yet, even if he's just saved a planeload of people. :funny: Then again I only buy thousands-strong standing ovations and general cheering at the END its funny because the movie was promoted where superman comes back to earth h and people have moved on with their lives.

i think a very good story would be that superman comes back to earth and people are not so happy about him. where he was. a little hate. at the end you could have a twist that lex luthor was the one who send him in space with a big lie.

ohhhhh whait a minute..........wasnt this in the script :huh:

ho ho ho he he hihi haha :hehe:

put on top 200 millions and no superfight and we are where we are

Nightwing1977

12-19-2008, 02:28 PM

So was the reaction to the Superman Returns trailer. Audiences won't judge the movie on the trailer, they will judge it when they see it. This movie will be hurt due to lack of repeat viewings and WOM.

There you go. Sometime a movie will be bad even if it has the positive response from audiences, but then it could be the opposite as well. The trailers don't always say everything about the film. Seeing the film as a whole is the is the way to get a real response from the audiences.

Dotten

12-19-2008, 05:29 PM

Woverine looked good, although the trailer lacked the "x-factor". I doubt it will bomb.

Ohh how I wished it could have been a Superman-movie next year. I'm going on 30 and frightened that I may grow up and not feel the enthusiasm towards him as the grey hairs come and all that :(

Give me a Superman and JL movie and I can die a happy man. I've got everything else in my life, the perfect girl, the perfect children. Bought a big muther****er og an Millenium Falcon for the kids for this Christmas. All i need now is a Superman-announcement. Can you hear me WB?

Dotten

12-19-2008, 05:30 PM

SuperDaniel

12-19-2008, 05:46 PM

As long as the next movie is an origin/year one story and a complete reboot, we'll be in good hands.

FilmNerdJamie

12-19-2008, 06:40 PM

The latest from Anne Thompson...

Valkyrie Premiere: Cruise, Singer, Superman

I talked to Bryan Singer, Superman writer Dan Harris and Warners exec Polly Cohen at the after-party. Singer has been so obsessed with getting Valkyrie out the door--and he still has to promote it next year when Fox opens it overseas--that he won't even start to think about Superman again until after he takes a holiday vacation. He has absolutely no commitment to any project, including Superman, Singer said. Everywhere he goes to talk about Valkyrie, everyone asks him about Superman. He hasn't considered any writers' pitches. No Warners meeting on the film is planned at this time. Solving the next one is all about the villains, the trio agreed.

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/12/valkyrie-premie.html

bunk

12-19-2008, 07:16 PM

I think Star Trek has more chances of bombing or underperforming than Terminator.

Star Trek bombing wouldn't effect WB's plan for Superman.

Dark Knight

12-19-2008, 07:41 PM

I think they need to dispense with the "getting to know you" BS when it comes to Superman....if you are going to a Superman movie and you don't know that Superman comes from another planet and goes by Clark Kent, you should be smacked in the head and forced to wear a shirt that says "Full Retard"

I agree to a certain extent. Seeing a full blown origin story for Superman might be a waste of time unless they show perhaps Braniac being involved in the destruction of Krypton. Then they can also show Braniac coming to Earth in the present time.

Dark Knight

12-19-2008, 07:46 PM

SR was waaay to slow for summer and waay to slow for a superman movie

Exactly...

Anita18

12-19-2008, 08:06 PM

i dont remember everything. i dont know if this was a rumor or if this was 100% true. but there was some talking that Singer said that he didnt want to much danger in the movie because of the little kids.
No, you remember correctly. Someone who worked on SR's VFX came into a screenwriting forum and explained some of the weak story points. Usually things stayed because "they looked cool," not because it helped the story any. :o

I mean, it's okay if an action movie feels safe. (My mom loves Bond films because she knows Bond will never die, or even get very hurt.) But at least make it visually interesting.

its funny because the movie was promoted where superman comes back to earth h and people have moved on with their lives.
Exactly. I didn't even follow any of the video blogs, but I thought that was what the movie was about from the trailers. The movie I wanted to watch ended with Superman's first appearance. Which is probably why the baseball scene pisses me off. :funny:

Mostpowerful

12-19-2008, 10:58 PM

batman44

12-19-2008, 10:59 PM

Lol, I think I posted this at the exact same time you did in the BS thread.

GreenKToo

12-20-2008, 07:38 AM

All the rumors etc, lead us to believe that Singer was out, but that little tidbit there makes me think otherwise. (my head's gonna explode.)

I Am The Knight

12-20-2008, 09:46 AM

We need Showtime...

Star Trek bombing wouldn't effect WB's plan for Superman.

No, but I still feel the same way. It's more of a comment on Star Trek itself.

FlawlessVictory

12-20-2008, 10:28 AM

All the rumors etc, lead us to believe that Singer was out, but that little tidbit there makes me think otherwise. (my head's gonna explode.)

We need Showtime...

Put up the Showtime signal! :hehe:

What we have been hearing a lot, mostly from Showtime, is that Singer is NOT out completely. Just out as director. So presumably he will have his hand in this project in some manner. The fact that Louis Leterrier mentioned WB was actively seeking other directors to take on Superman, confirmed by Zack Snyder, should be indication enough that Singer will not be directing another Superman film ever again.

Mostpowerful

12-20-2008, 10:53 AM

It's a decent film, but I don't think it's the gem its made out to be. I enjoyed the revenge aspect of Khan, but the rest felt a little dull. But it is a vast improvement over the original

But I reckon a large part of it is I am not that much of a Trek fan either.

A decent film?? I strongly disagree with that. And yeah, if you were never into Trek much, I can understand how you don't enjoy the film or the franchise that much. Let's agree to disagree. :yay:

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-20-2008, 11:09 AM

Valkyrie Premiere: Cruise, Singer, Superman

I talked to Bryan Singer, Superman writer Dan Harris and Warners exec Polly Cohen at the after-party. Singer has been so obsessed with getting Valkyrie out the door--and he still has to promote it next year when Fox opens it overseas--that he won't even start to think about Superman again until after he takes a holiday vacation. He has absolutely no commitment to any project, including Superman, Singer said. Everywhere he goes to talk about Valkyrie, everyone asks him about Superman. He hasn't considered any writers' pitches. No Warners meeting on the film is planned at this time. Solving the next one is all about the villains, the trio agreed.

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsono...ie-premie.html (http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/12/valkyrie-premie.html)

This is so confusing.. what could this mean??

Just what we need, more confusion! God this is just getting frustrating, I hope get some clear info soon.

BlackLantern

12-20-2008, 11:32 AM

I doubt it....it doesn't seem too high on the 'To Do' list at Warner Bros....It seems more of a "we'll get to it when we get to it" type feel

Showtime

12-20-2008, 01:13 PM

We need Showtime...

Put up the Showtime signal!

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i267/IronGiant29/SHOWTIMESSTAMP.jpg

What we have been hearing a lot, mostly from Showtime, is that Singer is NOT out completely. Just out as director. So presumably he will have his hand in this project in some manner. The fact that Louis Leterrier mentioned WB was actively seeking other directors to take on Superman, confirmed by Zack Snyder, should be indication enough that Singer will not be directing another Superman film ever again.

Well as I mentioned in my four or more paragraph post a couple weeks ago which wasn't clear enough according to some, I thought Singer was approached many months ago and given a right to refusal but he actually was approached by WB about a month or so ago. You could say this is just WB and Singer going through the motions based on his contract.

WB: We have a story Bryan, it won't be a direct sequel and we are going to hire the writers.
BS: Thanks but no thanks, I am going on vacation and don't have time for Superman.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-20-2008, 01:18 PM

^Sounds like Hollywood business to me. Honestly, Harris has nothing to do with the next film so whocares what he has to say?

BlackLantern

12-20-2008, 01:19 PM

that looks like a toilet seat turned sideways

Mostpowerful

12-20-2008, 01:22 PM

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i267/IronGiant29/SHOWTIMESSTAMP.jpg

Well as I mentioned in my four or more paragraph post a couple weeks ago which wasn't clear enough according to some, I thought Singer was approached many months ago and given a right to refusal but he actually was approached by WB about a month or so ago. You could say this is just WB and Singer going through the motions based on his contract.

WB: We have a story Bryan, it won't be a direct sequel and we are going to hire the writers.
BS: Thanks but no thanks, I am going on vacation and don't have time for Superman.

Then why he even mentioned those things about the villains to Anne Thompson?? It seems to me like he doesn't consider himself out of the proyect, yet, no?

Nightwing1977

12-20-2008, 01:58 PM

Star Trek bombing wouldn't effect WB's plan for Superman.

Yep. Star Trek is a different film & is part of Paramount. Even if Terminator 4 bombed, it won't have a effect on Superman either.

Showtime

12-20-2008, 05:10 PM

Then why he even mentioned those things about the villains to Anne Thompson?? It seems to me like he doesn't consider himself out of the proyect, yet, no?

What people say in public, celebs, politicians, athletes and so on...don't always dictate the entire story. Nor should we ever expect them to.

FilmNerdJamie

12-20-2008, 06:20 PM

What people say in public, celebs, politicians, athletes and so on...don't always dictate the entire story. Nor should we ever expect them to.

People tell lies to the public?!? :wow:

Showtime

12-20-2008, 06:35 PM

...and private surprisingly.

FilmNerdJamie

12-20-2008, 06:45 PM

http://lolabrigada.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/shocked.jpg

Ita-KalEl

12-20-2008, 07:01 PM

IMO Singer is out and we will know something when the WB will announce their future sh projects. I don't know when, but maybe during the 2009. The good news is that for them Superman has still the same potential of Batman at cinema.

Showtime

12-20-2008, 07:02 PM

I doubt we'll hear anything until the New Year, although many a people were claiming before Christmas.

FilmNerdJamie

12-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Of course Singer won't be helming the next Superman film (or "Routhboot" if you will!) That's been obvious for months...

Ita-KalEl

12-20-2008, 07:08 PM

I doubt we'll hear anything until the New Year, although many a people were claiming before Christmas.

I agree, IMO we'll know something during the 2009 (maybe during the summer). At this point I think that they'll go with a "secondary" character (Green Lantern) and then with the TDK sequel. After the end of Nolan's trilogy, they will bet on Superman.

They still think that Superman has at least the same potential of Batman, so they will invest to relaunch it. The problem is when and if they already have a plan.

Double Down

12-20-2008, 07:18 PM

Showtime

12-20-2008, 07:39 PM

I agree, IMO we'll know something during the 2009 (maybe during the summer). At this point I think that they'll go with a "secondary" character (Green Lantern) and then with the TDK sequel. After the end of Nolan's trilogy, they will bet on Superman.

They still think that Superman has at least the same potential of Batman, so they will invest to relaunch it. The problem is when and if they already have a plan.

I don't think they will wait until Summer 09 to reveal what is happening with Superman.

Ita-KalEl

12-20-2008, 08:01 PM

I don't think they will wait until Summer 09 to reveal what is happening with Superman.

I like your optimism.

Showtime

12-20-2008, 08:10 PM

I like your optimism.

I enjoy and appreciate your pessimism. I wouldn't call it optimism, more like well placed realism.

Alex Logan

12-20-2008, 08:46 PM

Another reboot huh. Well, I guess well see what happens.

I for one liked Superman Returns, but I see why some didn't like it. Too close to what came before, I think they might have picked the wrong director.

Mostpowerful

12-20-2008, 09:29 PM

I don't think they will wait until Summer 09 to reveal what is happening with Superman.

I enjoy and appreciate your pessimism. I wouldn't call it optimism, more like well placed realism.

I soo hope you're right, Showtime. :csad:

Maybe during 2009? Another year of this would be terrible for everyone. :cmad:

Agreed. WB just put us our of our missery..... please. :hehe:

Ugh, I wish I was a Batman's fan sometimes...

Ita-KalEl

12-20-2008, 09:31 PM

I enjoy and appreciate your pessimism. I wouldn't call it optimism, more like well placed realism.

And I appreciate you. I think that you and jamie are the main reasons why the hype about a new Superman movie is still alive in internet.
I can't wait for some news.

Showtime

12-21-2008, 12:12 AM

When you put it that way, it makes me feel sad about a new Superman coming out any time soon.

boog_spin

12-21-2008, 12:19 AM

yeh show...you give me an optimistic vibe too...hopefully something pans out...and sooner rather than later

Showtime

12-21-2008, 12:52 AM

I want to see Superman again but I am nothing but realistic about when and what version.

GreenKToo

12-21-2008, 08:13 AM

The director announcement is gonna be huge. That's gonna dictate what level of interest and excite I have for it, ie A Bryan Singer type announcement, ''Meh". :whatever:
A Ron Howard or Jackson type announcement, ''Holy fookin' s&%t''.:wow:
Honestly though, I expect someone inbetween.

I Am The Knight

12-21-2008, 08:13 AM

Maybe during 2009? Another year of this would be terrible for everyone. :cmad:

At least you have only been here since July. This stuff gets depressing. It drains your soul :o

GreenKToo

12-21-2008, 08:16 AM

At least you have only been here since July. This stuff gets depressing. It drains your soul :o
Hopefully the wait will be worth it.(prays)

darknite17

12-21-2008, 08:42 AM

I think the director is going to be either J.J. Abrahms or James Cameron. This is based on absolutley nothing but a hunch.

GreenKToo

12-21-2008, 08:59 AM

Cameron would be sweeet.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 09:13 AM

I Am The Knight

12-21-2008, 09:28 AM

Cameron's not gonna happen...

darknite17

12-21-2008, 09:42 AM

Cameron's not gonna happen...

Don't tell me you IMDb'ed his schedule for 2009 and the next 3 years. So did I, but one can always dream.

What about Wachowski's? anything to add there anyone?

GreenKToo

12-21-2008, 09:46 AM

Cameron's not gonna happen...
I agree. As much as I would love a director like him, I think we'll get one that the studio can control.

I Am The Knight

12-21-2008, 09:48 AM

GreenKToo

12-21-2008, 09:52 AM

I didn't check his IMDB page :hehe: But like GreenK said, the studio will want someone they can control. Cameron is in a league of his own.

I like the Wachowskis but I don't know if WB would hand them Superman after Speed Racer.
Yup. Directors like Cameron, Spielberg, or Howard are out IMO.
I think it will be someone along the lines of a Abrams or Synder. Good, but not yet enough power to get exactly what they want.

EDIT:For better or worse, I also think the next Superman film WILL have ALOT of action.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 10:29 AM

Zach Snyder would be ideal. The jury will be out on 'Watchmen' but he if can pull it off then Superman would be a walk in the park. You're both right on the studio control factor, WB does not tolerate mavericks which is understandable. Cameron was way over-buget and over schedule with Titanic.
Then you have Abrahms who is doind Star Trek. I hope its either Snyder or Abrahms. Both American-Jewish directors, which for Superman is ideal.

Showtime

12-21-2008, 10:30 AM

Yup. Directors like Cameron, Spielberg, or Howard are out IMO.
I think it will be someone along the lines of a Abrams or Synder. Good, but not yet enough power to get exactly what they want.

EDIT:For better or worse, I also think the next Superman film WILL have ALOT of action.

If you're thinking that they are going in the direction that they want a director they can control, which I do agree with, Abrams and Snyder aren't necessarily those guys.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 10:36 AM

Studio should have a "put up and shut up " attitude when it comes to directors. Give them control over the whole film-making progress. Then again a liitle executive pressure could be good for the creative team, kind of like the Salkinds and Donner dynamic. Which started out okay but f88ked up at the sequel because of greed and impatience.

Showtime

12-21-2008, 10:38 AM

DavidTyler

12-21-2008, 10:40 AM

If you're thinking that they are going in the direction that they want a director they can control, which I do agree with, Abrams and Snyder aren't necessarily those guys.

And that, in itself, is yet another problem. The suits will be in the drivers seat.

They need to have a director with a solid vision that the fans will take to.

I think there's a lot to be said for leaking things. You can get a general feel if you're going in the right direction. It worked well for Nolan. It would be the obvious and safe thing for the studio to do here.

If the studio had done that before committing to Singer's vision we wouldn't have had the suit that most of us are not fond of and we wouldn't have had the kid. And those are the two biggest objections to be found on these pages.

Showtime

12-21-2008, 10:43 AM

And that, in itself, is yet another problem. The suits will be in the drivers seat.

They need to have a director with a solid vision that the fans will take to.

I think there's a lot to be said for leaking things. You can get a general feel if you're going in the right direction. It worked well for Nolan. It would be the obvious and safe thing for the studio to do here.

Hopefully that is why they are taking their time, they are waiting for the right director with the right vision. Last I heard was WB had a story they were presenting to would be directors. They've already been through a phase of bringing directors and writers to pitch in 2007.

Venom'sDad

12-21-2008, 10:46 AM

And that, in itself, is yet another problem. The suits will be in the drivers seat.

They need to have a director with a solid vision that the fans will take to.

I think there's a lot to be said for leaking things. You can get a general feel if you're going in the right direction...

...as far as what the fans want, I agree. However, I just think WB(the suits) needs to first assess exactly what are they trying to achieve here.... other than money(that's a given).

darknite17

12-21-2008, 10:46 AM

One of the early example of which was the leaked pic of Batmans Tumbler. Immediately after seeing those pics I felt I knew the direction of the film and what kind of a world the sory will take place in.

With SR it was just Routh in a not-too impressive pose in a not-too-impressive suit. They can't improve on the suit from Donners version! WTF?

Showtime

12-21-2008, 10:47 AM

DavidTyler

12-21-2008, 10:51 AM

Hopefully that is why they are taking their time, they are waiting for the right director with the right vision. Last I heard was WB had a story they were presenting to would be directors. They've already been through a phase of bringing directors and writers to pitch in 2007.

But the fact that the suits already have a story ... does that bode all that well? I'd rather hear that the suits have a treatment they're working with instead of a story. Given that the story is established ... well, we could end up with yet another unwanted 'kid' element ... like Superman has a twin brother who's comedy relief.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 10:52 AM

Well, that fact that they intentionally released those pics make it worse. The iconography of Superman is overwhelming, only Jesus Christ make match that level. Take Alex Ross for example, his artworks define the MoS for me.

Showtime

12-21-2008, 10:53 AM

But the fact that the suits already have a story ... does that bode all that well? I'd rather hear that the suits have a treatment they're working with instead of a story. Given that the story is established ... well, we could end up with yet another unwanted 'kid' element ... like Superman has a twin brother who's comedy relief.

It is a tad scary, but hopefully the story they have is from a comic writer, I think that was one of the reasons for that "Summit".

Anita18

12-21-2008, 10:55 AM

You're both right on the studio control factor, WB does not tolerate mavericks which is understandable. Cameron was way over-buget and over schedule with Titanic.
They got EXTREMELY lucky with Titanic, but it was a one in a million. Many other films with similar production issues simply bomb at the box office.

The problem is WB gave Singer complete control as well as directors previously attached like Burton. All it did was put a dent in their wallets. Hopefully they end up doing it again with the right match, Superman being run by the studio doesn't make me feel giddy.
That's why I think they're waiting for the right director to come along. They can't apply the same amount of control over every director - Singer needed limits on budget and scheduling, Nolan doesn't. I bet nothing would make them more content than having a director they can trust, instead of having to watch over his shoulder all the time.

I think there's a lot to be said for leaking things. You can get a general feel if you're going in the right direction. It worked well for Nolan. It would be the obvious and safe thing for the studio to do here.

If the studio had done that before committing to Singer's vision we wouldn't have had the suit that most of us are not fond of and we wouldn't have had the kid. And those are the two biggest objections to be found on these pages.
I'm still :huh: as to why people have such a huge problem with the suit, of all things. It's just an aesthetic thing - I had bigger problems with the story, and IMO Routh's swimming/flying movements bugged me more than the actual aesthetic of the suit. (Although the suit probably didn't help...)

One of the early example of which was the leaked pic of Batmans Tumbler. Immediately after seeing those pics I felt I knew the direction of the film and what kind of a world the sory will take place in.

With SR it was just Routh in a not-too impressive pose in a not-too-impressive suit. They can't improve on the suit from Donners version! WTF?
I remember the :wow: :cmad: when the first pic of Ledger as Joker was revealed. Half if it was "Hey, the scars are pretty neat" and the other half was like, "Why does the coloring look so fake?!?!"

What actually got me believing they had nailed the characterization was the execution of the viral games. And that was all pretty much after the film had finished shooting. :funny:

darknite17

12-21-2008, 11:05 AM

Mark Miller, July 2nd 2008:

"I've been planning this my entire life. I've got my director and producer set up, and it'll be 2011. This is how far ahead you have to think. The Superman brand is toxic after that last movie lost 200 million, but in 2011 we're hoping to restart it. Sadly I can't say who the director is, but we may make it official by Christmas. But fingers crossed it could work out, that would be my lifetime's dream."

In other quotes you can hear Millar talking about Producer this and that..

Can it be Joel Silver? My guess is as good as yours.

I Am The Knight

12-21-2008, 11:05 AM

They got EXTREMELY lucky with Titanic, but it was a one in a million. Many other films with similar production issues simply bomb at the box office.

And now the studio is hoping to replicate that success with Avatar by handing Cameron to keys to heaven. I don't think Avatar is going to be too profitable. It should be pretty impressive though.

Now, WB went with Nolan because he wanted to do something that had never been done before on film for the character, and his vision was different enough from what had come before that execs probably thought it felt right...Plus, it was filmable for a regular budget. Otherwise, we might have seen Batman Beyond instead.

WB needs to find their Nolan...In terms of a man with a fresh approach to a franchise that was stuck in limbo.

dark_b

12-21-2008, 11:21 AM

WB needs to find their Nolan...In terms of a man with a fresh approach to a franchise that was stuck in limbo.i think there is NO formula to find their Nola nfor superman. i actually think that they got 100% lucky with nolan. and lets nto forget that first it was BB. and after that this TDK that everyone is talking about.

Showtime

12-21-2008, 11:24 AM

That's why I think they're waiting for the right director to come along. They can't apply the same amount of control over every director - Singer needed limits on budget and scheduling, Nolan doesn't. I bet nothing would make them more content than having a director they can trust, instead of having to watch over his shoulder all the time.

Here's to hoping. They need a studio guy who can stick to a tight budget and deliver a tight film.

Mark Miller, July 2nd 2008:

"I've been planning this my entire life. I've got my director and producer set up, and it'll be 2011. This is how far ahead you have to think. The Superman brand is toxic after that last movie lost 200 million, but in 2011 we're hoping to restart it. Sadly I can't say who the director is, but we may make it official by Christmas. But fingers crossed it could work out, that would be my lifetime's dream."

In other quotes you can hear Millar talking about Producer this and that..

Can it be Joel Silver? My guess is as good as yours.

I think it is whomever Millar's imagination can think of.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 11:28 AM

Singer does not deserve a second bite of the cherry. He's caused too many issues which im sure everone is familiar with by now. If he had'nt made those critical mistkes than he could've treated SR as his BB, the only difference is BB was a new(ish) vision for Batman and SR was just a fanboy homage to Donners vision.

Double Down

12-21-2008, 11:31 AM

At least you have only been here since July. This stuff gets depressing. It drains your soul :o

I've been posting here since July. I've been following the Superman saga, online and off, since 1987. :csad:

darknite17

12-21-2008, 11:38 AM

I've been posting here since July. I've been following the Superman saga, online and off, since 1987. :csad:

You must recall the Brett Ratner Superman: Fly-by fiasco. Ha, and it gets better with Tim Burtons Frankenstien version. I'm glad it did'nt go to that egomaniac Shaymalan, although Unbreakable was ace.

I Am The Knight

12-21-2008, 11:47 AM

I've been posting here since July. I've been following the Superman saga, online and off, since 1987. :csad:

:hehe:

:csad:

DavidTyler

12-21-2008, 11:50 AM

RachelDawes

12-21-2008, 11:51 AM

I'm still :huh: as to why people have such a huge problem with the suit, of all things. It's just an aesthetic thing - I had bigger problems with the story

I feel the same way. I barely even noticed the suit in SR, except for the boots which were really big but that didn't bother me.

I remember the :wow: :cmad: when the first pic of Ledger as Joker was revealed. Half if it was "Hey, the scars are pretty neat" and the other half was like, "Why does the coloring look so fake?!?!"

The first released Joker pic was him staring at the camera without his hair showing, right? I loved it and thought it was spooky. I'm surprised so many people responded to it negatively.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 11:59 AM

And here's another thought to mull over....

Nolan was basicallly working with the approach currently being used (and prior to his films) in the Batman comix. It's dark, gritty, and serious. The stories lean toward the more mature without actually having to have a 'mature reader' label.

Does DC actually have a viable and cohesive version of Superman that any particular director could latch onto? I read the books and I'm not seeing anything there.

You make a good point. I think that WB were going for a more mature theme to the point of even signing Arronofsky to direct which gave Nolan a bit of a yard stick. I think David Goyer is the true fan of the comics and he was always at hand in terms of story for Nolan and Co.

IMO for action Dc can use aspects of John Byrnes Man of Steel (80's post-crisis post-Donner) and for characterization I would say All Star Superman with elements of Birthright. Plus some nuances added by the craetive team for originallity.

Venom'sDad

12-21-2008, 12:12 PM

I think David Goyer is the true fan of the comics and he was always at hand in terms of story for Nolan and Co.

I agree because Goyer have on many occasions express knowledge and understanding of the Characters in Batman and the Stories and History of the title character. As well as suggesting to Nolan to use the original Batman Persona from it comic origins and not what was watered down decades later in the late 50's -70's.

Nolan also have given credit to Goyer's knowledge of the character and even commented that he(Nolan) didn't know how to use Penguin in this world of Batman... which is tellin given that Penguin would fit well in this world that Nolan/Goyer has created.

darknite17

12-21-2008, 12:18 PM

I think its on the original Blade DVD, where Goyer talks about Batman more than Blade! this is way back in 1999/2000 on the specail features. Heck, even Dark City has become an underground cult classic by some (not me BTW).

But I suppose Jonah Nolan gets all the credit for TDK, which is fair. Its just that you don't hear much about Goyer on Batman project.

Alex Logan

12-21-2008, 12:58 PM

Yes he would, and a Superman trilogy would be just they way to put him back in the action/sci-fi drama that he kind of pioneered. He has a real knack to using the right amount of special effects.

If not Cameron then maybe, just maybe I would'nt mind Andy/Larry Wachowski. Who has a huge pull at WB.

The Wachowski brothers would be a great choice, just as long as they don't have Superman doing kung fu.

I'm still as to why people have such a huge problem with the suit, of all things. It's just an aesthetic thing - I had bigger problems with the story, and IMO Routh's swimming/flying movements bugged me more than the actual aesthetic of the suit. (Although the suit probably didn't help...)

I think most of the people that had big problems with the Superman Returns suit were from the general public. I remember sitting in the theater after the preview and people saying stuff like: "What's up with that costume?" "Man, that guy is too small to play Superman." Some even compared Routh to Bale in terms of size. In my opinion the suit could have used some work, but it wasn't as bad as some say.

I agree with you about the story, but I'm surpized to hear you say that his swimming/flying movements bugged you. I found it quite refresing that Singer spent time and money to figure out how Superman would look flying.

Cain

12-21-2008, 01:01 PM

Does DC actually have a viable and cohesive version of Superman that any particular director could latch onto? I read the books and I'm not seeing anything there.

All-Star Superman aside in terms of canon they do now, New Earth Superman rules and this is the direction in terms of characterization they should go for. It's the most non-polarizing version yet I can't think of any Superman fans who hate it. I like Byrne's version but a lot of people hate it, I like silver age Supes but again a lot of people hate that too. New Earth Superman though has been the only version I could use to get people who hate Superman into reading the comics. I know people from work and school some who don't even read DC that have gotten into Superman comics cause I introduced them to them via Last Son and Brainiac.

We no longer have to put up with crap like For Tomorrow. Don't believe me check Up, Up and Away, Camelot Falls, Last Son, Action Comics #850, Escape from Bizzaro World, Legion, Brainiac and New Krypton. All of that is quality and all of it is Superman being Superman again and the books entertaining the crap out of the reader. If they need a particular version to look into he's the one New Earth Supes combines the best of the entire 70 year history and reads like a love letter to Superman fans damn near everytime. He'll also be getting his origin next summer so it's safe to say that he's here to stay.

Anita18

12-21-2008, 01:30 PM

I think most of the people that had big problems with the Superman Returns suit were from the general public. I remember sitting in the theater after the preview and people saying stuff like: "What's up with that costume?" "Man, that guy is too small to play Superman." Some even compared Routh to Bale in terms of size. In my opinion the suit could have used some work, but it wasn't as bad as some say.

I agree with you about the story, but I'm surpized to hear you say that his swimming/flying movements bugged you. I found it quite refresing that Singer spent time and money to figure out how Superman would look flying.
The suit certainly didn't help Routh look big and powerful, I'll say that. He looked like he needed to pull his shoulders back the entire time.

It was just when he had to turn or stop while flying, that bugged me. Air isn't nearly as viscous as water, and Superman is superstrong so it shouldn't have been an issue anyway, so there's no reason why he'd have to change positions...so...slowly. Heck, swimming in water can be pretty explosive too - check out any Olympic-level swimmer doing the butterfly. :wow:

Alex Logan

12-21-2008, 01:35 PM

The suit certainly didn't help Routh look big and powerful, I'll say that. He looked like he needed to pull his shoulders back the entire time.

It was just when he had to turn or stop while flying, that bugged me. Air isn't nearly as viscous as water, and Superman is superstrong so it shouldn't have been an issue anyway, so there's no reason why he'd have to change positions...so...slowly. Heck, swimming in water can be pretty explosive too - check out any Olympic-level swimmer doing the butterfly. :wow:

True. I think the suit even had padding and he still lookes small in some shots.

I see your point, but at least Singer tried. That's the one thing that I think he broke new ground with. It's too bad we never saw something like that in the X-Men films, but then again maybe the effect weren't that good bad then.

Anita18

12-21-2008, 01:37 PM

I see your point, but at least Singer tried. That's the one thing that I think he broke new ground with. It's too bad we never saw something like that in the X-Men films, but then again maybe the effect weren't that good bad then.
What do you mean by "broke new ground?"

The shots of Supes flying in one direction were very well done, but I think Iron Man takes the cake for awesome-looking turns. Then again, he's more known for that kind of showmanship. :funny:

hippie_hunter

12-21-2008, 03:04 PM

All-Star Superman aside in terms of canon they do now, New Earth Superman rules and this is the direction in terms of characterization they should go for. It's the most non-polarizing version yet I can't think of any Superman fans who hate it. I like Byrne's version but a lot of people hate it, I like silver age Supes but again a lot of people hate that too. New Earth Superman though has been the only version I could use to get people who hate Superman into reading the comics. I know people from work and school some who don't even read DC that have gotten into Superman comics cause I introduced them to them via Last Son and Brainiac.

We no longer have to put up with crap like For Tomorrow. Don't believe me check Up, Up and Away, Camelot Falls, Last Son, Action Comics #850, Escape from Bizzaro World, Legion, Brainiac and New Krypton. All of that is quality and all of it is Superman being Superman again and the books entertaining the crap out of the reader. If they need a particular version to look into he's the one New Earth Supes combines the best of the entire 70 year history and reads like a love letter to Superman fans damn near everytime. He'll also be getting his origin next summer so it's safe to say that he's here to stay.

There are a few very vocal Superman fans who completely hate the direction New Earth Superman is in because Johns uses a lot of Donner and Silver Age concepts. In their eyes, anything resembling the Silver Age is automatically bad.

In my opinion, a lot of the concepts that Johns has used such as Kandor/New Krypton, Bizarro World, the Legion of Superheroes, bringing Superboy back, and whatnot sounds incredibly silly or bad on paper.

It downright amazes me that Johns has actually made the most silly and absurd concepts (Kandor, Legion of Superheroes, and Bizarro World) and actually make them good. Johns actually turned me into a fan of the Legion of Superheroes, the superteam that has people like "Matter Eater Lad," "Bouncing Boy," and "Ferro Lad." He even made concepts that I originally hated (Pa Kent dying and Superboy) into great ones as well.

The man deserves a freaking medal for crying out loud for this accomplishment, and let the people who are hating on really great material simply because it doesn't suit their view on Superman.

hippie_hunter

12-21-2008, 03:20 PM

I think the director is going to be either J.J. Abrahms or James Cameron. This is based on absolutley nothing but a hunch.

Yes he would, and a Superman trilogy would be just they way to put him back in the action/sci-fi drama that he kind of pioneered. He has a real knack to using the right amount of special effects.

If not Cameron then maybe, just maybe I would'nt mind Andy/Larry Wachowski. Who has a huge pull at WB.

I doubt it would be any of those directors.

James Cameron is far too busy, far too powerful, and far too expensive. This is the man who has made some of the most successful Hollywood movies of all time: Titanic, which is the highest grossing film of all time, Terminator 2, which revolutionized the film making industry, and Aliens.

Warner Bros. wouldn't want Abrams on account that his Superman script sucked so hard that it took on negative review to bring that project down. And it's been said that they want to go in a direction that is going to please as many Superman fans as possible (putting someone who had Krypton still around with King Jor-El, a Kryptonian Lex Luthor, and have Superman return to Krypton in the end).

And thanks to Speed Racer, I doubt that Warner Bros. has a lot of faith in the Wachoski Bros.

bunk

12-21-2008, 03:54 PM

Would fans really be that negative toward Abrams if the script isn't written by him? Just don't have him write it, only direct. That's what they did with Star Trek.

Alex Logan

12-21-2008, 03:55 PM

What do you mean by "broke new ground?"

The shots of Supes flying in one direction were very well done, but I think Iron Man takes the cake for awesome-looking turns. Then again, he's more known for that kind of showmanship. :funny:

I mean the way he looked while flying compared to the old superman films. His hair and cape flapped in the wind and for the most part I thought his movments where more fluid.

Cain

12-21-2008, 05:27 PM

There are a few very vocal Superman fans who completely hate the direction New Earth Superman is in because Johns uses a lot of Donner and Silver Age concepts. In their eyes, anything resembling the Silver Age is automatically bad.

Yeah I should've phrased that different I meant I haven't come across any Superman fan that hates it. Not that there aren't any who don't. It's just that I usually come across the same old "I like pre-crisis"/"I like pro-crisis" type when it comes to Superman fandom. With Johns' work on Superman comics I haven't seen either faction outright bash it at all. They seem acceptant of it the ones I come across.

Makes sense too I mean Superman's first appearance he still saved a space plane he just did it in costume now, Clark and the Kents are still a very important part of Superman's life, he still died, Cat Grant's son is still dead, he's still married to Lois, at the same time Superboy hung out with the Legion, Steve Lombard is back in the supporting cast, Brainiac still kidnapped Kandor and is just a Coluan, old school Winslow Stoch is the Toyman again but all the other Toyman's still existed etc. it's compromise on both ends and it seems to be working and most importantly it's not being retold the same way we know it. New Earth opens up a lot of possibility to actually "perfect" Superman's comic book history for once.

In my opinion, a lot of the concepts that Johns has used such as Kandor/New Krypton, Bizarro World, the Legion of Superheroes, bringing Superboy back, and whatnot sounds incredibly silly or bad on paper.

It downright amazes me that Johns has actually made the most silly and absurd concepts (Kandor, Legion of Superheroes, and Bizarro World) and actually make them good. Johns actually turned me into a fan of the Legion of Superheroes, the superteam that has people like "Matter Eater Lad," "Bouncing Boy," and "Ferro Lad." He even made concepts that I originally hated (Pa Kent dying and Superboy) into great ones as well.

Yeah if you would've asked me 10 years ago I wouldn't have gave a damn if argo city returned, like you I couldn't have cared less for the Legion, and felt nothing towards Superboy. I'm a post-crisis kid I grew up on the Byrne, Wolfman, Jurgens etc. stuff. I'm only 25 I got into golden, silver and bronze ages and stuff when I was in my late teens same thing with Batman cause that's when I could finally work and actually afford those damn DC archive books that cost an arm and a leg. I enjoyed those stories for what they were but if you were to tell me that a lot of their ideas would resurface in my precious modern books I'd call you crazy. But here we are and it actually works.

The man deserves a freaking medal for crying out loud for this accomplishment, and let the people who are hating on really great material simply because it doesn't suit their view on Superman.

He's been very good I have to say. He's outdone my favorite Superman runs of the 00's Loeb/McGuiness on Superman and Joe Kelly and a bunch of different artists on Action. Kelly's Action #775 still my favorite single issue Superman comic of all time though. Part of me wanted to see Morisson and Quitely on Secret Origin (I know) but honestly I see Johns and Frank knocking it out of the park. I think it will please both MOS and Birthright fans as Johns liked both stories. This dude is like the most diplomatic Superman writer ever lmao.

bgshw44

12-21-2008, 06:54 PM

Would fans really be that negative toward Abrams if the script isn't written by him? Just don't have him write it, only direct. That's what they did with Star Trek.

thats what i thought too, but someone brought up the fact that it shows he doesnt "get it" when it comes to superman. i guess i would agree with that

AVEITWITHJAMON

12-21-2008, 06:55 PM

The problem is WB gave Singer complete control as well as directors previously attached like Burton. All it did was put a dent in their wallets. Hopefully they end up doing it again with the right match, Superman being run by the studio doesn't make me feel giddy.

Nor me, it has me seriously worried that the movie will be made with no artistic integrity at all, and will simply be a movie made to make a lot of money at the BO.

GreenKToo

12-21-2008, 07:38 PM

I wish we could get lucky and get a Favreau or Nolan type director.

Christmas

12-21-2008, 08:23 PM

Dark Knight

12-21-2008, 10:28 PM

Would fans really be that negative toward Abrams if the script isn't written by him? Just don't have him write it, only direct. That's what they did with Star Trek.

I wouldn't have any problem with JJ directing a story/script from Johns, Orci and Kurtzman.

However, Jamie seems to feel that JJ has no shot at directing the next Supes flick.

hippie_hunter

12-21-2008, 10:45 PM

I think Brad Bird as director is the answer. He seems to me to be in a Nolan/ Favreau mold as GreenKToo put it. Excellent writer and visual story teller. Has something to prove coming from animation tho.

Bird would be cool.

Unfortunately, he is never going to leave Pixar, he even stated that as he will move into live action films that he does not want to leave Pixar. He loves it there. Hence why Pixar is producing his live action film, 1906.

darknite17

12-22-2008, 11:04 AM

Got a friend at work who is a huge Superman fan and believes that director with huge pull at WB is that Mark Millar was referring to is none other than Michael Mann. Who I believe was going to direct Hancock but gave the reins to Peter Burg because he wants Superman.
It does a litlle far-fetched though, considering his main genre include a lot of crime-dramas. But then again, did'nt Richard Donner do the Lethal Weapon series?

Showtime

12-22-2008, 11:39 AM

Why are you still hung up on what Mark Millar was saying?

GreenKToo

12-22-2008, 11:42 AM

Millar is all about selfpromotion. Gotta give him credit for keeping his name out there lol.

darknite17

12-22-2008, 11:43 AM

Because isn't that the direction that WB are taking. A new scribe from comicdom and a complete re-start? Combining into a trilogy?

I must be ill informed. What is the current status? help me out here, I keep duckin in and out of the entertainment 'grapevine'.

souvlaki

12-22-2008, 11:44 AM

I was very much against him as a director a few years ago, but I wouldn't mind McG ending up on Superman again if Terminator Salvation turns out to be as good as it looks. If he had a good script, or got someone like Jonah Nolan to rewrite the Abrams script I don't think it would turn out nearly as bad as people were speculating a couple years back. He's not my top choice by any stretch of the imagination, but my opinion of him has changed dramatically in the last few months.

dark_b

12-22-2008, 12:08 PM

I mean the way he looked while flying compared to the old superman films. His hair and cape flapped in the wind and for the most part I thought his movments where more fluid.hair movement is nothing new in 2006. it was new for superman but when was the last superman with a huge budget?
he did nothing grounbreaking with hte flying. it was static?
iron man? actuallly sueprman flying should be more interesting since he can move the body very fast. iron man is in a robotic suit and hes flying should be more static. not the other way around.

bad bad bad

darknite17

12-22-2008, 12:10 PM

I could definatley live with McG if the script and cast was pitch perfect. TSalvation does look like it might deliver, and that fact that Bale might be involved for maybe 3 installments means that that writing and characterization must be applaudable.

does he have the resilience and balls to deliver on such a huge project? I know Bryan Singer did'nt make the grade, and he is still regarded as an accomplished film-maker.

FilmNerdJamie

12-22-2008, 12:11 PM

Michael Mann's got Public Enemies for his "big-budget mainstream studio project!"

Why are people still insisting that Millar is telling the truth? His track record of flat out making crap up speaks for itself... :whatever:

BlackLantern

12-22-2008, 12:11 PM

hair movement is nothing new in 2006. it was new for superman but when was the last superman with a huge budget?
he did nothing grounbreaking with hte flying. it was static?
iron man? actuallly sueprman flying should be more interesting since he can move the body very fast. iron man is in a robotic suit and hes flying should be more static. not the other way around.

bad bad bad

So you're saying that Iron Man looked better flying around than Superman did in SR and that Superman flying should have looked a lot better than it did? I just want to be clear on your point....

dark_b

12-22-2008, 12:14 PM

So you're saying that Iron Man looked better flying around than Superman did in SR and that Superman flying should have looked a lot better than it did? I just want to be clear on your point....yes. supermans flying should be more interesting because he moves in the air like very organic. iron is in a robotic suit and he should only fly straight. of course what they did was better. but it makes me angry when i watch SR .

BlackLantern

12-22-2008, 12:21 PM

Ok....Iron Man did look very good when flying, and considering the comics why should Iron Man only be flying in a straight line....?? The suit has propulsion and flaps, from a physics standpoint you can change direction in flight....as far as SR, there are times in the movie where it looks ok than times where it looks stiff....

hippie_hunter

12-22-2008, 01:48 PM

The Sage

12-22-2008, 02:00 PM

Dark Knight

12-22-2008, 03:31 PM

Here's to hoping. They need a studio guy who can stick to a tight budget and deliver a tight film.

I think it is whomever Millar's imagination can think of.

Wow! This whole Millar thing is damn peculiar I will tell ya that.

I mean the guy is just openly saying he hopes his story gets the greenlight and he has a director who is close with the studio who may direct.

You and Jamie make it sound like Millar is far more than just delusional but more schizophrenic and possibly even insane?

If Millar is truly that screwed up, then someone needs to let him know that.

Seriously....

C. Lee

12-22-2008, 03:37 PM

If Millar is truly that screwed up, then someone needs to let him know that.

Seriously....

Isn't that what several million fanboys do daily?

Showtime

12-22-2008, 03:40 PM

Wow! This whole Millar thing is damn peculiar I will tell ya that.

I mean the guy is just openly saying he hopes his story gets the greenlight and he has a director who is close with the studio who may direct.

You and Jamie make it sound like Millar is far more than just delusional but more schizophrenic and possibly even insane?

If Millar is truly that screwed up, then someone needs to let him know that.

Seriously....

I didn't realize that you would take such things personally. I'll try to refrain not to listen to the guy who insisted that Caviezel was playing Superman in Superman Returns and it was a done deal and that Eminem was going to star in the next Superman movie.

I love what he has done with comics, he has written one of my favorite Elseworld tales of all time, doesn't mean I want him or believe him to be getting Superman. Why don't you do some research of your own and get in contact with some webmasters and people with the studio and ask them about Millar.

I SEE SPIDEY

12-22-2008, 03:45 PM

Somebody actually still believes what Millar says?

Showtime

12-22-2008, 03:46 PM

Somebody actually still believes what Millar says?

The funny thing is that some believe that it is only me and FilmNerdJamie saying this. Take a ride around the interwebs. Millar being full of it wasn't invented by Showtime and FilmNerdJamie.

FilmNerdJamie

12-22-2008, 04:05 PM

You and Jamie make it sound like Millar is far more than just delusional but more schizophrenic and possibly even insane?

If Millar is truly that screwed up, then someone needs to let him know that.

Seriously....

Never did Showtime or myself ever say or imply Millar was "schizophrenic and possibly even insane." The guy just talks outta his butt...alot. He's 100% about getting himself and his comics press - nothing more, nothing less.

And his track-record speaks for that.

Among other things, he started a hoax claiming that Orson Welles was trying to make a Batman film back in the 1940s (that Aint It Cool News infamously picked up on), his claim of "knowing" that Jim Caviezel had been cast as Superman in Returns (going as far as betting $1000 or so against Harry Knowles) and that Eminem called up him "begging" to star in Wanted. In all cases, he later laughed it off and admitted to making it up.

I was recently talking to a webmaster/friend on the phone who laughingly called Millar "the most full of **** guy around right now!"

I'll say it again. Why would anyone in their right mind believe Millar is telling the truth at this point? :huh: