Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[KalMart]

I left the "conversation" about Superman Returns' marketing because I gave examples of them marketing the film with action (as you asked). But you opted to ignore it to instead just crap on the film.
Wrong, I didn't crap on the film. I simply pointed out that the films that seem to benefit from 'bigger, better' marketing also have more to deliver. That's not saying that SR sucked. You're the one who decided to compensate by getting testy. :O

You can like or dislike said film as much as you so desire. But it was clear that was all it was about.

See above.

Grow a brain.

Show us how first. ;)

Relax man. :D

This on the other hand is about Star Trek.

Both of them in fact. Granted, I don't see that a good thing in any way, shape or form.
I thought they delivered what people generally wanted to see from them.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Wrong, I didn't crap on the film. I simply pointed out that the films that seem to benefit from 'bigger, better' marketing also have more to deliver. That's not saying that SR sucked. You're the one who decided to compensate by getting testy. :O

Sure, you were. With comments like "Good thing Star Trek actually had a product to work off of." And since when does being "testy" involve calling someone out? :huh: It doesn't?!? I didn't think so. Let's just move the discussion back to Trek.

[KalMart]

Sure, you were. With comments like "Good thing Star Trek actually had a product to work off of."
Which I still hold to as a fair and serious assessment. I think you overracted to a il-perceived agenda there. I wasn't saying that SR sucked, but it certainly didn't have the breadth and variety of action and excitement in its material to sell like ST had....hence it makes it a lot more difficult for marketing to emphasize.

You emphasized ST's marketing doing abetter job than SR's.....but pound-for-pound, they had more material to do it with.

And since when does being "testy" involve calling someone out? :huh: It doesn't?!? I didn't think so.
Since you got testy and tried the whole answer-your-own-question shtick, ace. ;) You didn't call anyone out....you only left little pictures, then turned and ran. Not very far, but hey.

[FilmNerdJamie]

:whatever:

[KalMart]

Alrighty, another good one.



AAAAAaaaanyway. ST did a good job and kept the bar high for big-time franchises in this era. One can only hope that the Superman franchise can measure up to the same efforts...on all ends.

[KalMart]

I've got it!

SUPER TREK!

Or "This Ain't Your Father's Superman"

[Webhead2006]

So i was thinking now that johns has been revealed to be working on both flash and shazam films. Why could he or morrison/wolfman also be invovled with superman to a degree with other writers too while working on what ever projects(wolfman/morrison) that havent been revealed yet. If johns could work on two why couldnt the others or all three have a hand in things.

[Webhead2006]

It really does blow alot things have to be so hard for them to get superman moving again, the whole legal stuff, and all that. To bad things couldnt be in a better place.

[Blackman]

Honestly I'm skeptical about comic writers doing writing the films. I think you should have a director or writer who has respect for the comics like Nolan or Faverau but dont have actual comic book writers write because it seem like they tend to think of the film as a comic book storyline

Mark Millar while decent, his ideas for Superman were very questionable, Frank Miller who was the man back in the day has alot of classics under his belt and yet Robocop 2&3 werent accepted well, and then David Goyer he wrote Blade I/II but he also wrote Blade III & Nick Fury

So as I said comic book writers should stick to doing comics while actual screenwriters do their thing

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The last few pages were tremendously entertaining to me.

Ah we always have the same arguements over and over again...











HELP US WB!.

[GreenKToo]

well, we could talk about this...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=292994&page=171
post 4265

[Octoberist]

I'm not against them being consultants.

And I do believe that Geoff Johns comes from a film background to boot.

[TheDarkKnight08]

well, we could talk about this...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=292994&page=171
post 4265

He's right about the origin thing. It's been overdone, and with Smallville kinda killing it for everyone, I can see this new direction as something good, sans the origin.

[SuperDaniel]

I personally don't care for Krypton. What i want to see is the Smallville scenes done right, like in Superman for all seasons. That is a must in the next movie because it shows Superman's motivations and i don't think that was ever explored in any medium aside from the comics. No more some holographic parent brainwashing Clark kent into being Jesus Christ. I want to see Clark chosing to be a hero because he sees the destruction of the Tornado in Smallville and sees he could've done more to protect the people.

[Sawyer]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

Dont pull that stuff. SR cost over 50 million more to make than Star Trek, but made only about 10 million more. Trek was a bigger success.

And I dont think Star Trek cut ties with the past at all. It was just a new beginning.

[RachelDawes]

Surveillance camera footage from SR marketing dept. screening.

:funny:

And the next Superman movie definitely needs to reshow Supes's origin in some fashion. Every year that passes takes us further from the Donner series so fewer people will have seen his origin on screen.

[SuperDaniel]

The thing is...How the hell will they use someone like Braniac if they can't mention Krypton? It has to be all or nothing, IMO. They need to mention everything in an reboot. It's ridiculous to not have all the options. WB better pay the Siegels and hope for the best with the new movie.

[KalMart]

:funny:

And the next Superman movie definitely needs to reshow Supes's origin in some fashion. Every year that passes takes us further from the Donner series so fewer people will have seen his origin on screen.

Fewer years passed between the latest run of Batman movies and BB. And although BB mat have faced a bit of confusion or hesitance because of how things had gone with 'Forever' and B&R, I think people were able to go along just fine with everything being a new start. So I say if they are going to restart, just do it, and do it well. People will catch on just fine....it's not like STM was Star Wars.

As far as the origin part....Krypton, Smallville, et al...I dunno, I think they might be able to save that for the second movie if there is one, dedicating more of the restart to reintroducing Superman being Superman. Maybe a few small glimpses of his origin, instead of a big chunk of the first act, like most origin films.

[KalMart]

The thing is...How the hell will they use someone like Braniac if they can't mention Krypton? It has to be all or nothing, IMO. They need to mention everything in an reboot. It's ridiculous to not have all the options. WB better pay the Siegels and hope for the best with the new movie.

Was the original concept of Braniac always connected directly to Krypton, or do the S&S's have specific rights to Braniac? Otherwise, write a version of Braniac that has nothing to do with Krypton.

[Crook]

Braniac was always an alien entity, but it was STAS that connected him to Krypton. I suppose they can go with the original origins, but the latter provides a much more potent connection to the hero, which is always the best.

[KalMart]

Braniac was always an alien entity, but it was STAS that connected him to Krypton. I suppose they can go with the original origins, but the latter provides a much more potent connection to the hero, which is always the best.

I always liked the idea of Braniac being at least indirectly responsible for krypton's destruction....or at least the failure of the Kryptonians to foresee it. But if for some reason Krypton can't be mentioned/developed....then I guess they'll have to choose another origin for him if the benefits of incorporating him as a villain outweigh having to connect him with Krypton.

[GreenKToo]

I always liked the idea of Braniac being at least indirectly responsible for krypton's destruction....or at least the failure of the Kryptonians to foresee it. But if for some reason Krypton can't be mentioned/developed....then I guess they'll have to choose another origin for him if the benefits of incorporating him as a villain outweigh having to connect him with Krypton.
Yeah me too. The way I feel about this whole legal situation is, money talks.
Throw enough at the familes and they will go away (for now)

[BenReilly]

Yeah me too. The way I feel about this whole legal situation is, money talks.
Throw enough at the familes and they will go away (for now)

True but the more money the studio throws at the Siegel's, the less profitable making another Superman film becomes. What's it in for the studio then to make another film?

Also, come 2013, if/when the Shuster family acquires the other half of the copyright (which is currently held by WB/DC), then they'll have two families to contend with.

The Siegel's won't be the only ones they'll have to worry about and pay off...

[GreenKToo]

I guess they will have to weigh one against the other.
Paying Tens of millions to the families Vs not paying them and risk losing BILLIONS.
(I'm talking everything overall, not just a film.)

[DavidTyler]

1) I think it needs to cut ties with Superman Returns. I say if it can retain its ties with the earlier films, then great.

2) You are aware that a "back to basics" approach is the opposite of cutting ties with the past.

3) Why does everything have to be defined by a director's last name? I've never once said to someone, "hey! I'm gonna go watch Donner."

1) Here is where we disagree. Not interested in Donner or Singer's take on the character. Donner's film was a comedy and Singer's a maudlin take on that comedy.

2) Cutting ties with the earlier films is just that. I want no ties to those films. They weren't the cloth that the character was cut from. I want to go back to the comix and take the original, basic concept and work it for a modern, more sophisticated audience. This is what Byrne and Wolfman did (although Byrne's Krypton was kind of influenced by the cold sterility of the Donner film, it didn't mirror it.)

3) Why would you even be so sensitive about that? Donner made the decisions for his film and Singer for SR. Of course those films can be defined by the individual responsible for making them.

[DavidTyler]

Hell with it.... let the studio give me 50 mil and I'll make a Superman film that will make fandom (for the most part) happy and set up a franchise that will have legs.

It's not that friggin complicated.

Do a total reboot.

Start from the beginning and make Krypton more interesting than the Donner version.

Touch a little on his smallville experiences - enough so you get an idea of what shaped him - including at least one bad experience that caused him to be a very cautious adult.

Let us see a bit of his travels around the world and touch on maybe one incident that shaped him... I'm thinking the African scene from Birthright (the only part of that book worth anything)

Let him arrive at the costume and name in a believable way ( I would borrow from MOS)

Let him have his first interaction with Corrupt Corporate Shark Luthor.

Set up a sequel in the closing minutes of the first film and hint that it's something spectacular ... like Brainiac or something similar.


Make sure all the characters are up to date, not hokey or cartoony, and relatable. Like Jimmy and Perry being who they are in the animated series.

That would do it. It's a film that would work and capture the gp as well as fandom.

Why is Hollywood making this so difficult?

[mego joe]

Braniac was always an alien entity, but it was STAS that connected him to Krypton. I suppose they can go with the original origins, but the latter provides a much more potent connection to the hero, which is always the best.

Well the first Braniac story did involve the Bottled City of Kandor from KRypton, so there's always been some connection of BRainiac to Krypton. YOu wouldn't necessarily have to include it, but it would make for a good story I believe.

FTR, Brainiac was created by Otto Binder- no connection to S/S.

[VenomsMom]

It's not that friggin complicated.


Your right......its not. And its the simplest approach. Yet so frustrating.

[GreenKToo]

Hell with it.... let the studio give me 50 mil and I'll make a Superman film that will make fandom (for the most part) happy and set up a franchise that will have legs.

It's not that friggin complicated.

Do a total reboot.

Start from the beginning and make Krypton more interesting than the Donner version.

Touch a little on his smallville experiences - enough so you get an idea of what shaped him - including at least one bad experience that caused him to be a very cautious adult.

Let us see a bit of his travels around the world and touch on maybe one incident that shaped him... I'm thinking the African scene from Birthright (the only part of that book worth anything)

Let him arrive at the costume and name in a believable way ( I would borrow from MOS)

Let him have his first interaction with Corrupt Corporate Shark Luthor.

Set up a sequel in the closing minutes of the first film and hint that it's something spectacular ... like Brainiac or something similar.


Make sure all the characters are up to date, not hokey or cartoony, and relatable. Like Jimmy and Perry being who they are in the animated series.

That would do it. It's a film that would work and capture the gp as well as fandom.

Why is Hollywood making this so difficult?
maybe because they have reimagining on the brain. I guess they've never heard the term, ''if it ain't broke, don't fix it''.
The film part of Superman is broke of course, but not the source material.

[The Guard]

$50 million dollars?

I'd like to see that.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Nobody could do a liveaction Superman movie for 50mil.

[nintendo nerd]

Hell with it.... let the studio give me 50 mil and I'll make a Superman film that will make fandom (for the most part) happy and set up a franchise that will have legs.

It's not that friggin complicated.

Do a total reboot.

Start from the beginning and make Krypton more interesting than the Donner version.

Touch a little on his smallville experiences - enough so you get an idea of what shaped him - including at least one bad experience that caused him to be a very cautious adult.

Let us see a bit of his travels around the world and touch on maybe one incident that shaped him... I'm thinking the African scene from Birthright (the only part of that book worth anything)

Let him arrive at the costume and name in a believable way ( I would borrow from MOS)

Let him have his first interaction with Corrupt Corporate Shark Luthor.

Set up a sequel in the closing minutes of the first film and hint that it's something spectacular ... like Brainiac or something similar.


Make sure all the characters are up to date, not hokey or cartoony, and relatable. Like Jimmy and Perry being who they are in the animated series.

That would do it. It's a film that would work and capture the gp as well as fandom.

Why is Hollywood making this so difficult?

You are gonna make a Superman TV Movie?

You are saying you can make a 50 million Superman movie? And that most people would like it? LOL. Good look with that. You and Timstuff are the most arrogant people on this boards, by far. :o

[KalMart]

Ouch.

[nintendo nerd]

Hey Tyler, here's your cast for your Superman movie. Now you just have to worry about the script and the visual effects because this cast is cheap as hell.


http://celuloidesensujugo.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/smallville1.jpg

[RachelDawes]

Why is Hollywood making this so difficult?

At this point, I think it's the lawsuit that's making things so difficult.

[RachelDawes]

As far as the origin part....Krypton, Smallville, et al...I dunno, I think they might be able to save that for the second movie if there is one, dedicating more of the restart to reintroducing Superman being Superman. Maybe a few small glimpses of his origin, instead of a big chunk of the first act, like most origin films.

It depends on what you mean about saving the origin, but I would rather they just go the traditional route and get the origin out of the way in the first movie and amp up the action in the second.

Besides, I like the idea of watching Superman grow from movie to movie. TDK was great, but would have suffered if we hadn't seen Batman develop his one rule or his relationship with Rachel in BB. Our knowledge of who Batman is and what he believes and wants made the events of TDK more poignant.

I want to see what motivates Clark to become Superman, his first rescue, his mistakes, all those things that help build a character.

[KalMart]

It depends on what you mean about saving the origin, but I would rather they just go the traditional route and get the origin out of the way in the first movie and amp up the action in the second.
That's kinda' what I mean in terms of how to use the origin....in that instead of 'getting it out of the way', we can get more meat out of it by using it as a more parallel storyline...a la Godfather II...with the threat of the second movie also being tied in with krypton's destruction, etc. It might help to broaden the scope of the story over two worlds and so on, instead of having to get it over with within 10-15 minutes.

Besides, I like the idea of watching Superman grow from movie to movie. TDK was great, but would have suffered if we hadn't seen Batman develop his one rule or his relationship with Rachel in BB. Our knowledge of who Batman is and what he believes and wants made the events of TDK more poignant.
I like the idea of watching him grow as well, as I'm sure real Superman fans do. But I think it will be more effective if you draw more people in with a new Superman experience first, having them invest in that more before delving deeper into his past, heritage, and what not.

I want to see what motivates Clark to become Superman, his first rescue, his mistakes, all those things that help build a character.
So do I...eventually. But there's also something to be said for taking a little different approach/angle to it without necessarily having to change it....in fact, getting more out of it in a more unique package. I'm hoping that a new Superman movie...in addition to showing us a new take on Superman...would also give us a new take on telling his story, in a way that's unexpected compared to the more linear traditional approach without getting gimmicky or too experimental.

[RachelDawes]

That's kinda' what I mean in terms of how to use the origin....in that instead of 'getting it out of the way', we can get more meat out of it by using it as a more parallel storyline...a la Godfather II...with the threat of the second movie also being tied in with krypton's destruction, etc. It might help to broaden the scope of the story over two worlds and so on, instead of having to get it over with within 10-15 minutes.

Okay.

I like the idea of watching him grow as well, as I'm sure real Superman fans do. But I think it will be more effective if you draw more people in with a new Superman experience first, having them invest in that more before delving deeper into his past, heritage, and what not.

Not more effective for the first movie. With no background, Superman's just a nice guy in a weird costume who saves people for some reason. Though I suppose they could just do what Burton did and substitute the occasional flashback in place of a full-blown origin.

So do I...eventually. But there's also something to be said for taking a little different approach/angle to it without necessarily having to change it....in fact, getting more out of it in a more unique package. I'm hoping that a new Superman movie...in addition to showing us a new take on Superman...would also give us a new take on telling his story, in a way that's unexpected compared to the more linear traditional approach without getting gimmicky or too experimental.

I can understand this. What with BB, SM, IM, GL, and who knows what other heroes in the future I can't blame anyone who's getting a little origined out and wants a more unique approach to telling SUpes's story.

[Showtime]

I honestly can't take it anymore.

All this thread is, is general discussion. I like the original intention of the poster who opened the thread. However all it is, is posters passive aggressively taking shots at Superman Returns, marketing discussions, director discussions. This all can be talked about in the open discussion thread. That is where it is going.

[Blackman]

I dont really see this as a general discussion
Of course we go on tangents as all threads do but Ive seen alot of comments about the origin debate which has to do with reintroducing Supes. ANd then about all the lawsuit comments I think they also have relevance because the lawsuit could have a role in how Superman is reintroduced

[Showtime]

So you think that belongs in some type of Star Trek thread?

[KalMart]

Okay.



Not more effective for the first movie. With no background, Superman's just a nice guy in a weird costume who saves people for some reason. Though I suppose they could just do what Burton did and substitute the occasional flashback in place of a full-blown origin.
I think generally, people are familiar enough with the fact that Supes comes from a different planet and all, which could easily be alluded to once the world (in that movie) starts to learn more bout him. So in that respect, people don't HAVE to see it to get what's going on. And as I said earlier....if you view it from the perspective of the people in that world.....he suddenly shows up out of nowhere and blows everyone's mind. They don't know his origins and what have you....to them the world is a normal place...until he shows up with no warning. That's the kind of perspective I'd like the audience to have in the first film, the sudden arrival of a phenomenon....instead of having the traditional 'inside story' from the outset. That we can save for later. It'd be a different spin on things, and it could make the film more unique in that respect.



I can understand this. What with BB, SM, IM, GL, and who knows what other heroes in the future I can't blame anyone who's getting a little origined out and wants a more unique approach to telling SUpes's story.
It could be cool.

[KalMart]

Or they could just do it like Star Trek.

[GreenKToo]

I think we all have our own thoughts about we want and don't want in the next film, but I think we can all agree on one thing, and that is that we ALL want a goosebump inducing reintroduction next time around.
A film that will leave us smiling and saying I"VE GOT to see THAT again.

[Showtime]

I think you wanted my comment on McTeigue.

I think McTeigue was involved in talks at one point, I think he isn't now. Usually if somebody is involved they don't openly talk about what they would or wouldn't do.

[batman strikes]

I really like Kalmart's idea of telling the origin in two movies. You have the first one basically be all about Clark Kent and his travels, Smallville, and explaining why he chooses the disguise he does. Then you have the introductions in Metropolis with Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and the first appearance of Superman. You can have villains like Parasite and Metallo so the action wouldn't be lacking. The second movie you can start on Krypton and introduce Brainiac, Jor-El, Lara and baby Kal-El. Then when the planet explodes we cut to 30 years later where Brainiac comes to earth and terrorizes the people and then Superman saves the day. Basically the whole second movie would be about Superman finding out who he is and where he came from. Of course he would know he was an alien in the first film but he just doesn't know where until the second. I know that’s a really brief and crude explanation but if done right it could be really cool.

[The Guard]

I've toyed with that in writing treatments.

It's different, though, because I think the first movie should deal with Superman's motivations, at least in terms of becoming Superman, but not his actual origins. I really think Clark shouldn't know where he came from until the second film.

I envision a second film revealing bit by bit about Krypton's past, and hence, Superman's, until finally, Superman discovers Braniac's role in some sort of "bottle city" scheme on Krypton, and sees him for what he is, as well as realizing just what's out there in the universe.

A third movie would deal with Zod, Argo City, Kandor, and potentially Kara, with appropriate flashbacks if needed.

Here's the thing. Audiences are familiar with Superman being from another planet. I'm not sure I want Clark to be. I think it would have a LOT more impact if this guy doesn't know where he's from, or where he gets his powers, if the Kents don't even know. Maybe he's a god, maybe he's an angel, a mutant, an experiment, etc. And he discovers it after he's not only established himself as a human being, but also as Superman. That way, you don't have an essential rehash of the Donner "use your special heritage to become Superman" element, but the Krypton stuff still has punch.

[batman strikes]

I actually love that idea. Because like you said you are dealing with Clark Kent/Superman's motivation in the first film and you can spend the whole movie delving deeper into that. It's different but ultimately you will be getting the same information that we all want to see in the reboot it would just be splitting it up into two films.

[MaskedManJRK]

$50 million dollars?

I'd like to see that.

To be fair, we recently saw that it can be done on a smaller level with District 9. There weren't any stars and was probably okayed because no one thought it would get as big an opening as it got, but we have seen that you can make a CGI-extensive sci-fi film for under 50 million.

I don't see it happening, but I wouldn't object if someone like D9's director got the helm.

[KalMart]

Don't you think he'd like to be able to work with more than $50M, though?

[Crook]

To be fair, we recently saw that it can be done on a smaller level with District 9. There weren't any stars and was probably okayed because no one thought it would get as big an opening as it got, but we have seen that you can make a CGI-extensive sci-fi film for under 50 million.

I don't see it happening, but I wouldn't object if someone like D9's director got the helm.
I don't think people actually realize why D9 was 30 million, and looked like it did. That's one of the last films you want to actually compare to a cgi-integrated movie of a large scale.

[Kal-El Fan]

So lets bump it up to $150, convince WB on a negative pick-up arrangement ala STM, get Legendary involved, pay off the Siegels and get The Guard and DavidTyler writing a story, and get this puppy made! Let me know if you need a concept artist.:super:
:oldrazz:

[GreenKToo]

I think you wanted my comment on McTeigue.

I think McTeigue was involved in talks at one point, I think he isn't now. Usually if somebody is involved they don't openly talk about what they would or wouldn't do.
:yay: Ok,thanx.

[The Guard]

I don't like David. I quit. Wait. I get along quite well with David. I unquit.

To be fair, we recently saw that it can be done on a smaller level with District 9. There weren't any stars and was probably okayed because no one thought it would get as big an opening as it got, but we have seen that you can make a CGI-extensive sci-fi film for under 50 million.

Ah yes, DISTRICT 9.

So if we want our Superman film to be set in a set-dressed ghetto and inside some vaguely government looking buildings, with mostly static, slightly blurred shots of Krypton and anything else terribly large, some recolored alien models and a few mech suits for a two minute fight and some guns, and a particularly uninteresting looking shuttle/spacecraft...maybe we could make it happen. Maybe.

Of course, that's if we don't want Metropolis, Krypton, the rest of the world, Superman flying very much, etc.

Maybe we could just make INTERGANG VS. CADMUS: THE MOVIE. That might be good.

[bunk]

Lol, it's funny cuz it's true. I love D-9 as much as the next guy, but seriously, they built like -1 sets.

[KalMart]

"Aliens" (1986). Production Budget: $18.5M

Adjusted for 2009: around $36M

:eek:

[Timstuff]

In the 80's, there was Aliens. In the 90's, there was Independence Day. And in the 2000's, there's District 9. :word:

[DavidTyler]

$50 million dollars?

I'd like to see that.

Sure ... because I'm going to recruit you to help with the script... and you don't cost that much!!!!

;)

[DavidTyler]

You are gonna make a Superman TV Movie?

You are saying you can make a 50 million Superman movie? And that most people would like it? LOL. Good look with that. You and Timstuff are the most arrogant people on this boards, by far. :o

Why, thank you.... it's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

Yeah... I know 50 mil is ridiculously low figure and it was just off the top of my head but my point was that it's all gotten out of hand. Singer spent money for foolish things ... that all cgi shot of a bullet to Routh's cgi head. Epic movie did the same shot for much less and did with compositing that my good friend and filmmaker here on the hype LeftRight can and has done for pennies.

The Hollywood machine has cranked film spending to excess. I think they can make a very decent Superman film for a lot less than they do now.

[DavidTyler]

Don't you think he'd like to be able to work with more than $50M, though?

In all honesty, it was just a figure I pulled out of my head in a moment of immediacy. I didn't really sit down and do any math.

Like I said before, though, I think Hollywood spending has gotten out of control and I think most of it is the exhorbitant salaries of the stars and the director. I firmly believe that there are new and upcoming people that could do very high quality work with modern techniques that would cost a whole lot less. Not to say I want the look of a fan film but look at how fan films have progressed from shaky home video to credible 1960's style television. I cite for example the Star Trek fan films like Starship Exeter and Star Trek New Voyages. Imagine the work that some of these people with a much better budget could do.

[DavidTyler]

So lets bump it up to $150, convince WB on a negative pick-up arrangement ala STM, get Legendary involved, pay off the Siegels and get The Guard and DavidTyler writing a story, and get this puppy made! Let me know if you need a concept artist.:super:
:oldrazz:

Thank you, Kal... I'd love to work with you on the visuals.

[DavidTyler]

Hey Tyler, here's your cast for your Superman movie. Now you just have to worry about the script and the visual effects because this cast is cheap as hell.


http://celuloidesensujugo.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/smallville1.jpg

Cool .... do I get to sleep with Allison Mack? I've always thought she was kinda hot and sexy.


OH, and Annette O'Toole is married to Michael McKean... Maybe I can get a Spinal Tap jam going after hours.

[Blackman]

So you think that belongs in some type of Star Trek thread?
:huh:
I posted it in the Reintroducing Superman thread, not in the Star Trek thread

[KalMart]

In all honesty, it was just a figure I pulled out of my head in a moment of immediacy. I didn't really sit down and do any math.

Like I said before, though, I think Hollywood spending has gotten out of control and I think most of it is the exhorbitant salaries of the stars and the director. I firmly believe that there are new and upcoming people that could do very high quality work with modern techniques that would cost a whole lot less. Not to say I want the look of a fan film but look at how fan films have progressed from shaky home video to credible 1960's style television.

That's a bit of a stretch....but even if it were true....people aren't necessarily looking to buy movie tickets to go see 1960's TV, unless that's an occasional stylistic choice....certainly not for the bigger action-adventure movies. Blair Witch didn't exactly start a huge trend of making wide-release horror flicks exclusively on Hi-8 handycams. Sure, you might have a talented and resourceful filmmaker who can do 'more with less', etc....but if someone the likes of WB/FOX/Universal/Columbia/Sony are doing it, you think all those unions, processing facilities, and such are going to take pay cuts just so some major studio can keep costs down?

The best chance of keeping costs down on any major film are to keep the production independent from the studio system. Good luck doing that with a property like Superman.

[Spade]

Don't like what McTeigue's saying. Maybe I've heard "it won't be what you expect" or "the origin is overdone" way too often from Hollywood, but I've seen what that means in previous Superman takes. It usually involves making a dark Superman story that nobody needs. I'll pass.

[Kal-El Fan]

I think you guys are taking the $50mil thing too seriously. I assumed right from the start that it was a "for instance" type of reference, and not an actual calculated figure.

Also, I WISH Superman could be an independent film again as STM and SII were. They were filmed outside of the studio system, and look at how fantastic they were! They may be showing their age a bit now, but you have to admit those were great films, especially in their time.

David,
OK we have writers and a concept artist, now all we need are producers with lots of money and someone who can sell WB/Siegels on the negative pick-up arrangement! LOL

[KalMart]

I think people here are taking production budgets too seriously.

[Spade]

People talk about independent features like they automatically end up in better hands, but sometimes they don't. Take Terminator Salvation, since it was the most expensive independent feature to date (as this might be if it were made that way) and part of a franchise. In the end, what happened? Regardless of how you felt about the film, you gotta admit it came and went here in the States. It's cool that people want the best for their favorite character, but independent films aren't all peaches and cream to make. If they were, the studios would be out of business.

[Kal-El Fan]

This is true. SR's problem wasn't really it's budget. It was our reaction of WTF did you spend that money on??!! You had $250mil, and this is all we get? It's definitely a subjective kind of viewpoint/reaction.

[Kal-El Fan]

People talk about independent features like they automatically end up in better hands, but sometimes they don't. Take Terminator Salvation, since it was the most expensive independent feature to date (as this might be if it were made that way) and part of a franchise. In the end, what happened? Regardless of how you felt about the film, you gotta admit it came and went here in the States. It's cool that people want the best for their favorite character, but independent films aren't all peaches and cream to make. If they were, the studios would be out of business.
That's true. I just don't think that WB is in the right mindset to make a film, and I think we may have a better chance of getting a film if WB has limited risk in it, as it did with the first two films. If the wrong "independent" people make it, than we'd be no better off than we are now.

[KalMart]

This is true. SR's problem wasn't really it's budget. It was our reaction of WTF did you spend that money on??!! You had $250mil, and this is all we get? It's definitely a subjective kind of viewpoint/reaction.

Likewise....did people enjoy the first Transformers more because it 'only' had a budget of $150M....or did that just add to the kudos afterwards for those who were even interested?

[Kal-El Fan]

:up:

[DavidTyler]

That's a bit of a stretch....but even if it were true....people aren't necessarily looking to buy movie tickets to go see 1960's TV, unless that's an occasional stylistic choice....certainly not for the bigger action-adventure movies. Blair Witch didn't exactly start a huge trend of making wide-release horror flicks exclusively on Hi-8 handycams. Sure, you might have a talented and resourceful filmmaker who can do 'more with less', etc....but if someone the likes of WB/FOX/Universal/Columbia/Sony are doing it, you think all those unions, processing facilities, and such are going to take pay cuts just so some major studio can keep costs down?

The best chance of keeping costs down on any major film are to keep the production independent from the studio system. Good luck doing that with a property like Superman.

That wasn't my point. My point was that, if amatuer film makers fan make the leap from very poor home video looking films to something that has the look and feel of a 60's TV show, then it's not a great leap of imagining to think that they could make that final leap to movie quality. I have a buddy right now making a film that will, in the end, have a very filmic quality to it and it was done with all Prosumer equipment.

I just think that the cost of film-making should come down as the equipment get's better and cheaper to make. Directors and actors are, for the most part, pretty well off. They don't need the exhorbitant salaries they're being paid. Doesn't it bother anyone that Brad Pitt makes 100 times what a school teacher makes? Not that I don't think Pitt is talented or uses his money to help people... but it's just the idea of it.


But I digress.

[KalMart]

That wasn't my point. My point was that, if amatuer film makers fan make the leap from very poor home video styler films to something that has the look and feel of a 60's TV show, then it's not a great leap of imagining to think that they could make that final leap to movie quality. I have a buddy right now making a film that will, in the end, have a very filmic quality to it and it was done with all Prosumer equipment.

I just think that the cost of film-making should come down as the equipment get's better and cheaper to make. Directors and actors are, for the most part, pretty well off. They don't need the exhorbitant salaries they're being paid. Doesn't it bother anyone that Brad Pitt makes 100 times what a school teacher makes? Not that I don't think Pitt is talented or uses his money to help people... but it's just the idea of it.


But I digress.

I see the 'leap' in look/feel being more due to the increased availability of technology, but not in actual talent, which is much more important. With more availability and affordability also comes less discipline. There's something to be said about things being harder so that the better/more resillient ones make it through. It still doesn't change how studios/unions/labor costs operate, nor does it stave off inflation. As for salaries for people like Pitt or what have you.....their asking prices go up because they generate more money in product sales etc. with their involvement....it's not a measurement of moral value or what not...like compared to a schoolteacher or social worker. If someone has a problem with that, then they should go after professional athletes/developers/etc as well...and the overall modern condition that sustains that, rather than looking at just movies.

[Kal-El Fan]

There is a lot of wasteful spending in our society in general. Movies are no exception. I think that we may find that this trend WILL bring about the end of the way many industries operate.
If you produce enough lower budget movies that generate huge grosses, then the studios will do those more often, and try to make their blockbusters that "have" to have large budgets follow suit (eventually....at first they would just make fewer of them).
Also in comics, eventually the higher costs will force the publishers to hire less expensive talent, buy less expensive materials, and/or just go to digital, etc, because no one will pay $10 per issue.

I'm just saying that you can only sustain excess for so long before something has to give. Look at the recent/current recession.

[DavidTyler]

I see the 'leap' in look/feel being more due to the increased availability of technology, but not in actual talent, which is much more important. With more availability and affordability also comes less discipline. There's something to be said about things being harder so that the better/more resillient ones make it through. It still doesn't change how studios/unions/labor costs operate, nor does it stave off inflation. As for salaries for people like Pitt or what have you.....their asking prices go up because they generate more money in product sales etc. with their involvement....it's not a measurement of moral value or what not...like compared to a schoolteacher or social worker. If someone has a problem with that, then they should go after professional athletes/developers/etc as well...and the overall modern condition that sustains that, rather than looking at just movies.


I know and I understand. I just think that there are probably some Spielbergs and Lucas's out there learning how to use prosumer stuff in ways that others aren't.

And I'm not really denigrating that Pitt and co have a right to a big payoff since they only work on usually one film every other year... but there are also probably stars out there looking for their big break that would fit the parts as well.

When I was in the process of shooting my Batman fan film, there was a guy I met doing construction that would have been my choice for Bruce had I not already cast someone. And he was an aspiring actor.

[KalMart]

I know and I understand. I just think that there are probably some Spielbergs and Lucas's out there learning how to use prosumer stuff in ways that others aren't.
Well if that's the case....why stiff'em in the budget department of they get a shot at Superman? :oldrazz::woot: If a Lucas/Spiels/Cameron in their prime got $250M to do one of their movies and it turned out as well as we would expect in that case....would we be complaining that they should have done it for cheaper? :O Just be glad that we don't have to pay higher ticket prices for movies that cost more to make than others.....like it is with most other products in the world.

And I'm not really denigrating that Pitt and co have a right to a big payoff since they only work on usually one film every other year... but there are also probably stars out there looking for their big break that would fit the parts as well.
Then that's for them to worry about, not Pitt or whoever else were lucky enough to make it big.

When I was in the process of shooting my Batman fan film, there was a guy I met doing construction that would have been my choice for Bruce had I not already cast someone. And he was an aspiring actor.
Keep his number in case you have to reboot. Heh... ;)

[KalMart]

There is a lot of wasteful spending in our society in general. Movies are no exception. I think that we may find that this trend WILL bring about the end of the way many industries operate.
If you produce enough lower budget movies that generate huge grosses, then the studios will do those more often, and try to make their blockbusters that "have" to have large budgets follow suit (eventually....at first they would just make fewer of them).
Also in comics, eventually the higher costs will force the publishers to hire less expensive talent, buy less expensive materials, and/or just go to digital, etc, because no one will pay $10 per issue.

I'm just saying that you can only sustain excess for so long before something has to give. Look at the recent/current recession.
I don't know about comics, but "going digital", if you will, for films doesn't really make things less expensive when it comes to finishing/mastering and distributing for wide release in theaters etc., though. The people who do that work still have to get paid what they're owed, their equipment/facilities still cost the same to operate/maintain, theater bills for electricity/concessions still cost the same, marketing to get the word out for the movie still costs the same per hour, and so on. You're not going to get someone going from Laptop/iMovie to worldwide multiplexes in one step.
;)

But in all seriousness....if you were going to shoot a feature film on prosumer HDV as opposed to, say, 35MM...and go with existing locations rather than building sets etc...possibly cutting SHOOTING costs from, say, $50M to $20M....if you still wanted to make anything resembling a large gross on that, you still have to pay much the same rates to master and distribute it as you would if you shot it on 35MM. So more would have to change in order to really capitalize on 'lower-budget' stuff. Maybe make movies only available online to save on distribution, then charge less for entrance/viewing fees and hope you'll get much more people to pay for it than would actually go to theaters. And when all is said and done...how good is this thing that was shot 'on the cheap' going to look compared to something that wasn't? How much of a blockbuster-type movie can you really capture for less than half of what it would 'normally' cost?...and get the kind of interest that a blockbuster attracts, IF you're looking to make a blockbuster...as oppose to an 'artsy-indie'? Lot more things would have to change radically, than just the cost of getting it in the can.

[Kal-El Fan]

The digital remark was meant for comic books specifically.

[KalMart]

The digital remark was meant for comic books specifically.
I know, which was why I specifically pointed out that I was going to use the terminology for film for the purpose of the overall conversation.....seeing as the topic of 'shooting cheaper' is what's actually propelling the discussion.

[Kal-El Fan]

As to your other comments, cost control starts with things that you can in fact control. As you said, you can control what you pay for equipment, sets and even talent. Rates for things like processing is somewhat controllable, as are marketing expenses, though I agree there is a certain amount of expense involved in getting things to a level where you are able to generate interest/ticket sales to get a sizable return. Also "lower budget" is relative and I was really talking BB vs SR type of comparison. As I believe you mentioned earlier, the budget of Transformers didn't make the audience appreciate it any more or less, but I bet the studio loved it, the same with the relative gross of BB vs. it's budget.

I was really commenting on waste in a general sense.

[Kal-El Fan]

I know, which was why I specifically pointed out that I was going to use the terminology for film for the purpose of the overall conversation.....seeing as the topic of 'shooting cheaper' is what's actually propelling the discussion.
Gotcha.:yay:

[KalMart]

As to your other comments, cost control starts with things that you can in fact control. As you said, you can control what you pay for equipment, sets and even talent.
To an extent...and if you're lucky enough to find cheaper aspiring talent that will somehow generate the kind of appeal that more established ones will. But you also run the risk of running into union/city/location issues is you're doing something more substantial than, say, two people in an apartment. So again, it comes down to what exactly you're trying to make and achieve. A small indie picture...or something larger?

Rates for things like processing is somewhat controllable, as are marketing expenses, though I agree there is a certain amount of expense involved in getting things to a level where you are able to generate interest/ticket sales to get a sizable return. Also "lower budget" is relative and I was really talking BB vs SR type of comparison. As I believe you mentioned earlier, the budget of Transformers didn't make the audience appreciate it any more or less, but I bet the studio loved it, the same with the relative gross of BB vs. it's budget.
They wouldn't have loved it if it tanked. :oldrazz: Nine figures is f'in nine-figures!

Budgeting also has to do with so much more than just the physical amount...who can put up/secure certain amounts, hence have real control and stake in it, etc. Look at how lucas did things....he was able to secure merchandising rights with SW before they ever really meant anything (with the possible exception of Planet Of The Apes). Then made enough off of that and whatever his take was on the first one to finance the second one himself. If he couldn't find a way of making the film for the amount that they could put up, then he'd have to give up some ownership/control to get the extra investment, and so on. I that respect, he could have gotten more money for the budget, but it would have cost him more than just gross/net. And that has almost nothing to do with saving the studio money...it was more about him and what he was trying to build and maintain.

I was really commenting on waste in a general sense.
Yes, but that waste is indicative/result of a lot more conditions that film is just a part of. It's not like making movies cheaper to make will lead the way. You want to make movies cheaper to produce across the board...make energy, labor, taxes, and the cost of living cheaper first. Sounds simple enough, no? :)

[Kal-El Fan]

Oh yeah, wicked easy! :P
If you think about it, that was a big problem with the US automakers. They were paying their union workers so much in wages and benefits, (in addition to other things) that they couldn't compete anymore. It's definitely a system wide kind of problem and there really is no easy fix.

Again, I was just saying something will give sometime. For now it will probably be studios focusing more on lower budget rom/coms and such, and making fewer/taking their time when it comes to more expensive films.

[KalMart]

Oh yeah, wicked easy! :P
If you think about it, that was a big problem with the US automakers. They were paying their union workers so much in wages and benefits, (in addition to other things) that they couldn't compete anymore. It's definitely a system wide kind of problem and there really is no easy fix.

Again, I was just saying something will give sometime. For now it will probably be studios focusing more on lower budget rom/coms and such, and making fewer/taking their time when it comes to more expensive films.

If anything....they'd be forced into it by bigger losses, rather than motivated by its possible upsides. And if the next POTC/Spidey/Transforemers/TDK comes out with similar returns, don't expect them to be running en masse under the nine-figure fence for these kinds of movies anytime soon. You wanna win in high-stakes poker....you gotta put up high stakes, yo?

[The Guard]

Re: This $50 million Superman movie thing...

I'm basically just kidding around with David. I'm not a director, and I know squat about budgeting, but I'm reasonably certain a lot of people could write a script that could be made into a Superman movie for that amount.

It just wouldn't be what anyone considers mainstream. There'd be a LOT of talking, shooting around things, etc. But hell, even Bryan Singer shot around some things in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I've wanted to write a Superman indie film project for years, because I'd make one with relatively little action, and a LOT of exploring the concept. I had a script called SUPERMAN: SALVATION that was just that.

A Superman movie need not be nonstop action, in other words. But it's all about keeping up with the Smiths.

[KalMart]

Re: This $50 million Superman movie thing...

I'm basically just kidding around with David. I'm not a director, and I know squat about budgeting, but I'm reasonably certain a lot of people could write a script that could be made into a Superman movie for that amount.

It just wouldn't be what anyone considers mainstream. There'd be a LOT of talking, shooting around things, etc. But hell, even Bryan Singer shot around some things in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I've wanted to write a Superman indie film project for years, because I'd make one with relatively little action, and a LOT of exploring the concept. I had a script called SUPERMAN: SALVATION that was just that.

A Superman movie need not be nonstop action, in other words. But it's all about keeping up with the Smiths.
Make it a story about Superman being held hostage by some bank-robbers who somehow got a hold of black-market kryptonite. There are four or five of them, each having to take shifts standing guard while the others have to go out and ditch cars, get new clothes, and figure out how they'll launder the money they stole. But each gangster decides to talk to Supes while he's bound...one on one...and each has a story as to how Supes somehow turned them towards a life of crime...something in their childhood (assuming Supes has been around that long), or for some more recent. And we see short flashbacks for each of the crooks from those pivotal moments, but primarily from their perspective...Supes doesn't appear much in full frame...more like the aftermath or wake left in his presence. But then we also see Superman's recollection of those events...and it becomes a sort of Roshomon comparing the two perspectives for each. Not too much crazy flying/action effects...just enough to get the situation.

By the end, through each conversation, he's made each crook change their outlook on the matter...and when they're all there with him, he simply stands up and breaks his bonds....he could have at any time because the black-market Kryptonite they got was crap......'cut-down' like cheap drugs until it was so diluted as to be nearly inert. It'll show Superman not only bringing crooks to justice by putting them in jail, but caring that they understand the errors of their ways...and in this case, he was willing to sit with them and talk it through by fooling them into thinking they had him dead-to-rights. Make the brunt of the story take place over one day in an abandoned warehouse....get two pretty well-known indie actors attached, shoot it on the RED and edit/finish in Apple FCS.

$45M, tops.


:O

[The Guard]

There's no reason that should cost $45 mill. Unless you're planning to build a genetically perfect actor to play Superman, and to skim more than a little off the top. :).

[KalMart]

There's no reason that should cost $45 mill. Unless you're planning to skim more than a little off the top. :).

Gotta have some digital effects, green-screen/gimbal work after principle. :grin:

[The Guard]

The hell is a gimbal?

[KalMart]

The hell is a gimbal?

http://www.wetanz.com/holics/media/Superman/flying_rig.jpg

See that big apparatus holding him up? Those things don't come cheap.

That's if we want any reasonably close shots of him flying, of course.

[Showtime]

I noticed some have brought up Neil Blomkamp of District 9 fame to tackle a new Superman flick. Funny that he actually worked on Smallville as a 3D Animator.

[KalMart]

Was he in charge of the red blur or the blue blur? :O

[Showtime]

He's actually responsible for the black slicker and t-shirt glare.

[Webhead2006]

hmm he did work on smallville didnt know that.

[what_19]

well alot of money could be saved or used more wisely by having a very clear vision from the very beginning, and sticking to it. not shooting $10 million dollar scenes only to just shelve them. if you have an idea for a movie, then get the script right first. figure out exactly what you want to do, and then do it. make sure its tight and then dont waver. i understand that little things like some dialogue or perhaps the shifting of scene order is always in order, but something of that magnitude just isnt cool. especially when that $10 million could have been the difference between a sequel.and this mess we're in

[Webhead2006]

I agree what 19 everything need to be tight and in total order before they roll any film so things are not wasted and time is spent wisely.

[JAK®]

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Singer always complained about the small budgets Fox gave him for the X-Men movies. But he managed to make great movies.

WB gave him 200 Million+ for Superman Returns and he was very frivolous in his spending. He lost track of what the movie was originally about, and the movie suffered.

Sometimes limitations are a good thing, especially for artists.

[JAK®]

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Singer always complained about the small budgets Fox gave him for the X-Men movies. But he managed to make great movies.

WB gave him 200 Million+ for Superman Returns and he was very frivolous in his spending. He lost track of what the movie was originally about, and the movie suffered.

Sometimes limitations are a good thing, especially for artists.

[BlackLantern]

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Singer always complained about the small budgets Fox gave him for the X-Men movies. But he managed to make great movies.

WB gave him 200 Million+ for Superman Returns and he was very frivolous in his spending. He lost track of what the movie was originally about, and the movie suffered.

Sometimes limitations are a good thing, especially for artists.

I agree fully...especially filmmakers who spend most of their careers working with low budgets, you give them a ton of money and they go overboard....look at George Romero...he gets a ton of money for 'Land of the Dead' and it sucks...then he goes back to his roots with 'Diary of the Dead' and IMO was one of the better zombie movies of the last few years

[GreenKToo]

I'm not saying it would have made a difference in getting a sequel or not, but singer should have trusted his instincts and NOT that friends and family screening. They cant be objective.

[KalMart]

I'm not saying it would have made a difference in getting a sequel or not, but singer should have trusted his instincts and NOT that friends and family screening. They cant be objective.

Well...they were right, though, and a screening like that IS for objectivity, because they weren't there for the whole production, and you trust your friends to give it to you straight. But I credit him for at least having the wherewithal to cut the RTK seq so as not to slow down an already somber film....rather than feeling he had to include it because of its cost. Unfortunately, he probably should have realized when writing it that it would be a long, morbid beginning with not mush pick-me-up afterwards. But you never really know until you actually put it all together, and if something is taking away from the experience and the story can survive without it, it has to go, regardless of how much it cost.

[BlackLantern]

the minute Singer thought it was ok to include an illegitimate child kills it for me

[KalMart]

the minute Singer thought it was ok to include an illegitimate child kills it for me

Which for you, as a viewer, was...what....the 194th minute of the film, or thereabouts? :grin:

[BlackLantern]

Which for you, as a viewer, was...what....the 194th minute of the film, or thereabouts? :grin:

any reasonable comic book fan that saw that kid knew who that little crumbsnatcher was the minute he appeared on screen

[KalMart]

any reasonable comic book fan that saw that kid knew who that little crumbsnatcher was the minute he appeared on screen

I have a different theory......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCp5s3zqB5k&feature=channel_page




;)

Actually, to be fair, he was, technically, a bastard from the first minute we saw him either way...since Lois and Richard weren't married either.

[Showtime]

You guys realize that the "Friends and Family Screening" wasn't actually only friends and family right?

[KalMart]

"If you like it...tell a friend to see it. If you don't....tell an enemy."

[KalMart]

To add to that, back in the 70's, Lucas screened an early cut of his sci-fi space-opera type thingy for some friends....which included the likes of Brian Depalma, Steven Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola. Apparently, the general consensus was that it was a bit slow, meandering, and antiseptic.....which motivated him to bring in some more editors and quicken up the pace.

[Superhero Hype!]

This thread has gotten too big and will be closed. You are welcome to start a new thread on this same subject.