Christopher Nolan Meeting With Directorial Candidates

[Dark Knight]

He's still very much got his own style of directing that he clearly likes, he likes the focus to be on the visuals, his films show that. Would he take advice from Nolan? Maybe, I don't know the guy, that said would Nolan even be giving out advice on what to do? I'm somewhat doubtful, I don't think Chris would be doing that to any director, going off his experience I'm sure he'd want the director to have the opportunity that he got in being able to do his own thing and create the film as he sees fit, otherwise Chris may as well be directing the bloody thing. And I'd hardly say Snyder is an up and coming director, the guy's carved out a niche audience for himself years ago, he's been around for sometime now, he's not a newcomer.








If Zack wants to take his filmmaking to the next level, then collaborating with a talent like Nolan is the way to go.

[Dark Knight]

Check out this pic of Jones below.

He looks all wired and crazy.....hahaha


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Directors-Respond-To-Newest-Superman-Rumors-20825.html

[batman44]

:huh: I hope you're not saying that he is a bad choice based on how he looks.

[Astrodust]

Jones is way too much of a gamble. Just because someone is good with a small budget doesn't mean they know how to handle a big budget. I'm sure most of the people on this forum could make a decent movie with a budget of 500 dollars and a video camera with friends. I doubt any of you would know what to do with 100 million. I'd go as far to say that Singer mishandled his budget for Superman Returns. He built some elaborate sets that didn't translate well on the big screen. The man even decided to grow corn lol.
We have yet to see Jones capacity to direct action, which is what most of the people complained about in Superman Returns. Granted Source Code must have some action, but do you want to really give Jones 200 million based on Moon?

[Dark Knight]

:huh: I hope you're not saying that he is a bad choice based on how he looks.






Huh? What are you talking about?

I just thought that pic of him was funny! :word:

[batman44]

Huh? What are you talking about?

I just thought that pic of him was funny! :word:

I see. He looks alot like his dad imo.

[Dark Knight]

I hope Nolan "recommends" Reeves or Snyder.

The others just don't cut it IMO and Tony Scott is past his prime!

Then again I wouldn't be surprised if Jones gets the gig either, since Nolan may have a soft spot for smaller indie guys like him with no big time film experience yet.

I think with Nolans' producing and storytelling abilities mixed with Snyders' visuals and intense action sequences would make for a DYNAMIC filmmaking team that can execute the type of Superman film we have been waiting to see for many years!

Imagine the marketing for the The Man Of Steel film announcing: "From the Creators of the Batman Trilogy and the Director of 300 and Watchmen".

WOW!

Also, if Zack wants to take his filmmaking to the next level, then collaborating with a talent like Nolan is the way to go.

[GreenKToo]

It would be nice if its either jones or reeves and he then pulls a favreau and actually asks the fans what they would like to see, instead of just assuming.
I know that won't happen of course, i'm just thinking out loud.

[redfirebird2008]

Nolan probably wanted to have some fun.

- Hey, i bet you guys 100 bucks that Snyder will suggest gore + nudity + slowmo and have no great idea of his own.
- You're on!


As much as it makes me cringe, Nolan is apparently a huge Michael Bay fan. Keep that in mind when you consider Snyder's inclusion on the list. Nolan may have great taste in his own filmmaking, but that doesn't mean he has great taste in what he likes to watch. :hehe:

[annie.j88]

As much as it makes me cringe, Nolan is apparently a huge Michael Bay fan. Keep that in mind when you consider Snyder's inclusion on the list. Nolan may have great taste in his own filmmaking, but that doesn't mean he has great taste in what he likes to watch. :hehe:

:dry:

[terry78]

:dry:

He is. The most brilliant people tend to have very wacky tastes. It would be way too easy for someone like Nolan to say Michael Bay sucks.

[Excelsior.]

isnt Snyders style that he has slow motion almost every 24 seconds?

isnt this something that every director can order from hes crew?

Snyder's visual style is copying Fincher and the Wachowski's.



I think with Nolans' producing and storytelling abilities mixed with Snyders' visuals and intense action sequences would make for a DYNAMIC filmmaking team that can execute the type of Superman film we have been waiting to see for many years!

If we fuse Nolan with Snyder we get Fincher. But we already have a Fincher.

Jones is way too much of a gamble. Just because someone is good with a small budget doesn't mean they know how to handle a big budget. I'm sure most of the people on this forum could make a decent movie with a budget of 500 dollars and a video camera with friends. I doubt any of you would know what to do with 100 million. I'd go as far to say that Singer mishandled his budget for Superman Returns. He built some elaborate sets that didn't translate well on the big screen. The man even decided to grow corn lol.
We have yet to see Jones capacity to direct action, which is what most of the people complained about in Superman Returns. Granted Source Code must have some action, but do you want to really give Jones 200 million based on Moon?

You could've said the same exact thing about Nolan during Batman Begins, word for word.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Synder would play up the homoerotic aspects of Superman more than Singer could have even attempted.

[jmc]

Snyder's visual style is copying Fincher and the Wachowski's.



If we fuse Nolan with Snyder we get Fincher. But we already have a Fincher.



You could've said the same exact thing about Nolan during Batman Begins, word for word.

Exactly, anyone dismissing him needs only look at the guy suggesting him.

[redfirebird2008]

He is. The most brilliant people tend to have very wacky tastes. It would be way too easy for someone like Nolan to say Michael Bay sucks.


That's true. Wally Pfister said they've had arguments on the topic. He tries to talk some sense into Nolan but Nolan insists that he loves Bay's sense of spectacle. Hilarious stuff. The bad thing is you can kind of see Bay's influence on Nolan's action scenes. Too much shaky cam.

It kind of reminds me of Tarantino. Usually Quentin knocks it out of the park when he starts riffing on trashy old movies he grew up watching. But he took it too far with Death Proof, which was utter crap IMHO.

[Kurosawa]

Jones is way too much of a gamble. Just because someone is good with a small budget doesn't mean they know how to handle a big budget. I'm sure most of the people on this forum could make a decent movie with a budget of 500 dollars and a video camera with friends. I doubt any of you would know what to do with 100 million. I'd go as far to say that Singer mishandled his budget for Superman Returns. He built some elaborate sets that didn't translate well on the big screen. The man even decided to grow corn lol.
We have yet to see Jones capacity to direct action, which is what most of the people complained about in Superman Returns. Granted Source Code must have some action, but do you want to really give Jones 200 million based on Moon?

I doubt many people on this or any other forum could make a good movie with 500 dollars or 500 million dollars unless they used part of the 500 million to hire actual producers and directors.

[Anita18]

He is. The most brilliant people tend to have very wacky tastes. It would be way too easy for someone like Nolan to say Michael Bay sucks.
Well Bay does know how to work a camera dynamically. And the over-the-top-ness of his movies just adds to the awesomeness. :awesome:

However, NAY to metal Transformers balls!

[Paroxysm]

I want to see Clark pull some DBZ **** on whoever the main villain is. The classic punch in the air, speed burst up to them at the apex and smash them back to the ground.

[DorkyFresh]

This was actually mentioned at AICN, but honestly, I would like to see Ron Howard take a swing at this one, personally. That would be one choice I would not ***** about.

you and me both. before all the talk about these candidates i mentioned a couple of times that Ron Howard would be a PERFECT director for Superman.

[terry78]

Just bring Bruce Timm on board as a consultant for EVERY DC movie.

[daywalker2007]

we dont know how Nolan would react to Snyder wanting big blue balls on the screen again. for all we know, Snyder might want Brainiac to come to earth all naked with balls hanging out dangling.

:woot:

[Sawyer]

Just bring Bruce Timm on board as a consultant for EVERY DC movie.

Yes.

[Longshot777]

Why can't Nolan direct this film???


Batman Begins was such a masterpiece...then Superman Returns came...and what a differnt level of film.

Superman Returns is not a bad film...BUT Batman Begins and the Dark Knight was on a higher league than Superman Returns.


Goyer is writing the new Superman film right??

As long as Nolan and Goyer write it...it'll be great....But I hope Nolan directs this too.

I don't see the problem why he can't.

[batman44]

^Because he'll be too busy filming the next Batman film and he if he feels that he is not the right guy to film Superman then I'll believe him.

[Longshot777]

So what is his role in this film???


I could live with him being one of the writers...But if he is just an executive producer...just by name....Then :csad:

[DorkyFresh]

the executive producer still holds a lot of power. Spielberg was executive producer for Transformers and much of it's success was due to him. it seems to me that Nolan will be helping with some of the writing as he's already gotten Goyer to dish out a screenplay.

[DCUmoviepage]

Just bring Bruce Timm on board as a consultant for EVERY DC movie.

Agreed!

[GreenKToo]

So what is his role in this film???


I could live with him being one of the writers...But if he is just an executive producer...just by name....Then :csad:
His role?? He is prolly the only reason its happening at all.

[Project862006]

may not be any of them a quote from Harry of AICN

"I wouldn’t place money that it’ll be any of those names from what I have heard off the record. Sigh."

[GreenKToo]

The sigh doesnt sound good.

[redfirebird2008]

The sigh doesnt sound good.

Since when is he the gold standard in judging quality?

[souvlaki]

Since when is Harry every right about anything?

[souvlaki]

We know at the very least they are probably talking to Duncan Jones based off his twitter update. So unless he's already been turned down which is unlikely, at least that part of the story is true so I think Harry is BSing as usual.

[antsman41]

Christopher Nolan -> The Prestige -> David Bowie -> Duncan Jones -> The Man Of Steel -> Christopher Nolan

PARADOX?

[Dark Knight]

may not be any of them a quote from Harry of AICN






I would like to see Nolan consider Alfonso Cuaron actually.

[antsman41]

I would like to see Nolan consider Alfonso Cuaron actually.

Oh, I love Children Of Men.

[Dark Knight]

Synder would play up the homoerotic aspects of Superman more than Singer could have even attempted.





That's an utter lie!

Stop making things up.

[Kurosawa]

Just bring Bruce Timm on board as a consultant for EVERY DC movie.

No. He's a Batman guy and while his Superman had its moments, he was often unimpressive. And other DC characters, Hawkman in particular, I would never want him to touch. They have Geoff Johns on board, that's much better despite his limitations as a writer and tendencies towards gore, which won't happen in PG-13 mainstream movies.

[Dark Knight]

Apparently Latino Review spoke to Snyder recently and he debunked any interest. Whether or not that is true, I'm not entirely sure. As for him directing Superman, I did really enjoy Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, but I was impartial to 300 and I thought Watchmen was uneven, although I did enjoy a lot of what was in that movie. I think he should stick to graphic novels and other dark, moody stuff- his style doesn't fit with Superman at all.

I'm pulling for Jones. He directed one of the best and most original pieces of sci-fi in recent years with Moon on a minuscule budget. Superman needs that type of creative ingenuity, and furthermore, Moon proved Jones has an excellent handle on character, and that is another thing Superman needs as well.






I'm worried about Jones being able to handle big time action.

The next Superman film needs that....badly.

[Octoberist]

I don't know. I have trust in Jones. I've got a good feeling about him.

[Project862006]

i do have doubts on him to handle it aswell moon had no action

same could be said about marc web but atleast he had the spiderman tone and relationship in 500 days

[Dark Knight]

Apparently Latino Review spoke to Snyder recently and he debunked any interest. Whether or not that is true, I'm not entirely sure. As for him directing Superman, I did really enjoy Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, but I was impartial to 300 and I thought Watchmen was uneven, although I did enjoy a lot of what was in that movie. I think he should stick to graphic novels and other dark, moody stuff- his style doesn't fit with Superman at all.

I'm pulling for Jones. He directed one of the best and most original pieces of sci-fi in recent years with Moon on a minuscule budget. Superman needs that type of creative ingenuity, and furthermore, Moon proved Jones has an excellent handle on character, and that is another thing Superman needs as well.







What else has Jones done to show he can handle a 200 million dollar Superman reboot film?

Out of this list it will most certainly come down to Reeves, Snyder, and Jones.

[Dark Knight]

i do have doubts on him to handle it aswell moon had no action

same could be said about marc web but atleast he had the spiderman tone and relationship in 500 days





:huh:

[Kurosawa]

i do have doubts on him to handle it aswell moon had no action

same could be said about marc web but atleast he had the spiderman tone and relationship in 500 days

Well, the biggest complaint about Nolan's Batman movies has been the action, which I think is a legitimate complaint but it is way overplayed. It could be better at times but the overall quality is so high that it's okay. So it's hard to say how much help Nolan would be if they chose Jones and the action scenes gave him trouble. Who knows, he may take right to them, Superman action is much more F/X driven than Batman action, although both have their share of wire work I would imagine.

Regardless, the flying needs to be impressive. Get the flying right and you're already well ahead of the curve.

[Dark Knight]

I hope Nolan "recommends" Reeves or Snyder. I find it funny, that some people love Favreaus', but can't stand Snyder's work? Weird....

The others on the list just don't cut it IMO and Tony Scott is past his prime!

I wouldn't be surprised if Jones gets the gig either, since Nolan may have a soft spot for smaller indie guys like him with no big time film experience. If they want Jones though, then Nolan might as well just hire his brother Jonah to direct! LOL

I think with Nolans' producing and storytelling abilities mixed with Snyders' visuals and intense action sequences would make for a DYNAMIC filmmaking team that can execute the type of Superman film we have been waiting to see for many years!

Imagine the marketing for the The Man Of Steel film saying: "From the Creators of the Batman Trilogy and the Director of 300 and Watchmen"

WOW!

Also, if Zack wants to take his filmmaking to the next level, then collaborating with a talent like Nolan is the way to go.

[Kurosawa]

I hope Nolan "recommends" Reeves or Snyder. I find it funny, that some people love Favreaus', but can't stand Snyder's work? Weird....

The others on the list just don't cut it IMO and Tony Scott is past his prime!

I wouldn't be surprised if Jones gets the gig either, since Nolan may have a soft spot for smaller indie guys like him with no big time film experience. If they want Jones though, then Nolan might as well just hire his brother Jonah to direct! LOL

I think with Nolans' producing and storytelling abilities mixed with Snyders' visuals and intense action sequences would make for a DYNAMIC filmmaking team that can execute the type of Superman film we have been waiting to see for many years!

Imagine the marketing for the The Man Of Steel film saying: "From the Creators of the Batman Trilogy and the Director of 300 and Watchmen"

WOW!

Also, if Zack wants to take his filmmaking to the next level, then collaborating with a talent like Nolan is the way to go.

I'm sure the marketing guys want Snyder, but his stock might drop more if Legend of the Guardians does poorly. He's not my first choice by a long shot-I'd much rather see them go with Jones or Reeves.

[Seen]

Matt Reeves is getting a lot of acclaim for LET ME IN, which does seem very promising. On a purely technical level, CLOVERFIELD was pretty impressive even if I felt like I experienced vertigo after leaving the theater (however, that was what the film called for, so that is understandable).

I'm a little disappointed in Snyder's career trajectory as of late. He made a really brilliant debut with DAWN OF THE DEAD but since has devolved into this sort of adaptation-hungry, slo mo-addicted, CGI-laden filmmaker and I haven't really been thoroughly impressed with any of his films since then (like I mentioned before, I didn't like 300 and I thought WATCHMEN was uneven). I have absolutely very little desire to see SUCKER PUNCH, and honestly I just wish he made more original and slightly less visually similar work. I want to see him return to some of the snappier work like his DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. With that said, I just wouldn't be interested in seeing his version of Superman. Plus, he has said that he doesn't believe modern audiences could connect with an "earnest" character such as Superman, which I believe is inherently false. That alone makes me dubious of him directing a Superman movie.

Also, after SUPERMAN RETURNS, I would say that Superman DOESN'T need a safe bet. A safe bet would be SUPERMAN RETURNS. You had a director who just came off directing two comic-book movies, making his film a sequel to the provenly successful Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve movies. It wasn't daring or original. It was pretty safe. What Superman needs is someone with a daring vision, similar to Nolan and BATMAN BEGINS, who will take the character into new, compelling heights.

I really believe Duncan Jones would be that person. He seems cut from the same cloth as Nolan, having directed a very successful independent feature that focused on character and story (similar to MEMENTO), and I think he would be an excellent choice to tackle Superman. I think he could find a way to connect the character with modern audiences the way you could feel Sam's isolation and alienation in MOON. He's such an inspiring choice that WB would be fools not to hire him in my opinion.

Also, I don't like Tony Scott's style. He imbues his films with the same distinct, washed out, saturated, visually choppy look that has become tiresome and old. He's made some good films, but I just don't think he'd be right for Superman AT ALL.

[DorkyFresh]

this is Superman's last chance to create an impact in the cinema world. if this movie doesn't succeed then we won't see another Superman movie for at least 10 years. one of the biggest complaints of Superman Returns is that the action was lacking and i must agree. while i truly care for the character and story of Superman, this movie NEEDS to bring the action in order to be a box office success!

for this reason, alone, i have serious doubts about Jones. he could be the best character driven director in the world, but if he can't deliver on the action with this film then he's just not right for it. also, as good as 'Moon' was, the pacing never really picked up speed. despite the different emotions that it managed to draw from me, it was a pretty mellow movie. it never really got intense and because of that i never felt the gravity of the situation that Sam's character was in. i could argue that 'Moon' was really just an elaborate character study, but out of respect to Jones i won't. so while i genuinely enjoyed the movie and hold 'Moon' in high regard, i also don't see it as such an awesome movie that it makes Jones the best candidate for Superman.

with that in mind, i feel that Reeves is probably the best candidate from this list. while his 2 movies haven't exactly been colorful, Cloverfield has almost everything that a Superman movie requires. action, drama, suspense, even humor. it was really well directed, Reeves has worked with another big name director before (J.J. Abrams) and his new movie is getting a lot of positive buzz. for these reasons, i really hope that Nolan recommends Reeves for director of this new Superman movie.

[jmc]

What else has Jones done to show he can handle a 200 million dollar Superman reboot film?



What has he done that makes you believe he can't? So he hasn't had a $200 million budget to work with. So? It's not the size of the budget that matters, it's about the quality of the film. Keep sprouting lack of big movie experience as a concern and all you're going to get are people pointing to the guy who's suggesting him as proof you don't need to have any to handle a big film franchise. What if he's to Superman what Nolan was for Batman? Is it a risk? Yep, but no more risky than putting anyone else in the directors chair. You want assurances that things will turn out good? Sorry, you won't get any, not with Reeves, Jones, Snyder, or even Nolan himself is he were in the running. Now is the time to be bold with Big Blue, if that means giving the reigns to an up and comer, so be it.

[ultimatefan]

Every one of the best superhero movies of the past decade was made by a director who had never done a big budget blockbuster movie, so this "can this guy handle a blockbuster" argument has become awfully tired.

I only really know Scott and Snyder´s work, the only one I´d have a problem with so far is Scott, I see him as kind of a hired gun director, efficient, but with no vision of his own.

[bunk]

Snyder did Sin City?

Read it again. I said "arguably".

[GreenKToo]

In a perfect world I would like the director to be a combination of Bay, Jackson, and Nolan.
Bay=action, Jackson=visuals, Nolan=story.
Since this is not a perfect world, i'll just hope for the best.

[kalelkilla]

I was hoping for Jonah Nolan to direct, since that would be the closest thing to Chris Nolan directing.

[terry78]

I was hoping for Jonah Nolan to direct, since that would be the closest thing to Chris Nolan directing.



That would be a little close to nepotism for me.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Just because they're brothers doesn't mean they share the same talents.

[terry78]

Just because they're brothers doesn't mean they share the same talents.

The Baldwin family proves this exponentially.

[GreenKToo]

I hope with Nolan attached we get some really big names in the cast. A bunch of relative unknowns filling the roles would be ok IF this was the first superman film ever made, but its not.
The public ( IMO) will already be skeptical as it is, so the film will need all the help it can get. Cast a depp and decaprio, or the like, if at all possible.

[MessiahDecoy123]

The Baldwin family proves this exponentially.
Bill Clinton's brother proves this as well.

[kalelkilla]

If Jonah Nolan directed, Chris would be more involved to help him out..that is all I meant...I don't see guys like Scott and Snyder taking much direction from Chris Nolan (which they should).

[GreenKToo]

I think for all intents and purposes, this is nolans baby. It's his first film as producer, and from what we've heard, WB is pretty much letting him have his way with it, hence the controllable director names we're hearing. The article did say that nolan would turn in the name(s) he wants for director(s) to WB, or something along those lines.
I don't think he will be a control freak or anything, but I dont think he will let the director just do whatever he wants either. we shall see.

[truth]

I shall say again.

What is a man that did Batman, which not EVERYONE like by the way, doing in the producer's spot for Superman?

Last time I checked, Batman and Superman are VERRRRRRRRRRRRY different

[jmc]

Not everyone, just the majority.

[Mr. Earle]

I shall say again.

What is a man that did Batman, which not EVERYONE like by the way, doing in the producer's spot for Superman?

Last time I checked, Batman and Superman are VERRRRRRRRRRRRY different
Tell that to Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Grant Morrison, and every other writer who has written both characters.

[GreenKToo]

Why? Because he made a shetload of $$$$ for WB.

[Rust]

Just out of curiosity.. exactly how "official" is this news really?
Is Deadline a reliable source with exclusive rights or something?

[-JKR-]

I shall say again.

What is a man that did Batman, which not EVERYONE like by the way, doing in the producer's spot for Superman?

Last time I checked, Batman and Superman are VERRRRRRRRRRRRY different

:doh:
You know... NOTHING is liked by EVERYONE. That's what people have individual thoughts for. You know, (different) opinions and stuff like that....

Yeah, and like Mr. Earle said: check Bruce Timm, Paul Dini & Co.

[DocHoliday]

Just out of curiosity.. exactly how "official" is this news really?
Is Deadline a reliable source with exclusive rights or something?

More or less. Deadline exists for this very purpose and they excel at it. The do seem to be a bit a group of uber douches though.

[Doctor Jones]

All I want is a competant director who is passionate about the character and knows and wants to tell a great story and knows all of this. That is all you need. I ****ing hate the idea of consultants like Timm and such. They do what they do best for what they do. Fans wants to be reassurred their precious characters don't get ****ed up so they think that using someone that they are comfortable and familiar with who has handled their characters before on a film will solve everything and the film will be great. I hate this mentality. Nolan may be the godfather of this, but I'd fault him for hiring his brother and constantly having to step in and help him out. This is not how you direct a film.

[Mr. Earle]

In my opinion there should be consultants. Even Nolan had Goyer as a guide to batman comcis when he was preparing for Batman Begins. Also, look at how Geoff Johns stepped in and fixed the GL script to be more faithful to the comics. For some reason they had changed the energy of the rings from willpower to good emotions in general.

Consultants are people who know the characters and what has worked or failed with the fans in the past. If DC Entertainment existed before Superman Returns was made, maybe they would have informed Singer that people dont really like emo Superman, and that Donner's version has gotten old.

[DocHoliday]

I'd be interested in seeing what Snyder could do with it. I bet you if Duncan Jones gets it the Gylenhaal as Kent/Superman will start to pop up here. Tony scott used to be an interesting director. But he hasn't really made a good film since Enemy of the State.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Which one?Lisbersman. I'd also hate for Scott to get it, he's an awful director.

[Rust]

"If DC Entertainment existed before Superman Returns was made, maybe they would have informed Singer that people dont really like emo Superman, and that Donner's version has gotten old."

Hehe. true.

Like with the actor for Supes, I really hope they choose one of these relatively inexperienced directors, who have little baggage and little ego. There's something inspiring, really fresh and potential about having someone with a "clean" slate who has yet to really prove themselves.

In this case however I really hope they'll be more than just marionettes.

[Excelsior.]

I hope Nolan "recommends" Reeves or Snyder. I find it funny, that some people love Favreaus', but can't stand Snyder's work? Weird....

The others on the list just don't cut it IMO and Tony Scott is past his prime!

I wouldn't be surprised if Jones gets the gig either, since Nolan may have a soft spot for smaller indie guys like him with no big time film experience. If they want Jones though, then Nolan might as well just hire his brother Jonah to direct! LOL

I think with Nolans' producing and storytelling abilities mixed with Snyders' visuals and intense action sequences would make for a DYNAMIC filmmaking team that can execute the type of Superman film we have been waiting to see for many years!

Imagine the marketing for the The Man Of Steel film saying: "From the Creators of the Batman Trilogy and the Director of 300 and Watchmen"

WOW!

Also, if Zack wants to take his filmmaking to the next level, then collaborating with a talent like Nolan is the way to go.



Jesus! You are like a broken record.

[akfj]

I think for all intents and purposes, this is nolans baby. It's his first film as producer, and from what we've heard, WB is pretty much letting him have his way with it, hence the controllable director names we're hearing.

Actually, he's produced the majority of his own films.

[GreenKToo]

But those were his films. This film will be directed by someone else.

[MAN O STEEL]

Actually, he's produced the majority of his own films.


I think GreenK meant as Producer only & not sharing both duties.




Steve

[akfj]

But those were his films. This film will be directed by someone else.

With that said, I don't think it will be his baby. He'll be the "godfather" to someone else's baby. The parents will really be Goyer and whoever is chosen as director.

He has his own baby that he has to worry about (Batman 3).

[Delete]

:doh:
You know... NOTHING is liked by EVERYONE. That's what people have individual thoughts for. You know, (different) opinions and stuff like that....

Yeah, and like Mr. Earle said: check Bruce Timm, Paul Dini & Co.

Yeah it is impossible to please 100% of people. But there is no denying he made the most critically acclaimed/highest box office Superhero movie of all time.

[TheFuture]

I'd pick Snyder and I'd have no problem with his love for slow motion. In fact, I think that could really enhance the fight scenes. Imagine a fight between Superman and Doomsday where they are just knocking the **** out of each other. You'll want to feel and see the full damage of every damn punch, and slow motion is a great way of capturing that. Snyder FTW. :up:

[Octoberist]

In my opinion there should be consultants. Even Nolan had Goyer as a guide to batman comcis when he was preparing for Batman Begins. Also, look at how Geoff Johns stepped in and fixed the GL script to be more faithful to the comics. For some reason they had changed the energy of the rings from willpower to good emotions in general.

Consultants are people who know the characters and what has worked or failed with the fans in the past. If DC Entertainment existed before Superman Returns was made, maybe they would have informed Singer that people dont really like emo Superman, and that Donner's version has gotten old.

Even though he may not be a producer on Superman, I'm sure Nolan has met with Geoff Johns. He's in charge of ALL DC properties. While I think his priority now is moving The Flash, Wonder Woman and other properties forward, I'm sure involved in a minor - if limited - capacity. Unlike Green Lantern, where he had say in the designs and final script.

[Watchman]

I'm hoping for Jones for this one. While I think Reeves and Jones would make a great film Jones would turn outa final product that was much more visually interesting.

[Rust]

With that said, I don't think it will be his baby. He'll be the "godfather" to someone else's baby. The parents will really be Goyer and whoever is chosen as director.

He has his own baby that he has to worry about (Batman 3).

Maybe, but he's still responsible for getting it off and on the ground. From what I understand he has alot of influence on the story and its' motivations and he's producing it as well.
He may not be directing it, but he'll certainly be rocking the cradle to put it in your words. I'm sure he'll be plenty involved.

[Dark Knight]

I'd pick Snyder and I'd have no problem with his love for slow motion. In fact, I think that could really enhance the fight scenes. Imagine a fight between Superman and Doomsday where they are just knocking the **** out of each other. You'll want to feel and see the full damage of every damn punch, and slow motion is a great way of capturing that. Snyder FTW. :up:








The Nolans, Goyer, and Snyder FTW.....easily! :word:

[L.A.]

Quick question, this movie has to be made before 2013 because of copyright issues...will this mean this will be the last Superman movie for a while?

[GreenKToo]

That Depends on how the pi$$ing match between WB and the families proceeds.
I have a feeling some $$$ thrown their way will settle it.

[BH/HHH]

So they have to make the film cause otherwise they will lose the rights, but they make the film and then they still have to pay the siegels/shusters?

[GreenKToo]

With that said, I don't think it will be his baby. He'll be the "godfather" to someone else's baby. The parents will really be Goyer and whoever is chosen as director.

He has his own baby that he has to worry about (Batman 3).
Nolan went to WB with Goyer's and jonah's story. WB then agreed to it but only IF nolan would oversee it. Heck, He's pretty much even picking the director.

I'd also bet the bank that he will have a huge hand in the casting, the score, the FX studio, etc, etc. No, he won't be on set every single day but make no mistake, this IS Nolan's puppy. Otherwise they would be getting a Jackson, Bay, or Abrams type director, you know, the kind that can't be controlled.

[Rust]

That Depends on how the pi$$ing match between WB and the families proceeds.
I have a feeling some $$$ thrown their way will settle it.


Yeah, this has to be the case. If the movie does well and a sequel is inevitable I guess that's the scenario.

It would personally annoy me if they could only make one rushed stand-alone movie with no opportunity to build upon it. It would feel forced and half-asssed.

Then I'd rather wait a decade and get a full-blown Batman treatment-trilogy with an exstensive kryptonian mythology.

[GreenKToo]

Let's say that the reboot takes in 550/600 million worldwide. WB instantly sees the potential for an even bigger sequel. No doubt they would then do whatever it would take to keep the rights so they could make a sequel. Thats just the way I see it anyway. Money talks you-know-what walks.

[Rust]

Yes, (un)fortunately...

[Mr. Earle]

Even though he may not be a producer on Superman, I'm sure Nolan has met with Geoff Johns. He's in charge of ALL DC properties. While I think his priority now is moving The Flash, Wonder Woman and other properties forward, I'm sure involved in a minor - if limited - capacity. Unlike Green Lantern, where he had say in the designs and final script.
Exactly. He is the head of DC Entertainment, along with Jim Lee and others. It is their job to promote and oversee DC's projects besides comics, so they'll surely oversee Nolan's superman movie. I'm sure they'll give him creative freedom, but there is no way that Lex will be a Kryptonian agent on earth (Abraams' script), or that Superman will wear Ed Scissorhands' suit (Burton).

[Anita18]

Every one of the best superhero movies of the past decade was made by a director who had never done a big budget blockbuster movie, so this "can this guy handle a blockbuster" argument has become awfully tired.
This is SO true. We like to cite Superman Returns as an example of a big budget overwhelming a director, but there's still Batman Begins, Iron Man, and SM1. Not a bad streak, IMO.

Nolan went to WB with Goyer's and jonah's story. WB then agreed to it but only IF nolan would oversee it. Heck, He's pretty much even picking the director.

I'd also bet the bank that he will have a huge hand in the casting, the score, the FX studio, etc, etc. No, he won't be on set every single day but make no mistake, this IS Nolan's puppy. Otherwise they would be getting a Jackson, Bay, or Abrams type director, you know, the kind that can't be controlled.
When they asked him to oversee it, I think they just wanted to make sure the concept/story isn't diluted as it passes the many hands it will inevitable pass through. I personally believe Nolan will be hands on with choosing the director and screenwriter, and then he'll step off unless specifically asked for help.

Don't forget, Nolan may run a very tight ship during his own productions, but he isn't a James Cameron who tells people how to do things. He just challenges people to meet his high expectations. He certainly enjoyed having directorial freedom on all his movies, and I don't think he takes that stuff lightly.

[Mr. Earle]

This is SO true. We like to cite Superman Returns as an example of a big budget overwhelming a director, but there's still Batman Begins, Iron Man, and SM1. Not a bad streak, IMO.


When they asked him to oversee it, I think they just wanted to make sure the concept/story isn't diluted as it passes the many hands it will inevitable pass through. I personally believe Nolan will be hands on with choosing the director and screenwriter, and then he'll step off unless specifically asked for help.

Don't forget, Nolan may run a very tight ship during his own productions, but he isn't a James Cameron who tells people how to do things. He just challenges people to meet his high expectations. He certainly enjoyed having directorial freedom on all his movies, and I don't think he takes that stuff lightly.
Good post Anita! :up:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I agree, I don't see Nolan being a total douchebag and not letting the director have any freedom what-so-ever. Now I know that WB is going to be on the director's ass to a certain degree because of the reception of the first film and the list does indicate that they do what a controllable director but it would be disappointing if the director didn't have some freedom to spread his wings. He will be the director after all.

[Rust]

Yeah, he'll probably be paraphrase-channelling what info he gets from Nolan. I didn't think about that. Pretty cool.

[Project862006]

like reeves the most he can do


Big budget CGI/Huge Action
Drama
Humor
etc.

Duncan jones i would like to keep with his sci fi stuff like Niel Blomkamp is

[Happy Jack]

I agree, I don't see Nolan being a total douchebag and not letting the director have any freedom what-so-ever. Now I know that WB is going to be on the director's ass to a certain degree because of the reception of the first film and the list does indicate that they do what a controllable director but it would be disappointing if the director didn't have some freedom to spread his wings. He will be the director after all.
Not at all. If anything Nolan is a guy who knows how important that is, since it's something that he has had and has had great success with. That doesn't necessarily mean that the film will be good, but it least it won't be choked by studio control.

[BH/HHH]

I dont see why a director would want to do a film that he doesnt have control over at least a good director. If Nolan tells him so and so is playing Superman but he wants someone else is he gonna have to use Nolans guy?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Studios tell directors who to get all of the time, it's not going to be any different with this film. The director is going to have to fight for the actor he wants if the studio and Nolan have other things in mind. Just like Favs fought for RDJ to play Iron Man and just like Raimi fought for Maguire to play Spider-Man.

[akfj]

Nolan went to WB with Goyer's and jonah's story. WB then agreed to it but only IF nolan would oversee it. Heck, He's pretty much even picking the director.

I'd also bet the bank that he will have a huge hand in the casting, the score, the FX studio, etc, etc. No, he won't be on set every single day but make no mistake, this IS Nolan's puppy. Otherwise they would be getting a Jackson, Bay, or Abrams type director, you know, the kind that can't be controlled.

I don't believe it. Again, he has his own film to worry about. We'll see, but I don't think his involvement will be as deep an many believe it to be.

[Bruce_Begins]

From Superman Homepage.com

Following yesterday's rumor of a list of potential film directors being considered to direct the next Superman movie by Chris Nolan, two of the directors on that alleged list have now responded publicly. First up, Duncan Jones ("Moon", "Source Code") tweeted: "About Superman... I'm going to say something really cheesy; Can't talk about it, but an honor to be on the list. Interesting times!" Then, director Matt Reeves ("Cloverfield"; "Let Me In") relayed mostly surprise during an interview at JoBlo: The first Reeves said he heard of his attachment to SUPERMAN was when a fan came up to him at Fantastic Fest and told him about it. "I was surprised," he told us in an interview that will air next week on the AITH Podcast. "I really have no idea if any of that is true. It's certainly an amazing project, but I would be surprised..."
As an aside, it's been reported that AICN.com's Harry Knowles posted a comment indicating he has information regarding another name not on the list being seriously considered. According to Knowles, "I wouldn’t place money that it’ll be any of those names from what I have heard off the record. Sigh."



Nolan and WB are surely keeping news locked tight.

[Excelsior.]

I dont see why a director would want to do a film that he doesnt have control over at least a good director. If Nolan tells him so and so is playing Superman but he wants someone else is he gonna have to use Nolans guy?


Welcome to Hollywood. Only a select few have the privilege to do whatever they want.

Also, its been this way since the inception. So don't talk about the "good old days" please.

[BH/HHH]

I don't believe it. Again, he has his own film to worry about. We'll see, but I don't think his involvement will be as deep an many believe it to be.

I agree for me he's basically brought the project to WB's, he'll help find the right man to take the project on and then that'l be it.

[DorkyFresh]

yeah, i actually don't think it will be anyone of those names. to me this feels like a decoy. they wave their left hand while their right hand is actually working behind their backs. i remember they had a list of people for the Joker and all of the sudden Heath Ledger popped up out of nowhere and EVERY SINGLE Hyper was surprised! i wouldn't doubt Nolan and co. are trying to pull a similar tactic this time...



...that being said, if they are indeed seriously looking at these directors i think Reeves is playing coy. after all, he's worked with J.J. Abrams before, who knows a thing or two about keeping secrets from the public. Reeves didn't say "i haven't met with them!" he said "i have no idea if any of that is true" which sounds fishy since most directors would know their own business dealings, hehe.

[BH/HHH]

From Superman Homepage.com

Nolan and WB are surely keeping news locked tight.

Yeah for definite but its nice to know stuff is moving.

What bugs me is why does everyone believe Harry Knowles? he's not always right

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I could be wrong but right now I believe Finke more than I believe Knowles. Now the situation can change and none of these guys could do it but that doesn't mean that Knowles was right as they could have other people on the list and just decided to pick that other person.

[BH/HHH]

I could be wrong but right now I believe Finke more than I believe Knowles. Now the situation can change and none of these guys could do it but that doesn't mean that Knowles was right as they could have other people on the list and just decided to pick that other person.

How do you read the Knowles quote?

I read it that they have a director but its not anyone from the list and Harry is bummed about that.

[GreenKToo]

Thats the way I took it as well.

[souvlaki]

Just curious. When was the last time Harry was right about anything or got a legitimate scoop? I don't think it will definitely be anyone off that list of directors but I do think that at least a few of those directors are being seriously considered and that Nolan probably hasn't made a decision yet.

[treeringralph]

...all this, and we discover that the director will again be Bryan Singer under the love and direction of producing "Godfather" Christopher Nolan.

[RachelDawes]

yeah, i actually don't think it will be anyone of those names. to me this feels like a decoy. they wave their left hand while their right hand is actually working behind their backs. i remember they had a list of people for the Joker and all of the sudden Heath Ledger popped up out of nowhere and EVERY SINGLE Hyper was surprised! i wouldn't doubt Nolan and co. are trying to pull a similar tactic this time...

What would be the point of all this deception?

[DorkyFresh]

to keep everyone guessing? i'm not sure if it will benefit/hinder the production either way but i do know is that most producers/directors would like to keep as much of their productions under wraps as possible only revealing the info they want to on their own terms.

[Octoberist]

Correction: Harry Knowles says that there's ONLY one on that list that is in the real list of contender:

On that SUPERMAN story, only 1 name that is on there appears on the real list and it is very long odds he'll get it

http://twitter.com/headgeek666/status/25453439073

From the sounds of it, I really think it's Duncan Jones, since he's the only one who said he 'can't talk about it', so obviously he's in the know. Meanwhile, Synder is denying he wants to do Supes, and Matt Reeves sounds like he's completely in the dark.

I disagree with Harry that choice won't get picked; that's up to Nolan.

[Seen]

Correction: Harry Knowles says that there's ONLY one on that list that is in the real list of contender:



From the sounds of it, I really think it's Duncan Jones, since he's the only one who said he 'can't talk about it', so obviously he's in the know. Meanwhile, Synder is denying he wants to do Supes, and Matt Reeves sounds like he's completely in the dark.

I disagree with Harry that choice won't get picked; that's up to Nolan.

I agree it sounds an awful lot like Duncan Jones. What Harry is probably saying is that because Jones is such a novice filmmaker, having only directed one film at the current moment (his next one opens this April), WB might be a little trepidatious of accepting his candidacy for director. Even Nolan did three films before doing Batman Begins. However, if Jones has the backing of Nolan, then I'm confident WB will be on-board with the decision.

[Octoberist]

If I was Jones and let's say WB is skeptical, he should bring in a rough cut of Source Code just show them another movie he's made, on a larger scale.

Or a trailer/preview of it, just like how WB was impressed by the footage of Battle: LA.

[Seen]

Yeah, the script for Source Code was incredible, and I have no doubt people are going to be impressed with that film. I surely can't wait for it.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It sounds like Knowles is full of s**t to me. Knowles once claimed that Goyer wasn't writing the film after that news had broke that he would.

http://themovieblog.com/2010/02/goyer-is-not-writing-superman-reboot

[Happy Jack]

I wouldn't really be treating what Knowles says to be gospel.

[antsman41]

Harry is Jett undercover, lolzz...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Aint it Cool use to break alot of news and it still does break some stories but the site just isn't what it use to be so I'm sorry but I'm just not going to listen to Harry without any regard for those facts.

He said that the Latino Review was wrong when they completely weren't because he was obviously jealous as f**k that he didn't break the story. Just like he's obviously jealous now. Finke is ridiculous but she does break s**t. I'm not saying that they won't choose somebody not on this particular list but I do believe that these directors are on the list.

[Kurosawa]

Tell that to Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Grant Morrison, and every other writer who has written both characters.

And all of whom favor Batman, greatly in some cases. Never trust a Batman guy with Superman. Never, excepting Nolan since he's not a 100% comics/genre guy.

And I still could see him screwing Supes up, hell most everyone that touches the character butchers him somehow nowadays.

[flickchick85]

Lisbersman. I'd also hate for Scott to get it, he's an awful director.
Ah, goes to show how unfamiliar with Liebesman I am - I didn't even realize he was horror movie director. Agreed on both counts then. I really, really don't want Scott anywhere near this movie either.

I'd also believe Nikki Finke over Harry Knowles any day of the week.

[Parker Wayne]

And all of whom favor Batman, greatly in some cases. Never trust a Batman guy with Superman. Never, excepting Nolan since he's not a 100% comics/genre guy.

And I still could see him screwing Supes up, hell most everyone that touches the character butchers him somehow nowadays.

Sadly you're right. Honestly I think the problem started in post-crisis.

At times I'm annoyed by the look of a younger looking Superman because he just doesn't strike me as this powerful presence like he was pre-crisis, when he (at least to me) looked older. I don't see that demanding presence in the modern Superman comics.

Plus another thing I don't like is that Superman becomes very unsure of his beliefs in post crisis. I always believed that while Superman is not as uncompromising as Batman (no one is), he should still be very firm with him believe.

Thats why with the film, I'd prefer if they go with an older actor who can show that demanding presence, like Jon Hamm.

[Mr. Earle]

And all of whom favor Batman, greatly in some cases. Never trust a Batman guy with Superman. Never, excepting Nolan since he's not a 100% comics/genre guy.

And I still could see him screwing Supes up, hell most everyone that touches the character butchers him somehow nowadays.
Goddamn it that wasnt my point. My point was that there are writers who get both characters and can write great stories for both characters.

And really now, All Star Superman is one of the best, if not THE best Superman story ever. STAS is loved by everyone, and so is JLU where every character had his/her moments. Did you watch the Superman heavy episodes like "For the man who has everything", "Doomsday", "Hereafter", etc? Superman was amazing in them!

But you have to ***** about writers belittling your favourite character right? Even when nothing suggests that its really the case. And no, Miller doesnt count because nobody takes him seriously. Besides, every time Batman takes down Superman he has 10 contigency plans working at once, all the plot armor and luck in the world, and barely lives to tell the story. In TDKR he and Green Arrow tricked and poisoned Superman with K before beating him. In Hush, Loeb wanted to show off in a ridiculous story (which is overrated because of marketing and Jim Lee's art), and even then he had Bruce admit that Superman is fighting the mind control and holding back, while at the same time the leaking gas main was preventing him from using his heat vision.

Nobody makes fun of Superman. You just dont want to see him lose. You want to read your Golden Age stories where he pushes the Earth back to orbit and beats god with his pinkie while everyone bows down to him.

[Parker Wayne]

I just want to add that powers has nothing to do with my post and it has more to do with Superman's demanor and presence than powers.

[Kurosawa]

Sadly you're right. Honestly I think the problem started in post-crisis.

At times I'm annoyed by the look of a younger looking Superman because he just doesn't strike me as this powerful presence like he was pre-crisis, when he (at least to me) looked older. I don't see that demanding presence in the modern Superman comics.

Plus another thing I don't like is that Superman becomes very unsure of his beliefs in post crisis. I always believed that while Superman is not as uncompromising as Batman (no one is), he should still be very firm with him believe.

Thats why with the film, I'd prefer if they go with an older actor who can show that demanding presence, like Jon Hamm.

It absolutely started Post-Crisis due to a number of decisions. Personality wise Post-Crisis Superman is basically Superboy crossed with Tom Welling off of Smallville. He has very little personality wise in common with the classic version of the character. The extreme naivete and Lil' Abner farmboy aspects date back to the Donner movies actually, as the Post-Crisis version was influenced by them. They cut the powers, but more importantly when they made him a Peter Parker/Colossus hybrid, they cut out the MAN part of SuperMAN. He is no longer an independent adult, but instead an eternal juvenile running home to momma for milk and cookies or being emasculated by his shrew of a wife. Superman is basically humiliated by everyone in the comics nowadays. He's a whipping boy.

Goddamn it that wasnt my point. My point was that there are writers who get both characters and can write great stories for both characters.

And really now, All Star Superman is one of the best, if not THE best Superman story ever. STAS is loved by everyone, and so is JLU where every character had his/her moments. Did you watch the Superman heavy episodes like "For the man who has everything", "Doomsday", "Hereafter", etc? Superman was amazing in them!

But you have to ***** about writers belittling your favourite character right? Even when nothing suggests that its really the case. And no, Miller doesnt count because nobody takes him seriously. Besides, every time Batman takes down Superman he has 10 contigency plans working at once, all the plot armor and luck in the world, and barely lives to tell the story. In TDKR he and Green Arrow tricked and poisoned Superman with K before beating him. In Hush, Loeb wanted to show off in a ridiculous story (which is overrated because of marketing and Jim Lee's art), and even then he had Bruce admit that Superman is fighting the mind control and holding back, while at the same time the leaking gas main was preventing him from using his heat vision.

Nobody makes fun of Superman. You just dont want to see him lose. You want to read your Golden Age stories where he pushes the Earth back to orbit and beats god with his pinkie while everyone bows down to him.

Those are Silver Age stories and I'm more concerned with his personality than his power level, although he was so weak in the Timmverse that I called him "kinda powerful man". Of the people you listed only Morrison wrote Superman close to right and he still holds to the Byrne spawned farmboy crap that was never part of Siegel's intentions and was never important at ALL until the Donner movie. Classically, a small part of Clark's upbringing was on a farm. . Now it is one of the most dominant and important parts of his character. There is nothing wrong with rural farm characters, but that is simply not what Superman was designed or intended to be.

Last comics writer to get Superman 100% right was Alan Moore. All-Star Superman was great but it seemed even greater than it was because 99% of most recent Superman material is unimpressive. But it's not the greatest Superman story of all time, and I personally wouldn't even rank it in the top-ten if you consider single-issue stories.

[Mr. Earle]

although he was so weak in the Timmverse that I called him "kinda powerful man".
They obviously depowered him along with the Flash, WW, the New Gods, and many others so that they could show them fight. Its really hard to show fights that happen at supersonic speeds. Stop taking things so personally as if its all a conspiracy against Superman.
Of the people you listed only Morrison wrote Superman close to right and he still holds to the Byrne spawned farmboy crap Which wasnt in All-Star Superman. If anything, Superman was an infallible GOD in that comic book.
Of the people you listed only Morrison wrote Superman close to right and he still holds to the Byrne spawned farmboy crap that was never part of Siegel's intentions and was never important at ALL until the Donner movie.Listen, these guys wrote Superman back when all it took to create a superhero was to think of some random powers, throw some random colours and be done with it. Bob Kane chose the bat because all the other animals were taken! So you see, things worked differently back then.

Also, you have to realise that since his conception the world has been filled with other Superheroes covering every niche, character trait, powerset, etc. Consequently in order to stay in touch with the audience as society/tastes/etc change, Superman had to evolve from what his creators intended.

In DC's current Universe, Superman is the daddy, the one everyone looks up to. Look at the "Grounded" story and how everyone is out there to meet him as he walks by. Nobody would give a damn if it was any other superhero. He is their Jesus, and like him he has humble origins, and a good family backbone. When its an issue of morality, everyone runs to ask Superman's opinion. Have you read "Superman/Batman Annual #2" which deals with how they met and came to respect each other? How after originally hating him batman comes to admire Clark and understand that he works on a different level?

The genius + dick part is taken by Batman, so he cant be that. His former arrogance is replaced with humility, more fitting to the "most human of us all" as others have remarked. Do you really miss that Superman?
Classically, a small part of Clark's upbringing was on a farm. . Now it is one of the most dominant and important parts of his character.Well he was raised on a farm with applepie values, so it makes sense. Why did Shiegel and Shuster give him humble origins if he turned out to be a dick?
All-Star Superman was great but it seemed even greater than it was because 99% of most recent Superman material is unimpressive.All Star Superman is a great comic book regardless, simply because of Morrison's vision, themes, the way he encompasses many versions and eras of the character, and the epicness of the story. Are you sure you got the message of the story, instead of spoiling everything by clinging to details?
But it's not the greatest Superman story of all timeOk, maybe i went too far. So which story do you consider the best SM story of all time?
He is no longer an independent adult, but instead an eternal juvenile running home to momma for milk and cookiesUnlike other superheroes, his parents are part of his supporting cast since day one. What's so bad about keeping in touch with your parents? He is in no way a wuss when good writers handle him. He is as much a wuss as Batman is psychopathic, Hal is stupid, or WW is a whore. Bad writers will always fail.


CONCLUSION:
At the end of the day nobody gives a crap about what Shiegel and Shuster wanted because they and their Superman worked in a different era which doesnt have anything to do with ours. If Superman has changed since then, its only because he's trying to keep up with the times. You re clinging to a relic and the intentions of 2 comic book writers who lived 80 years ago. I bet you that if they were around to write Superman to this day, they would have changed and evolved him themselves, otherwise they would have gone out of business.

[Frankenmation]

At the end of the day nobody gives a crap about what Shiegel and Shuster wanted because they and their Superman worked in a different era which doesnt have anything to do with ours.

:dry:

Yeah, screw those two morons who only created comic's greatest superhero! There's nothing that they wrote that could work in this time period! Because that was the 1940s! And this is 2010! You see! Different times! Oh happy happy happy!


:doh:

[Mr. Earle]

:dry:

Yeah, screw those two morons who only created comic's greatest superhero! There's nothing that they wrote that could work in this time period! Because that was the 1940s! And this is 2010! You see! Different times! Oh happy happy happy!


:doh:I didnt say nothing. But obviously a lot has changed since the 1930ies and people are interested in different things. Batman has gone from a vengeful vigilante who was willing to kill, to a self righteous idealist who refuses to take a life, with countless stories dealing with villains tempting him to break his rule.
"Oh no, Bob Kane didnt intend for Batman to have or care about this one rule. He's all about wacky adventures with Robin!"
And then there are the grimdark and gothic stories, etc.

I bet you my house that Bob Kane would have no idea that his red and white bat-man would come this far.

Anyway, in a DCU which keeps getting bigger and bigger, DC has given Superman the top stop, just like Marvel has done with Cap. And its great because he doesnt have that spot because of his powers, but because of his heart, his values, his humility, his heartwarming background, etc. In today's world, we are asking for better values and symbols and Superman has become the man of tomorrow, the man we aspire to be. That's why he is the best, not because he's macho.

[Rust]

Back on topic. I'm confused. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I'm not saying that I take Harry's word for it, but it sounded like he said there were TWO lists. The one we know and a "real" one. Huh, what?

Damn, why are they jerking us around and why are we letting them? Because we're geeks and cant help it?

[Dark Knight]

Just a little heads up.

Harry knows nothing of Team Nolan.

He has had some info about other projects in the past.....but he is not privy to any inside info of the inner workings of Chris Nolan and his projects.

[Dead Ken]

I think Nolan and Snyder would be a BEASTLY colaberation! I am all up for that for a Superman film, I can't see one thing that would be wrong.

[matrix_ghost]

Aint it Cool use to break alot of news and it still does break some stories but the site just isn't what it use to be so I'm sorry but I'm just not going to listen to Harry without any regard for those facts.

He said that the Latino Review was wrong when they completely weren't because he was obviously jealous as f**k that he didn't break the story. Just like he's obviously jealous now. Finke is ridiculous but she does break s**t. I'm not saying that they won't choose somebody not on this particular list but I do believe that these directors are on the list.


AICN has the benefit of being one fo the oldest geek sites regarding scoops so naturally they can (sometimes) get the info straight from the people. Look at Stallone of Cameron sometimes being asked to clarify certain things .

Yet as a site deliveirng scoops they've pretty much lost it. You are right in saying that Finke is more reliable that Knowles but that's just more to due to with the fact that she's got far more important sources. She knows what is happening in Hollywood .

Whatever the case i can see some truth in Harry's post.
Even though those name are being considered , i wonder what WB will do next. Both SNyder and Liebesmann have projects lined up. Liebesmann would basically have to back down from the Clash OF The Titans sequel. Which could also mean that WB wouldn't be able to make the sequel in the timeframe they want to because of Worthington starting work on AVatar 2 ( and 3). Snyder has Sucker Punch up as well as his Cobalt 9 ( or whatever his mutant movie is called) and Xerxes. Even though those movies can wait , i wonder if SNyder would basically finish working on Scker pUnch and then jump straight into the Superman production.

It's the same with Duncan jones. Source code opens april 15th.
Reeves is the only one who doesn't have a project lined up .Well him and Scott.

[craigdbfan]

I still can't believe production is moving this well. Really have to hand it to the folks over at WB and team Nolan/Goyer.

Also notable mention to some of our well connected members/mod/admins here in the Hype for bringing us information that was way ahead of the grain when it came to accurate info on this reboot. :up:

[Frankenmation]

I didnt say nothing. But obviously a lot has changed since the 1930ies and people are interested in different things. Batman has gone from a vengeful vigilante who was willing to kill, to a self righteous idealist who refuses to take a life, with countless stories dealing with villains tempting him to break his rule.
"Oh no, Bob Kane didnt intend for Batman to have or care about this one rule. He's all about wacky adventures with Robin!"
And then there are the grimdark and gothic stories, etc.

I bet you my house that Bob Kane would have no idea that his red and white bat-man would come this far.

Anyway, in a DCU which keeps getting bigger and bigger, DC has given Superman the top stop, just like Marvel has done with Cap. And its great because he doesnt have that spot because of his powers, but because of his heart, his values, his humility, his heartwarming background, etc. In today's world, we are asking for better values and symbols and Superman has become the man of tomorrow, the man we aspire to be. That's why he is the best, not because he's macho.

I realise all that, and I know that Superman has changed with the times but that doesn't automatically mean that he's changed for the better, nor does that mean we should just completely forget about the roots of the character. I'm sorry but your "Nobody gives a **** about Siegel and Shuster" comment was completely stupid and disrespectful in my eyes. Why don't you try telling Geoff Johns, Mark Waid, Dan Jurgens, Jerry Ordway, Bruce Timm, Mike Carlin, Elliot S Maggin, Cary Bates, Grant Morrison, Greg Rucka and everyone else that's been involved with the character and see if they agree with you.

I've seen Kurosawa post about this many, many times, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying that Superman should go back to exactly how he was when he first debuted in Action Comics #1, I think he's just saying that some of what Siegel and Shuster originally intended for the character should be included as well. Doesn't mean we throw everything
that's been developed in the past 70 years out, it's just adding to it. Superman was a champion of the oppressed back then and battled corrupt politicians and other officials, I don't see why that would be out of place today.

Its like how Denny O Neil brought Batman back to his 1939 roots in the 70s. He didn't revert Batman back into a gun-toting killer who drove an ordinary red car and kept his suit in a chest, everything that happened before still happened. He just added to the overall character.

[Doctor Jones]

I really hope it isn't Tony Scott. He's never been that good of a director. His only two good films are Top Gun and True Romance.

[BH/HHH]

I really hope it isn't Tony Scott. He's never been that good of a director. His only two good films are Top Gun and True Romance.

Man on Fire is an excellent movie

[Mr. Earle]

I realise all that, and I know that Superman has changed with the times but that doesn't automatically mean that he's changed for the better, nor does that mean we should just completely forget about the roots of the character. I'm sorry but your "Nobody gives a **** about Siegel and Shuster" comment was completely stupid and disrespectful in my eyes. Why don't you try telling Geoff Johns, Mark Waid, Dan Jurgens, Jerry Ordway, Bruce Timm, Mike Carlin, Elliot S Maggin, Cary Bates, Grant Morrison, Greg Rucka and everyone else that's been involved with the character and see if they agree with you.

I've seen Kurosawa post about this many, many times, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying that Superman should go back to exactly how he was when he first debuted in Action Comics #1, I think he's just saying that some of what Siegel and Shuster originally intended for the character should be included as well. Doesn't mean we throw everything
that's been developed in the past 70 years out, it's just adding to it. Superman was a champion of the oppressed back then and battled corrupt politicians and other officials, I don't see why that would be out of place today.

Its like how Denny O Neil brought Batman back to his 1939 roots in the 70s. He didn't revert Batman back into a gun-toting killer who drove an ordinary red car and kept his suit in a chest, everything that happened before still happened. He just added to the overall character.What is it with you guys and Siegel and Shuster? Are they your ancestors or something? If the character is better, then i really dont care about what they wanted. I piss on their graves! :awesome:

[sdc10]

I think Nolan and Snyder would be a BEASTLY colaberation! I am all up for that for a Superman film, I can't see one thing that would be wrong.

Snyder is all style no substance in my opinion. I mean he directs 2 comic book movies and all of a sudden hes the go to guy for them?

[dark_b]

Snyder is all style no substance in my opinion. I mean he directs 2 comic book movies and all of a sudden hes the go to guy for them?he directed watchmen this is superherohype. he is a movie god :woot:

[hopefuldreamer]

Is it too negative to say that all of those suggestions fill me with dread..?

[dark_b]

they are realistic directors who can direct this movie for WB

[BH/HHH]

Hated Dawn of the Dead 2004 and liked Watchmen (even though it was way too long) but I think Snyder would be a good choice for Superman. I'm sure with a good script he could make a great Superman movie.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Snyder being chosen would suck out all the excitement I have right now for the movie.

[El Payaso]

Snyder is all style no substance in my opinion. I mean he directs 2 comic book movies and all of a sudden hes the go to guy for them?

Yes. Watchmen and 300 were okay but they weren't good movies by a long shot.

Is it too negative to say that all of those suggestions fill me with dread..?

I agree. I feel absolutely no enthusiasm for any of those.

[BH/HHH]

I dont think it will be him anyway to be honest.

[Blackman]

Well if Duncan Jones gets picked there's probably a higher chance of Hamm or Cavisal getting picked, since they're older and all:o

[BH/HHH]

Well if Duncan Jones gets picked there's probably a higher chance of Hamm or Cavisal getting picked, since they're older and all:o

What makes you think he'd cast older?

[GinsterHead]

Yeah, I'm a little perplexed by that. Has Jones ever said anything about preferring older actors? :confused:

[Parker Wayne]

Duncan Jones trashed hollywood for preferring younger actors over older, experienced actors, which is BS to me because it feels as though Hollywood loves 30 or older actors.

[BH/HHH]

Duncan Jones trashed hollywood for preferring younger actors over older, experienced actors, which is BS to me because it feels as though Hollywood loves 30 or older actors.

I see in that case I hope he doesnt get it I dont want Hamm playing Superman or anyone around that age.

[That person]

I see in that case I hope he doesnt get it I dont want Hamm playing Superman or anyone around that age.

Well, if it's appropriate for the character, I imagine he'd be willing to accept a younger actor.

[BH/HHH]

Well, if it's appropriate for the character, I imagine he'd be willing to accept a younger actor.

Oh then I dont know ha ha

I just hope whoever they get makes the film right :D

[Parker Wayne]

I prefer an older actor for the reasons I stated in an older post- I feel like an older looking Superman would just have a more imposing presence that's been lacking in both SR and the comics.

[BH/HHH]

I prefer an older actor for the reasons I stated in an older post- I feel like an older looking Superman would just have a more imposing presence that's been lacking in both SR and the comics.

Not for me but each to their own.

Wonder how long it will be before we find out who the director is?!

[Blackman]

It depends where they go with the story in the end.
If they stay with the Superman has been around for years aspect than it's better if they go older

But if they go more towards the beginning of his career I say go younger, obviously

[BH/HHH]

The reason I want younger is so they can play the character in sequels.

[dark_b]

The reason I want younger is so they can play the character in sequels.lets say that the actor is 35 years old in the first movie. and lets say that in the third movie he is 41 or 42 years old.

show me a 42 year old actor in hollywood that looks old and has wrinkles.

:cwink:

[BH/HHH]

lets say that the actor is 35 years old in the first movie. and lets say that in the third movie he is 41 or 42 years old.

show me a 42 year old actor in hollywood that looks old and has wrinkles.

:cwink:

you got me there

But I still would rather have Routh or Malambri

[dark_b]

my problem with actors like Malabri is that they look like underwear models.

[terry78]

my problem with actors like Malabri is that they look like underwear models.

Now if we were looking for Supergirl, that would be the only criteria.

[biggles2000uk]

The reason I want younger is so they can play the character in sequels.


its not about age, its about look.

Reeves was 25 when he did superman, but he looked and acted older.

[Excel]

Hamm is the most perfect actor for the role imaginable.

[Blackman]

FOr me, I just wish they went younger, with the actor and character, because I don't think that they should ignore CLark meeting/being introduced to so many important characters like Lois, Perry, Lex, etc. That would be something really interesting that I dont think has been properly done in live action

I don't want to be dropped in the middle of the story

[MAN O STEEL]

I don't understand people's hatred & complete lack of respect for young actor's. Ya know people Like Brando & De Niro were young once to ya know. I just don't get the reasoning at all. Did anyone forget that when Ledger did Brokeback he was barley 25?, or that when Reeve did Superman he was only 24?, or when Tobey Maguire did the Cider House Rules he was only 24?. Young actors can bring a lot to a role. Give them a chance.




Steve

[Kurosawa]

They obviously depowered him along with the Flash, WW, the New Gods, and many others so that they could show them fight. Its really hard to show fights that happen at supersonic speeds. Stop taking things so personally as if its all a conspiracy against Superman.
Which wasnt in All-Star Superman. If anything, Superman was an infallible GOD in that comic book.

Superman was badly depowered way before JLA under Timm. He was rarely impressive. Meanwhile Batman continued to be a god of course. And it is more a business decision to downgrade and humiliate Superman because they don't have his rights completely under financial control.

Listen, these guys wrote Superman back when all it took to create a superhero was to think of some random powers, throw some random colours and be done with it. Bob Kane chose the bat because all the other animals were taken! So you see, things worked differently back then.

Bob Kane didn't choose the Bat, he wanted to create a bird-man character. Finger chose the Bat, influenced from silent movies, pulps and Dracula. And you know full well that I study how these characters were created..they did not just throw random powers together and the colors were chosen because they were vivid primary colors.

Also, you have to realise that since his conception the world has been filled with other Superheroes covering every niche, character trait, powerset, etc. Consequently in order to stay in touch with the audience as society/tastes/etc change, Superman had to evolve from what his creators intended.

Evolution and deconstruction are two completely different things. If Superman is made the exact opposite of what he is intended to be, then he is NO LONGER SUPERMAN.

In DC's current Universe, Superman is the daddy, the one everyone looks up to. Look at the "Grounded" story and how everyone is out there to meet him as he walks by. Nobody would give a damn if it was any other superhero. He is their Jesus, and like him he has humble origins, and a good family backbone. When its an issue of morality, everyone runs to ask Superman's opinion. Have you read "Superman/Batman Annual #2" which deals with how they met and came to respect each other? How after originally hating him batman comes to admire Clark and understand that he works on a different level?

He's not that well respected in the comics and I've always found the Jesus motif absurd when you consider he was created by Jewish guys. It's a bad fit and hurts the character. And Batman should have never hated Kal-El, he should have always been impressed and indeed awed by him. Superman shouldn't have to win detractors over. As soon as you start having people taking a character apart it is hard to get them back together. And "Grounded" is garbage, albeit well intentioned garbage. JMS is not good enough to write Superman.

The genius + dick part is taken by Batman, so he cant be that. His former arrogance is replaced with humility, more fitting to the "most human of us all" as others have remarked. Do you really miss that Superman?
Well he was raised on a farm with applepie values, so it makes sense. Why did Shiegel and Shuster give him humble origins if he turned out to be a dick?
All Star Superman is a great comic book regardless, simply because of Morrison's vision, themes, the way he encompasses many versions and eras of the character, and the epicness of the story. Are you sure you got the message of the story, instead of spoiling everything by clinging to details?
Ok, maybe i went too far. So which story do you consider the best SM story of all time?

.....Man, you do not understand Superman at ALL. His father was the greatest scientist on a planet of geniuses. Superman should naturally be a brilliant scientist. Do you know why, when Superman was relevant, Luthor could never beat him? Planet moving powers? NO. It was because he consistently underestimated Superman's own intelligence. Of course Superman should be a genius and should be a thinking man's character. And there is a difference between Superman's charming cockiness where he gets a laugh out of seeing corrupt exploiters put in their place and the flat out nastiness that Batman had where he mistreated and insulted his family and his peers. Batman is a dick to people who don't deserve it, where Superman would only do that to jerks. So basically the difference is this: Superman should be cocky to characters who deserve it. Batman is a dick to characters who deserve praise instead, or at least he was for years.

Unlike other superheroes, his parents are part of his supporting cast since day one. What's so bad about keeping in touch with your parents? He is in no way a wuss when good writers handle him. He is as much a wuss as Batman is psychopathic, Hal is stupid, or WW is a whore. Bad writers will always fail.

No, since day one, which was in 1938 NOT 1986 (John Byrne did not create Superman), his parents have been dead, dead when Krypton exploded and his adoptive parents died when he reached manhood. That is the original legend, and it is based deeply in Siegel's own personal life where his father was killed and his mother became distant from him. Ivan Turgenev once said "A boy doesn't become a man until he loses his father." Now I don't know if that applies to real life but too many people confuse actual people with the literary constructs known as "characters" and for characters and heroic characters in particular, it is a standard for them to be on their own. It's done for a reason. Superman was better off when his parents died as he reached adulthood and his powers-planet moving God level at the time-could not save them.

CONCLUSION:
At the end of the day nobody gives a crap about what Shiegel and Shuster wanted because they and their Superman worked in a different era which doesnt have anything to do with ours. If Superman has changed since then, its only because he's trying to keep up with the times. You re clinging to a relic and the intentions of 2 comic book writers who lived 80 years ago. I bet you that if they were around to write Superman to this day, they would have changed and evolved him themselves, otherwise they would have gone out of business.

If you knew anything about Batman, you would understand that a huge part of his success is because in the 70's DC went back to his roots and took the character back to the standards that made him popular in the first place. Superman has moved away from his creators intentions and the more he has moved away from it the less popular and relevant he has become. See, Superman evolved for almost 50 years, then in 1986 the basic concept of the character was turned completely around. It would be like making Peter Parker the star quarterback with girls all over him living in a posh Manhattan townhouse while maintaining a 2.0 GPA. Thankfully many of these similar changes to Superman have been undone but the farmer boy establishment stooge and mindless optimist still taint the character and have got to go. He's got to be written as an adult again. I don't know if Nolan is capable of working with a character as childish and stupid as they have degraded Superman into being...hopefully he'll have the good sense to make him into a MAN again.

:dry:

Yeah, screw those two morons who only created comic's greatest superhero! There's nothing that they wrote that could work in this time period! Because that was the 1940s! And this is 2010! You see! Different times! Oh happy happy happy!


:doh:

Exactly. Yes, stuff written in the 30's and 40's could not POSSIBLY work today...

"Lord of the Rings was written in stages between 1937 and 1949..."

:doh: OOOOPSIE!!

Well, so much for that. Let's bring on Supes being a bad ass and people looking at him with awe as he helps the common man against greedy douches like Lexcorp, shall we?

[Eddie Dean]

On the subject of age, Harrison Ford was exactly the age Jon Hamm is now when he did Raiders.

[Parker Wayne]

Superman was badly depowered way before JLA under Timm. He was rarely impressive. Meanwhile Batman continued to be a god of course. And it is more a business decision to downgrade and humiliate Superman because they don't have his rights completely under financial control.



Bob Kane didn't choose the Bat, he wanted to create a bird-man character. Finger chose the Bat, influenced from silent movies, pulps and Dracula. And you know full well that I study how these characters were created..they did not just throw random powers together and the colors were chosen because they were vivid primary colors.



Evolution and deconstruction are two completely different things. If Superman is made the exact opposite of what he is intended to be, then he is NO LONGER SUPERMAN.



He's not that well respected in the comics and I've always found the Jesus motif absurd when you consider he was created by Jewish guys. It's a bad fit and hurts the character. And Batman should have never hated Kal-El, he should have always been impressed and indeed awed by him. Superman shouldn't have to win detractors over. As soon as you start having people taking a character apart it is hard to get them back together. And "Grounded" is garbage, albeit well intentioned garbage. JMS is not good enough to write Superman.



.....Man, you do not understand Superman at ALL. His father was the greatest scientist on a planet of geniuses. Superman should naturally be a brilliant scientist. Do you know why, when Superman was relevant, Luthor could never beat him? Planet moving powers? NO. It was because he consistently underestimated Superman's own intelligence. Of course Superman should be a genius and should be a thinking man's character. And there is a difference between Superman's charming cockiness where he gets a laugh out of seeing corrupt exploiters put in their place and the flat out nastiness that Batman had where he mistreated and insulted his family and his peers. Batman is a dick to people who don't deserve it, where Superman would only do that to jerks. So basically the difference is this: Superman should be cocky to characters who deserve it. Batman is a dick to characters who deserve praise instead, or at least he was for years.



No, since day one, which was in 1938 NOT 1986 (John Byrne did not create Superman), his parents have been dead, dead when Krypton exploded and his adoptive parents died when he reached manhood. That is the original legend, and it is based deeply in Siegel's own personal life where his father was killed and his mother became distant from him. Ivan Turgenev once said "A boy doesn't become a man until he loses his father." Now I don't know if that applies to real life but too many people confuse actual people with the literary constructs known as "characters" and for characters and heroic characters in particular, it is a standard for them to be on their own. It's done for a reason. Superman was better off when his parents died as he reached adulthood and his powers-planet moving God level at the time-could not save them.



If you knew anything about Batman, you would understand that a huge part of his success is because in the 70's DC went back to his roots and took the character back to the standards that made him popular in the first place. Superman has moved away from his creators intentions and the more he has moved away from it the less popular and relevant he has become. See, Superman evolved for almost 50 years, then in 1986 the basic concept of the character was turned completely around. It would be like making Peter Parker the star quarterback with girls all over him living in a posh Manhattan townhouse while maintaining a 2.0 GPA. Thankfully many of these similar changes to Superman have been undone but the farmer boy establishment stooge and mindless optimist still taint the character and have got to go. He's got to be written as an adult again. I don't know if Nolan is capable of working with a character as childish and stupid as they have degraded Superman into being...hopefully he'll have the good sense to make him into a MAN again.



Exactly. Yes, stuff written in the 30's and 40's could not POSSIBLY work today...

"Lord of the Rings was written in stages between 1937 and 1949..."

:doh: OOOOPSIE!!

Well, so much for that. Let's bring on Supes being a bad ass and people looking at him with awe as he helps the common man against greedy douches like Lexcorp, shall we?

I must appluad all of what you said because I completely agree. :applaud

Post crisis was one of the worst things to happen to Superman. Superman needs to stop being used as an example of deconstruction.

[Frankenmation]

Well, so much for that. Let's bring on Supes being a bad ass and people looking at him with awe as he helps the common man against greedy douches like Lexcorp, shall we?

That'd be awesome :up:

[Frankenmation]

What is it with you guys and Siegel and Shuster? Are they your ancestors or something? If the character is better, then i really dont care about what they wanted. I piss on their graves! :awesome:

:dry: :dry:

Oh, pardon me! Yes, because I actually RESPECT where the character came from and acknowledge that Superman has a history before 1986, then that must mean I'm related to the creators!! Oh thank you, wise one! I have seen the light!

:facepalm: God help me...

[Mr. Earle]

:dry: :dry:

Oh, pardon me! Yes, because I actually RESPECT where the character came from and acknowledge that Superman has a history before 1986, then that must mean I'm related to the creators!! Oh thank you, wise one! I have seen the light!

:facepalm: God help me...Why are you sarcastic like that? I didnt imply that i was wise enough to tell you what to think or whatever. I'm just stating my opinion, relax.

[bunk]

On the subject of age, Harrison Ford was exactly the age Jon Hamm is now when he did Raiders.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Hamm's age disqualifies him from being an action movie leading man. It may disqualify him from playing a man in the prime of his life and beginning a career as a costumed hero.

[Kurosawa]

I realise all that, and I know that Superman has changed with the times but that doesn't automatically mean that he's changed for the better, nor does that mean we should just completely forget about the roots of the character. I'm sorry but your "Nobody gives a **** about Siegel and Shuster" comment was completely stupid and disrespectful in my eyes. Why don't you try telling Geoff Johns, Mark Waid, Dan Jurgens, Jerry Ordway, Bruce Timm, Mike Carlin, Elliot S Maggin, Cary Bates, Grant Morrison, Greg Rucka and everyone else that's been involved with the character and see if they agree with you.

I've seen Kurosawa post about this many, many times, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying that Superman should go back to exactly how he was when he first debuted in Action Comics #1, I think he's just saying that some of what Siegel and Shuster originally intended for the character should be included as well. Doesn't mean we throw everything
that's been developed in the past 70 years out, it's just adding to it. Superman was a champion of the oppressed back then and battled corrupt politicians and other officials, I don't see why that would be out of place today.

Its like how Denny O Neil brought Batman back to his 1939 roots in the 70s. He didn't revert Batman back into a gun-toting killer who drove an ordinary red car and kept his suit in a chest, everything that happened before still happened. He just added to the overall character.

That is EXACTLY what I mean.

What is it with you guys and Siegel and Shuster? Are they your ancestors or something? If the character is better, then i really dont care about what they wanted. I piss on their graves! :awesome:

One, that is disgusting and insulting. And two, the character is NOT better.

Let's see: original Supes: confident adult, champion of the common man vs the establishment.

Post-Crisis Supes: unsure man-child, servant to the establishment, does whatever he is told.

Not an improvement and a huge part of the problem. It's not hard to see why so many people look at Superman as a putz when you see what he's been degraded to.

[batman44]

Guys please, this thread is about director candidates.

[Octoberist]

yup, it IS. Let's get back to the original topic.

[Happy Jack]

On the subject of age, Harrison Ford was exactly the age Jon Hamm is now when he did Raiders.
That's a really good point. If they're going with "seasoned" Clark, i.e. not a young beginner, then I don't see why John Hamm wouldn't be a great choice.

[Kurosawa]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Hamm's age disqualifies him from being an action movie leading man. It may disqualify him from playing a man in the prime of his life and beginning a career as a costumed hero.

But haven't they said that the movie may be well into Superman's career and not an origin story?

[Mr. Earle]

Superman was badly depowered way before JLA under Timm. He was rarely impressive. Meanwhile Batman continued to be a god of course. And it is more a business decision to downgrade and humiliate Superman because they don't have his rights completely under financial control.You cant believe that. Superman is their second best property behind batman (in sales i mean), so why would they do that to him? It would be like shooting themselves in the foot to hit them. Also, look up the new DTV called Superman-Shazam. Its basically a Captain Marvel story, but they re throwing in Superman to draw the masses.

They clearly want Superman to be awesome. They re counting on it.

As for STAS, clearly everyone in there was depowered so that they could work the fight scenes. You might as well been a New Gods fans and told me that they re out to get Darkseid by making him slow and only as powerful as Superman, with omega beams that are less powefull and escapable.Evolution and deconstruction are two completely different things. If Superman is made the exact opposite of what he is intended to be, then he is NO LONGER SUPERMAN.But is he really the exact opposite of what he was intended to be, or just richer in his characterization?
He's not that well respected in the comics and I've always found the Jesus motif absurd when you consider he was created by Jewish guys. It's a bad fit and hurts the character.Its just the metaphor i used. Besides, Superman doesnt intend to die for our sins, so if anything he is more like the messiah of the jews, someone to kick the Romans' asses and liberate them.
But DC has made him a Jesus of sorts as well in that he is very benevolent, full of compassion and humility.

And Batman should have never hated Kal-El, he should have always been impressed and indeed awed by him. Superman shouldn't have to win detractors over. As soon as you start having people taking a character apart it is hard to get them back together. Of course. Everyone must love your favourite character, otherwise they re taking him apart. :whatever: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What you want is a Mary Sue, not a real character.

And anyway, Batman only disliked him at first. They re bros now!
And "Grounded" is garbage, albeit well intentioned garbage. JMS is not good enough to write Superman.Let me correct you: Grounded is retarded. :woot: I just wanted to show you that Superman is huge in the DCU, and his (although stupid) decision to walk the US is a big deal.
.....Man, you do not understand Superman at ALL. His father was the greatest scientist on a planet of geniuses. Superman should naturally be a brilliant scientist. Do you know why, when Superman was relevant, Luthor could never beat him? Planet moving powers? NO. It was because he consistently underestimated Superman's own intelligence. Of course Superman should be a genius and should be a thinking man's character. In All-Star Morrison played it exactly like that. The thing is that Superman has too many powers to be a hax scientist, genius, etc as well. When he started he was the only character DC had. Now there are millions of them and one cannot have all the best traits to himself. Besides, how can Lex compete when Superman = Lex + 1000 superpowers? That is why they have downplayed the scientist/genius part. He is still smart though.

Also, just because your father is a genius, it doesnt mean that you are too.
Superman's charming cockiness where he gets a laugh out of seeing corrupt exploiters put in their place and the flat Charming? Not really. And like i said, DC has many guys like that out there (Hal for example) so they ve taken Superman to a different place. If someone in the DCU was going to be the benevolent white knight that everyone looked up to, shouldnt it be DC's best hero? Besides, if you take into account his humble origin, it really makes sense.
No, since day one, which was in 1938 NOT 1986 (John Byrne did not create Superman), his parents have been dead, dead when Krypton exploded and his adoptive parents died when he reached manhood. That is the original legend, and it is based deeply in Siegel's own personal life where his father was killed and his mother became distant from him. Ivan Turgenev once said "A boy doesn't become a man until he loses his father." Now I don't know if that applies to real life but too many people confuse actual people with the literary constructs known as "characters" and for characters and heroic characters in particular, it is a standard for them to be on their own. It's done for a reason. Superman was better off when his parents died as he reached adulthood and his powers-planet moving God level at the time-could not save them. Things like that happen. For example sometimes they give Bruce a retarded brother, sometimes they take him out of canon. These things change from time to time to explore new ideas.

Anyway it would be nice if one hero out there didnt have DEAD PARENTS and they were actually part of his life. You'll say "yeah, but do that to someone else. Superman was like that forever." OK, but for better or for worse its almost 30 years now and we have come to associate Superman with family and heartwarming feelings.
If you knew anything about Batman, you would understand that a huge part of his success is because in the 70's DC went back to his roots and took the character back to the standards that made him popular in the first place. Superman has moved away from his creators intentions and the more he has moved away from it the less popular and relevant he has become. I think that the campy era was fairly successful as well, and Adam West was a cultural phenomenon.
Also, creators intentions arent infallible, or the route to ultimate success. Everything can be improved upon. And even if a certain character was successful in the 40ies, it doesnt mean that the same ingredients will work in the audience of 2010.
Thankfully many of these similar changes to Superman have been undone but the farmer boy establishment stooge and mindless optimist still taint the character and have got to go. He's got to be written as an adult again.I dont consider the goodness of his heart to be boyish or foolish. Besides, DC has given him the top stop, naming him the "man of tomorrow". He is the man we aspire to be in our future, the man of a future, more socially advanced society. What's greater than that? Being a dick to people who deserve it? Big whoop.

And he defends his ideas like a man. I dont see where you re coming from, but then again you just said "someone (batman) doesnt like Superman, that means the character is ruined!"
Well, so much for that. Let's bring on Supes being a bad ass and people looking at him with awe as he helps the common man against greedy douches like Lexcorp, shall we? Corporate douches? He is also a scientist and one of the brightest minds in the DCU. He's even become the President.

You really prefer the Lex of the olden days? WOW! :wow:

[Mr. Earle]

One, that is disgusting and insulting. And two, the character is NOT better.

Let's see: original Supes: confident adult, champion of the common man vs the establishment.

Post-Crisis Supes: unsure man-child, servant to the establishment, does whatever he is told.

Not an improvement and a huge part of the problem. It's not hard to see why so many people look at Superman as a putz when you see what he's been degraded to.You mean like that time he went against the President? (Public Enemies)
Like that time he went against the goverment? (Cadmus story in JLU)

I'm sure there are more stories that prove you wrong. Also, Superman is the leader of the Justice League, so you re making stuff up man.

[Octoberist]

mew mew mew

[Parker Wayne]

I don't believe that Superman was ever controlled by the establishment. That's not the point.

The main point is that I'm tired of him being written as constantly getting shown up by Batman in team ups when he should be as imposing a character as Batman.


What is it with you guys and Siegel and Shuster? Are they your ancestors or something? If the character is better, then i really dont care about what they wanted. I piss on their graves! :awesome:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Vp2rq_VmnmKXMM:http://static.funnyjunk.com/gifs/ice_cube.gif&t=1

[HighFivingMF]

mew mew mew
http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Godzilla90sTK/1285095244644.gif
http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy355/GenesisAngel/Pokemon/stjhj.jpg
http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq344/whaaales/mew.jpg

[Aesop Rocks]

:atp:

[truth]

Jim Caviezel.

You realise the rights are leaving WB (thankfully!) by 2013? So no sequel talk. They need to make money from a big time film.

ROUTH = HELL NO!

HAMM = THANKS, BUT NO THANKS!

Go with the best actor. Of all the names, Caviezel is the best actor who can actually...emote...has range...has PROPER film credits

[HighFivingMF]

Jim Caviezel.

You realise the rights are leaving WB (thankfully!) by 2013?
Thankfully?

[truth]

Superman is the most boring character next to Captain America.

It was only because of Donner and Reeve that the world outside White America, gave a damn about him.

You realize, Donner is still alive. In case some have forgotten

[truth]

Thankfully?

Who gave Superman to Singer?

Who was the studio that sat back and financed Singerman Returns?

What was the studio that got Donner fired?

[Parker Wayne]

Superman is the most boring character next to Captain America.

It was only because of Donner and Reeve that the world outside White America, gave a damn about him.

You realize, Donner is still alive. In case some have forgotten

1. You're full of s**t.
2. If you hate Superman why are you in a Superman thread?
3. Captain America ain't boring.

MNS9MzGOQtU

[The Batman]

See, the thing is, Kuro is right about one thing: Modern day Superman isnt really the original superman. He isnt.

You can like the idea that Clark Kent is as real to Supes as Peter Parker is to Spider-Man. But what fans dont seem to understand is that it goes against the core of Superman. Superman cant do things like Spider-Man, because Spider-Man is the anti-Superman. To be like a marvel character goes against the core idea of Superman, which is why Brynes ideas havent stuck.

You can like post crisis supes all you want, but its not an evolution of the character so much as a reimagining that did away with the core of the character. I think its very telling that the most well regarded versions of Superman (Donner, All Star, etc) arent afraid to admit that, yes, clark kent is largely disguise, and that yes, superman is insanely powerful, ideas from "Classic Superman" . Meanwhile, the so called "evolution" of post crisis supes has seen the character fall from his once great standing, and in the comics, most of post crisis has been changed or thrown out.

[Mr. Earle]

Superman is the most boring character next to Captain America.

It was only because of Donner and Reeve that the world outside White America, gave a damn about him.

You realize, Donner is still alive. In case some have forgotten
2 words: Superman Returns. Donner's Superman has not aged well. Also this:
1. You're full of s**t.
2. If you hate Superman why are you in a Superman thread?
3. Captain America ain't boring.

MNS9MzGOQtU

[HighFivingMF]

Who gave Superman to Singer?

Who was the studio that sat back and financed Singerman Returns?

What was the studio that got Donner fired?
Who rephrased their first point to make their second point?

The Salkinds fired Donner, not WB.

So the company doesn't deserve the rights to the character based on a character from a comic book company they own because they trusted the guy who basically kickstarted the new superhero craze? Superman Returns wasn't the ugly ginger stepkid of superhero movies some folks around these parts make it out to be, quite a few people actually liked it. It has a 76% on RottenTomatoes.

[Octoberist]

So 'Truth' comes in, insults both Superman and Captain America as characters and said 'thankfully' that Superman is leaving WB in 2013.

It's so incredibly ill-informed and 'jumping-to-conclusions' as it gets.

'Truth' only has 63 posts and signed on in August 2010, right, so it's weird how incrediblely outspoken he is, that makes me think (or jump to the conclusion) that he/she is someone who is really, really familiar with the boards..under a different (possibly banned) name, as it were.

[Mr. Earle]

See, the thing is, Kuro is right about one thing: Modern day Superman isnt really the original superman. He isnt.

You can like the idea that Clark Kent is as real to Supes as Peter Parker is to Spider-Man. But what fans dont seem to understand is that it goes against the core of Superman. Superman cant do things like Spider-Man, because Spider-Man is the anti-Superman. To be like a marvel character goes against the core idea of Superman, which is why Brynes ideas havent stuck.Where does Spiderman fit in all of this?

As for who is the real person, Morrison said that there are two Clarks, the one we see with his family and the clumsy, shy, etc dude he pretends to be in the Daily Planet to throw off suspicion. The thing is that Morrison thinks that Lois could never fall for that Clark and that is one of the reasons that she didnt want to believe that he is Superman when he told her the truth in AS-S. And he's right you know. Clark needs to be less of an idiot in order for Lois to get over her infatuation with Superman and fall in love with him. I'm not saying he should be badass, but he shouldnt be an idiot either.
Meanwhile, the so called "evolution" of post crisis supes has seen the character fall from his once great standing, and in the comics, most of post crisis has been changed or thrown out.
All that matrix stuff doesnt matter anyway. I mean it does, but it doesnt define him. His basic characterization and place in the DCU hasnt changed.

[Mr. Earle]

Who gave Superman to Singer?

Who was the studio that sat back and financed Singerman Returns?

What was the studio that got Donner fired?
Hey man, mistakes happen. Its the same studio that hired Schumacher and then Nolan.
So 'Truth' comes in, insults both Superman and Captain America as characters and said 'thankfully' that Superman is leaving WB in 2013.

It's so incredibly ill-informed and 'jumping-to-conclusions' as it gets.

'Truth' only has 63 posts and signed on in August 2010, right, so it's weird how incrediblely outspoken he is, that makes me think (or jump to the conclusion) that he/she is someone who is really, really familiar with the boards..under a different (possibly banned) name, as it were.A troll probably.

[Parker Wayne]

2 words: Superman Returns. Donner's Superman has not aged well. Also this:

:cwink:

[Octoberist]

BUT..Let's not disregard Donner's Superman. It's also a product of its time, so you can't completely watch it from a modernist point of view. This is THE movie that started it all. It's like saying that Wizard of Oz looks 'cheap and stupid' to today's movies.

I think Superman hasn't been able to take it to a new level, especially with Superman Returns, which just stuck with the same creative mindset as the Donner's movies. But the problem is that, it's a little outdated and creatively limited.

That's why the new movie needs to show the world why Superman is relevent and why he's an icon. That he's the symbol of hope. And you need a strong villain that will oppose that ideal.

[Parker Wayne]

I'm just tired of self-doubting Superman. I want a very confident Superman. You can make a great Superman film without having him doubt his morals all the time.

[The Batman]

Where does Spiderman fit in all of this?

As for who is the real person, Morrison said that there are two Clarks, the one we see with his family and the clumsy, shy, etc dude he pretends to be in the Daily Planet to throw off suspicion. The thing is that Morrison thinks that Lois could never fall for that Clark and that is one of the reasons that she didnt want to believe that he is Superman when he told her the truth in AS-S. And he's right you know. Clark needs to be less of an idiot in order for Lois to get over her infatuation with Superman and fall in love with him. I'm not saying he should be badass, but he shouldnt be an idiot either.
All that matrix stuff doesnt matter anyway. I mean it does, but it doesnt define him. His basic characterization and place in the DCU hasnt changed.

Post Crisis Superman was given a lot of the traits spider-man/marvel characters were known for....like emphasis on the secret identity being the most important one and soap opera style storytelling.

And if I were talking about Morrison's Superman, there wouldnt even be an argument. Morrison's All Star Supes is not the current DCU character, which is still about Clark being the true self above all.

Its a given thast his "basic" characterization hasnt changed....but that dosent mean the current characterization is somehow good. Batman has always had the same basic characterization, and he still had crappy writing. Superman's head cheese in name only. Hes barely in the large company crossovers, and the hero that rallies the troops is Alan Scott most of the time. Superman today is just there.

[Octoberist]

I'm just tired of self-doubting Superman. I want a very confident Superman. You can make a great Superman film without having him doubt his morals all the time.

I think you can have a self-doubting Superman, but that shouldn't be the..the spine of the narrative.

You're right, one of the aspects of Superman is that he's a confident guy. That was one of my problems with Singer's interpretation: I think he went too far into the deep end & it ultimately neglects the other aspects that makes Superman..Superman.

[Kurosawa]

You cant believe that. Superman is their second best property behind batman (in sales i mean), so why would they do that to him? It would be like shooting themselves in the foot to hit them. Also, look up the new DTV called Superman-Shazam. Its basically a Captain Marvel story, but they re throwing in Superman to draw the masses.

They limit how strong they make Superman as a character because of the financial situation. It's not a bad business decision but it's a terrible creative one. They put Superman in the Captain Marvel DTV because they have no confidence in their other characters and they treat the Marvels even worse than they do Superman.

They clearly want Superman to be awesome. They re counting on it.

As for STAS, clearly everyone in there was depowered so that they could work the fight scenes. You might as well been a New Gods fans and told me that they re out to get Darkseid by making him slow and only as powerful as Superman, with omega beams that are less powefull and escapable.But is he really the exact opposite of what he was intended to be, or just richer in his characterization?

As I said, their Superman was always unimpressive not just on JLA. He got consistently knocked out by electrical shocks for crying out loud.

Its just the metaphor i used. Besides, Superman doesnt intend to die for our sins, so if anything he is more like the messiah of the jews, someone to kick the Romans' asses and liberate them.
But DC has made him a Jesus of sorts as well in that he is very benevolent, full of compassion and humility.

Superman was always that. Where they have messed up is they have mistook his compassion, care and decency for extreme naivete. The seem to equate positivity and optimism with blind cheerfulness.

Of course. Everyone must love your favourite character, otherwise they re taking him apart. :whatever: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What
you want is a Mary Sue, not a real character.

1) You don't know what a Mary Sue is.
2) You never read comics when Superman was the most respected and beloved hero in the DCU and even Batman looked up to him. So I can't expect you to understand a time and a culture that you never experienced and never read.

And anyway, Batman only disliked him at first. They re bros now!
Let me correct you: Grounded is retarded. :woot: I just wanted to show you that Superman is huge in the DCU, and his (although stupid) decision to walk the US is a big deal.
In All-Star Morrison played it exactly like that. The thing is that Superman has too many powers to be a hax scientist, genius, etc as well. When he started he was the only character DC had. Now there are millions of them and one cannot have all the best traits to himself. Besides, how can Lex compete when Superman = Lex + 1000 superpowers? That is why they have downplayed the scientist/genius part. He is still smart though.

Once again: Superman should not have to win Batman over. If anything, it should be the opposite. And yeah, Morrison did play that part right. The main thing is they usually write Superman as a dim bulb. He doesn't have be Reed Richards but too often they write him as a complete idiot.

Also, just because your father is a genius, it doesnt mean that you are too.
Charming? Not really. And like i said, DC has many guys like that out there (Hal for example) so they ve taken Superman to a different place. If someone in the DCU was going to be the benevolent white knight that everyone looked up to, shouldnt it be DC's best hero? Besides, if you take into account his humble origin, it really makes sense.
Things like that happen. For example sometimes they give Bruce a retarded brother, sometimes they take him out of canon. These things change from time to time to explore new ideas.

All Kryptonians are near genius level intellect by Earth standards. Hence the "My son is 5 and doesn't know his calculus yet" line. And the place they've taken Superman to is a place that makes him look like a naive little fool. And Superman's origin is more epic and tragic than humble. Clark himself is humble by design, not because rural farmers are humble or some sort of group to be looked on with pity.

Anyway it would be nice if one hero out there didnt have DEAD PARENTS and they were actually part of his life. You'll say "yeah, but do that to someone else. Superman was like that forever." OK, but for better or for worse its almost 30 years now and we have come to associate Superman with family and heartwarming feelings.

All of which has kept him an eternal child and a loser. Why should the original hero have to change? Change the guys who came after him. They can start by fixing Barry Allen's past, his parents are supposed to be alive.

I think that the campy era was fairly successful as well, and Adam West was a cultural phenomenon.
Also, creators intentions arent infallible, or the route to ultimate success. Everything can be improved upon. And even if a certain character was successful in the 40ies, it doesnt mean that the same ingredients will work in the audience of 2010.

It was successful for 3 years, then Batman was once again on the verge of cancellation. And if something like Superman succeeded for almost 50 years due to the way it was sat up, then was changed and failed mostly for the next 25 years-which is what has happened-then a "back to the basics" approach is what works. And not every element from the 40's still works but the basic ones do and those are the ones they kept from the 30's until the 80's. Superman as an ADULT. Clark as a nebbish. His beginnings as tragic, his life dedicated to others. His selflessness. The feelings of loneliness he had, and the lost world he can never save. Jettison all of that and you have a pretty bland character with no soul or pathos. It's just not compelling.

I dont consider the goodness of his heart to be boyish or foolish. Besides, DC has given him the top stop, naming him the "man of tomorrow". He is the man we aspire to be in our future, the man of a future, more socially advanced society. What's greater than that? Being a dick to people who deserve it? Big whoop.

And he defends his ideas like a man. I dont see where you re coming from, but then again you just said "someone (batman) doesnt like Superman, that means the character is ruined!"
Corporate douches? He is also a scientist and one of the brightest minds in the DCU. He's even become the President.

They talk the talk, but then in the stories the character is consistently ineffective. Look at the New Krypton/War of the Superman mess where all he does is fail and fail. He's become a loser and people don't like losers unless they overcome it somehow.

You really prefer the Lex of the olden days? WOW! :wow:

You don't even know anything about the Bronze Age Lex except for what you've been told. But it's too late to educate you now because you're holding on to that "one dimensional mad scientist" crock that the DC propaganda machine fed people for years. Lex is a million time more interesting as the fallen friend whose potential for greatness is stifled due to his obsession with Superman. He could surpass Superman if he wasn't held back by pride and that wouldn't bother Superman one iota as long as the people reaped the rewards.

You mean like that time he went against the President? (Public Enemies)
Like that time he went against the goverment? (Cadmus story in JLU)

I'm sure there are more stories that prove you wrong. Also, Superman is the leader of the Justice League, so you re making stuff up man.

Or that time he was a total toad in DKR which is about a million times better known a story? And yeah, I made it up where he totally failed all those times and got owned. Sure. I broke into DC's offices and filed those stories personally actually. Regardless, the public at large sees Superman as an establishment stooge and this movie would be a great chance to break that false and wrong perception.

[Parker Wayne]

I think you can have a self-doubting Superman, but that shouldn't be the..the spine of the narrative.

Indeed. Some writers get a bit anvilistic about Superman doubting his beliefs. I don't like Self-doubting Superman because few writers know how to approach this.

You're right, one of the aspects of Superman is that he's a confident guy. That was one of my problems with Singer's interpretation: I think he went too far into the deep end & it ultimately neglects the other aspects that makes Superman..Superman.

That's been the main problem with Superman. Many writers try make him human and that's alright. But they try to make him too human when Superman's appeal was that he was a powerful alien who stands for optimism.

[echostation]

Too much argument... my main thing is these directors will not care

They will combine aspects of Pre and Post Crisis Superman and just see what they can do to fit their stories even with all the power inconsistencies and all... It happens in so many Superhero films where the heroes' powers are inconsistently portrayed as it fits the vices of the plot. Like the Vices of a penile warrior on his savage pie prey....

The director who is standing in line for this gig needs to make sure to have the S in the costume to be Crisp, RAZOR SHARP and metallic. It should be very pointy and curved at the same time, like a crescent. This will be good and help market Superman abroad as more of a world friendly creature as opposed to an American. Heck they should add GREEN onto his costume in some way...

[Astrodust]

A few of you guys have really derailed this thread. Can't you get angry at each other in the other thread?

[Octoberist]

Duncan jones!

[Dark Knight]

I think Nolan and Snyder would be a BEASTLY colaberation! I am all up for that for a Superman film, I can't see one thing that would be wrong.






Goyer, the Nolan Brothers, and Snyder with Hamm as Superman FTW!

This team would give us the kick ass Superman film that has been needed for quite some time!

[akfj]

But haven't they said that the movie may be well into Superman's career and not an origin story?

Nolan and Goyer haven't said anything specific about what they want to do. The only story details we have come from Latino Review.

What was the studio that got Donner fired?

That was actually the Salkinds. Warner Bros. didn't have much to do with the production of Donner's film.

[Mr. Earle]

I'm just tired of self-doubting Superman. I want a very confident Superman. You can make a great Superman film without having him doubt his morals all the time.
Where do you get this stuff? Superman's morals are crystal clear 99% of the time. Of course everyone has to self doubt himself at times, but that's what the stories are for. Do you just want to see him challenged on a physical level? Post Crisis Superman was given a lot of the traits spider-man/marvel characters were known for....like emphasis on the secret identity being the most important one and soap opera style storytelling.

And if I were talking about Morrison's Superman, there wouldnt even be an argument. Morrison's All Star Supes is not the current DCU character, which is still about Clark being the true self above all.

Its a given thast his "basic" characterization hasnt changed....but that dosent mean the current characterization is somehow good. Batman has always had the same basic characterization, and he still had crappy writing. Superman's head cheese in name only. Hes barely in the large company crossovers, and the hero that rallies the troops is Alan Scott most of the time. Superman today is just there.
The crossovers arent always about the same characters. Generation Lost is about the JLI even though its a worldwide thing, Blackest Night was about the GLs, Final Crisis featured Superman above all, etc.

You cant always have the same cast. Besides, Alan is like the granpa awesome of the DCU. I have no problem with him.

[Mr. Earle]

They limit how strong they make Superman as a character because of the financial situation. It's not a bad business decision but it's a terrible creative one.STAS came out a decade before this financial situation. And seriously, if they wanted to hurt Superman so that the family wouldnt want him they would have made an animated series about some other hero. Hell, they even tried to revive his movie franchise with SR.
They put Superman in the Captain Marvel DTV because they have no confidence in their other characters and they treat the Marvels even worse than they do Superman. Its proven by sales records that any DTV movie without Batman or Superman didnt sell so well. Therefore they ve have been limited to Superman/Batman movies for some time now and they re trying to promote other characters by having Superman there. Its a good thing.

As I said, their Superman was always unimpressive not just on JLA. He got consistently knocked out by electrical shocks for crying out loud.Isnt that electric girl one of his comics villains anyway?
Superman was always that. Where they have messed up is they have mistook his compassion, care and decency for extreme naivete. The seem to equate positivity and optimism with blind cheerfulness.I disagree. Only Batman thought he was naive at first and then he understood him and made him his bro. Everyone else admires him for his character.
1) You don't know what a Mary Sue is.
2) You never read comics when Superman was the most respected and beloved hero in the DCU and even Batman looked up to him. So I can't expect you to understand a time and a culture that you never experienced and never read.Oh i know what a Mary Sue is. Its the character that everyone loves, that has all the best traits, and always wins in everything at the end of the day. See Bella from Twilight for example.

So please continue to hate DC because some character in their huge universe doesnt really like Superman. EVERYONE HAS TO LIKE HIM, RIGHT?
Once again: Superman should not have to win Batman over. If anything, it should be the opposite. Batman had to win him over as well. Superman came to understand that Batman uses those methods because he has no superpowers and its the only feasible way to do crime fighting.
Batman on the other hand didnt like how he always sees the best in people, how he needs to have a secret identity when he could work 24/7, etc. Just read "SM/BM: Annual 2".

Of course for you "SUPERMAN RULES, BATMAN SUCKS. EVERYONE BOW TO SUPERMAN AND PREY HE ACCEPTS YOU".

All Kryptonians are near genius level intellect by Earth standards. Hence the "My son is 5 and doesn't know his calculus yet" line. And the place they've taken Superman to is a place that makes him look like a naive little fool. And Superman's origin is more epic and tragic than humble. Clark himself is humble by design, not because rural farmers are humble or some sort of group to be looked on with pity. Its epic indeed, but the way he was raised was humble and cosy. There has to be a reason Siegel and Shuster chose a Kansas couple and not some Wall Street bankers.

All of which has kept him an eternal child and a loser. If bad writers treat him like that, its their fault. Otherwise you dont have to be an orphan to be a man. That's ridiculous.
And not every element from the 40's still works but the basic ones do and those are the ones they kept from the 30's until the 80's. Superman as an ADULT. Clark as a nebbish. His beginnings as tragic, his life dedicated to others. His selflessness. The feelings of loneliness he had, and the lost world he can never save. Jettison all of that and you have a pretty bland character with no soul or pathos. It's just not compelling.The thing is that i see those elements in the current Superman and i dont see him as an emo man-child the way you do.
They talk the talk, but then in the stories the character is consistently ineffective. Look at the New Krypton/War of the Superman mess where all he does is fail and fail. He's become a loser and people don't like losers unless they overcome it somehow.New Krypton was crappy, so what did you expect from that lousy story?

You don't even know anything about the Bronze Age Lex except for what you've been told. But it's too late to educate you now because you're holding on to that "one dimensional mad scientist" crock that the DC propaganda machine fed people for years. Lex is a million time more interesting as the fallen friend whose potential for greatness is stifled due to his obsession with Superman. He could surpass Superman if he wasn't held back by pride and that wouldn't bother Superman one iota as long as the people reaped the rewards.They still have that for Luthor. I've seen countless conversations between them where Lex claims that he could have cured cancer had it not been for him. And then Superman says that he would have if he cared enough for it.
Or that time he was a total toad in DKR which is about a million times better known a story? The story is acclaimed because of its portrayal of Batman and because it brought grimdark batman back. Nobody takes Miller seriously when he writes other superheroes, or rather... nobody takes Miller seriously fullstop. And neither should you.
And yeah, I made it up where he totally failed all those times and got owned. Sure. I broke into DC's offices and filed those stories personally actually.Every hero fails at first so that tension is created until he ultimately wins the day.
Would you like to tell me about these failures you re talking about? Last time i checked, he and a legion of his successors saved the world for Darkseid and Mandrakk.

[Astrodust]

Duncan jones!

No thank you. Did you see the pacing for Moon? Let's see if Jones can do an action film first. Not let's see if Jones can direct action for Superman. Reeves and Snyder are the best choices from that list. The problem is if they are willing to have another director oversee their work. You cant have 2 conductors directing one orchestra. Reeves and Snyder might be too big to want to work with someone else. That's why you don't see names like James Cameron, Spielberg, or Ridley Scott on the list.

[Octoberist]

People have to think outside of the box. With certain filmmakers, can you tell that they have that 'it' factor. Now predicting who's gonna be 'it' is hard sometimes because look at GAVIN HOOD did with Wolverine. But then you've got Batman Begins from a guy who has never done an action movie prior. It's always a gamble.

So yes, I would gamble on Jones because I feel like he has that geek sensibilities and IMAGINATION to handle something like this. And like what I've said before, Jones should bring in a rough cut of Source Code to WB, to prove that he can handle action.

Let's say Jones gets the gig, I can see people being skeptical but I can't see anyone overly objecting to him.

[hatebox]

I'm not completely opposed to Synder but I don't want it to have the same (fake) look as 300, Watchmen or Suckerpunch.

I don't need my superman to be Nolan-esque realistic, but I want the story to take place in a recognizable world.

[solidsnake86]

I think depending on how the script plays out whichever director gets chosen will have a real opportunity to do something amazing. If it is true that brainiac is the villain, between him and if he has drones we may finally get to see superman let loose. With SR we got glimpses of what a superman movie could be (i still think the airplane scene was amazing) but that was the high point of the action. Obviously this film will be dependent on the budget but WB isn't one to go cheap on these things, heck they gave the dark knight 185 million. If there is one good thing we can take away from having to wait another 6 years for a new film to come out is the leap in technology from 2006.

[Astrodust]

People have to think outside of the box. With certain filmmakers, can you tell that they have that 'it' factor. Now predicting who's gonna be 'it' is hard sometimes because look at GAVIN HOOD did with Wolverine. But then you've got Batman Begins from a guy who has never done an action movie prior. It's always a gamble.

So yes, I would gamble on Jones because I feel like he has that geek sensibilities and IMAGINATION to handle something like this. And like what I've said before, Jones should bring in a rough cut of Source Code to WB, to prove that he can handle action.

Let's say Jones gets the gig, I can see people being skeptical but I can't see anyone overly objecting to him.

Yes but Superman needs top notch action and Jones has done 1 and half films. Even with experienced director's, their style can differ greatly. Ridlly Scott, Michael Bay, John Woo, and Timur Bekmambettov all have vastly different approaches to action. The problem is we don't really know what Jones is capable of. You can't just give him 200 million and say show us what you can do. No place in their right mind would hire you without looking at your resume first. Just cause a director can handle characterization doesn't remotely mean they can handle action. And just cause someone has made a good small budget indie film doesnt mean they know anything about big budget summer tentpole movies.

[souvlaki]

Yes but Superman needs top notch action and Jones has done 1 and half films. Even with experienced director's, their style can differ greatly. Ridlly Scott, Michael Bay, John Woo, and Timur Bekmambettov all have vastly different approaches to action. The problem is we don't really know what Jones is capable of. You can't just give him 200 million and say show us what you can do. No place in their right mind would hire you without looking at your resume first. Just cause a director can handle characterization doesn't remotely mean they can handle action. And just cause someone has made a good small budget indie film doesnt mean they know anything about big budget summer tentpole movies.

Everything you just said could have perfectly described Christopher Nolan and Batman Begins back in 2004.

[Kurosawa]

Mostly going around in circles, but a couple of things to address:

Oh i know what a Mary Sue is. Its the character that everyone loves, that has all the best traits, and always wins in everything at the end of the day. See Bella from Twilight for example.

Not exactly. Bella is not quite a Mary Sue even though she is a clear stand in for Stephenie Meyer because how a Mary Sue is classically defined is they are a new character inserted into an already existing series and then made to look superior to the characters who were originally there. So examples of Mary Sues are more like Mara Jade from Star Wars, or Wolverine, Kyle Rayner, Storm is something of a Sue, etc. It's generally a bad thing but not all Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters suck.

So please continue to hate DC because some character in their huge universe doesnt really like Superman. EVERYONE HAS TO LIKE HIM, RIGHT?
Batman had to win him over as well. Superman came to understand that Batman uses those methods because he has no superpowers and its the only feasible way to do crime fighting.
Batman on the other hand didnt like how he always sees the best in people, how he needs to have a secret identity when he could work 24/7, etc. Just read "SM/BM: Annual 2".

I don't think everyone has to love him but most people should and he is looked on with disdain way too much nowadays.

Its epic indeed, but the way he was raised was humble and cosy. There has to be a reason Siegel and Shuster chose a Kansas couple and not some Wall Street bankers.

Well they never said Smallville was in Kansas, that was a change that was made in the Donner movie. Traditionally Smallville was in the Northeast but it was still a small, rural town, so it was similar. The idea that he came from a small town was the important thing, not the farm which in fact was abandoned pretty quickly as Pa Kent moved into town and ran a store instead.

If bad writers treat him like that, its their fault. Otherwise you dont have to be an orphan to be a man. That's ridiculous.
The thing is that i see those elements in the current Superman and i dont see him as an emo man-child the way you do.
New Krypton was crappy, so what did you expect from that lousy story?
They still have that for Luthor. I've seen countless conversations between them where Lex claims that he could have cured cancer had it not been for him. And then Superman says that he would have if he cared enough for it.

New Krypton was not bad until the got to the War of the Superman where Supes was a total flop. And his total lack of a reaction to it is even worse. They had a chance there to address some good stuff and missed it.

The story is acclaimed because of its portrayal of Batman and because it brought grimdark batman back. Nobody takes Miller seriously when he writes other superheroes, or rather... nobody takes Miller seriously fullstop. And neither should you.
Every hero fails at first so that tension is created until he ultimately wins the day.
Would you like to tell me about these failures you re talking about? Last time i checked, he and a legion of his successors saved the world for Darkseid and Mandrakk.

Batman had been grim and dark for years before DKR. I honestly don't know why it was so popular, I thought it sucked ass especially compared to the O'Neil/Adams Batman. And his best work ever was on another superhero, Daredevil.


Post Crisis Superman was given a lot of the traits spider-man/marvel characters were known for....like emphasis on the secret identity being the most important one and soap opera style storytelling.

And if I were talking about Morrison's Superman, there wouldnt even be an argument. Morrison's All Star Supes is not the current DCU character, which is still about Clark being the true self above all.

Its a given thast his "basic" characterization hasnt changed....but that dosent mean the current characterization is somehow good. Batman has always had the same basic characterization, and he still had crappy writing. Superman's head cheese in name only. Hes barely in the large company crossovers, and the hero that rallies the troops is Alan Scott most of the time. Superman today is just there.

Agree 100%. And hey, I love Alan Scott. He IS Green Lantern to me. And I like him being a leader. But Superman should not just be a face in the crowd. It's beyond lame. Superman should be going after Lex right now for killing the Kryptonians. Instead he's taking a Forrest Gump walk on his latest emo mope-fest while Lex has a ball beating up other supervillains and running around with a Lois Lane fembot. Man, their Superman is freaking lame as hell.

They need to go in the All-Star Superman direction for the movie. I don't trust Morrison completely but that book IS Superman.

[dark_b]

Everything you just said could have perfectly described Christopher Nolan and Batman Begins back in 2004.

and yet people complained that the action was nto big and good enough.

so ....................

[Octoberist]

who cares, it was a good movie.

The action in Dark Knight was jarring (besides the awesome car chase) but it's still great.

Now I do care if Duncan's action scenes was outright diasterous, and the narrative poor, but I have a good feeling about him.

[Octoberist]

BTW, I did research on Brainiac.

DID YOU KNOW that the word Brainiac CAME from the character Brainiac? So it was invented in the comics and the term was implanted into our culture.

I had NO IDEA!

[dark_b]

who cares, it was a good movie.

The action in Dark Knight was jarring (besides the awesome car chase) but it's still great.

Now I do care if Duncan's action scenes was outright diasterous, and the narrative poor, but I have a good feeling about him.he wanted to compare how Jones could be like Nolan in 2004. right?

some are natural talents when it comes to big action and some are not. Singer and Nolan are not. end of story. if they would be then everyone would list their movies as best action movies.

so i f... dont care if it was a good movie. they talked about action. doesnt f... matter if it was a good movie.

[Mr. Earle]

Batman had been grim and dark for years before DKR. I honestly don't know why it was so popular, I thought it sucked ass especially compared to the O'Neil/Adams Batman.I think that the grimdark aspect was forgotten for a while and Miller brought it back. TDKR was a good book i think, but it was also bad in many ways.
And his best work ever was on another superhero, Daredevil.I havent read it, but i've heard a lot of people say that. I should read it sometime.

Agree 100%. And hey, I love Alan Scott. He IS Green Lantern to me. And I like him being a leader. But Superman should not just be a face in the crowd. It's beyond lame. Superman should be going after Lex right now for killing the Kryptonians. Instead he's taking a Forrest Gump walk on his latest emo mope-fest while Lex has a ball beating up other supervillains and running around with a Lois Lane fembot. Man, their Superman is freaking lame as hell.I agree, and i've heard a lot of people agree as well. New Krypton and millions of Kryptonians were killed and Superman cares more about a grief struck woman who was talking crap. Its just crap. I assume that DC wanted to try JMS' idea instead of having a bunch of issues about Superman crying about NK. Sucks either way.

[truth]

Wait, I thought it is a universally held TRUTH that Superman Returns was a failure.

A remake?

Routh?

Bad Acting?

Too dark?

Come on guys. Stop being funny. Superman Returns failed...hence the reboot talk that we're having with Nolan and co.

[Dark Knight]

I think depending on how the script plays out whichever director gets chosen will have a real opportunity to do something amazing. If it is true that brainiac is the villain, between him and if he has drones we may finally get to see superman let loose. With SR we got glimpses of what a superman movie could be (i still think the airplane scene was amazing) but that was the high point of the action. Obviously this film will be dependent on the budget but WB isn't one to go cheap on these things, heck they gave the dark knight 185 million. If there is one good thing we can take away from having to wait another 6 years for a new film to come out is the leap in technology from 2006.










Goyer, the Nolans, and Snyder would make for a DYNAMIC creative team to execute the next Superman film!

Get WETA to do the SFX and we may finally see the kick arse Superman film we have been waiting to see for quite some time!

I doubt Nolan will go with Zack though, but we shall see.

[BH/HHH]

BTW, I did research on Brainiac.

DID YOU KNOW that the word Brainiac CAME from the character Brainiac? So it was invented in the comics and the term was implanted into our culture.

I had NO IDEA!

Thats awesome

[HighFivingMF]

Wait, I thought it is a universally held TRUTH that Superman Returns was a failure.

A remake?

Routh?

Bad Acting?

Too dark?

Come on guys. Stop being funny. Superman Returns failed...hence the reboot talk that we're having with Nolan and co.
It wasn't a remake. A good handful of people liked Routh. The acting wasn't terrible. It made 120 million dollars over the budget. It didn't fail at the box office, it just underperformed.

The movie had a lot of bad ideas, a less-than-stellar script, and not much action. But it had some good ideas as well.

[BH/HHH]

It wasn't a remake. A good handful of people liked Routh. The acting wasn't terrible. It made 120 million dollars over the budget. It didn't fail at the box office, it just underperformed.

The movie had a lot of bad ideas, a less-than-stellar script, and not much action. But it had some good ideas as well.

:up:

[Dark Knight]

It's interesting how Duncan commented a few weeks ago, about how Hollywood is infatuated with lead actors in their 20's, instead of looking at the 30 and above actors for lead roles.

Now his name comes up as a possible Superman directorial candidate when there has been heavy debate on whether the next Superman cast should be an older more mature and experienced actor playing him or another young 20's pretty boy unknown with no talent.

[X Knight]

just saw this posted at IGN.com:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/112/1123654p1.html

Says that Darren Aronofsky is also being considered by Nolan........

[Motown Marvel]

my concern with aronofsky would be if he'd go too dark in the tone of the film. but, i would be intrigued to see how he'd handle the effects. i was extremely impressed with what he did in the fountain not using any CGI. and at the end of the day, he's an excellent director.

[Project862006]

darren would be fine for a gritty dark super hero like dare devil but now supes

darren directing would be like fincher or nolan himself directing lol

[X Knight]

wasn't aronofsky supposed to do a Batman: Year One movie?

[souvlaki]

wasn't aronofsky supposed to do a Batman: Year One movie?

Yeah, and really it sounded like an awful adaption of Batman. I love him as a director but I'm kind of wary of what he'd do to Superman after the proposed changes to Batman in Year One. On the bright side though at least he'd working on a script written by Goyer and Nolan instead of a script by Frank Miller.

[Project862006]

Darren had major changes when he was attached to watchmen as well i would be weary to any comic adaptation he is attached to i think he wants to make it his own too much.

[HighFivingMF]

What changes for Year One were Darren's and not Frank Miller's? What were his changes to Watchmen?

[Project862006]

not sure if the watchmen changes were his but when he was attached i believe Adrien dies Rorschach lives and modernized to war on terror

[Doctor Jones]

Setting it in modern times being one of the biggest ones. I think Veidt had a huge laser gun that took out New York I don't quite remember. But for what it was, Hayter's script was solid for a 130 minute film. Although fans would have complained as usual.

I love Aronofsky, but I'd take him for Wolverine than this. But who knows? He could surprise us.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure Rorschach still died. Veidt did die though.

[Project862006]

did'nt nite owl owl ship crush him or something

[GreenKToo]

It would be kinda hard to ask a director to come in and direct superman but not to film it in the style that he's used to making.

[Blackman]

I agree GreenKToo
ALthough I think Nolan realizes that a director needs his space. I mean if WB didnt give Nolan his space Inception, TDK, and BB wouldve probably been very different movies.

But this shouldnt be Nolan's Superman. It should be (insert director)'s Superman

[Blackman]

I agree GreenKToo
ALthough I think Nolan realizes that a director needs his space. I mean if WB didnt give Nolan his space Inception, TDK, and BB wouldve probably been very different movies.

But this shouldnt be Nolan's Superman. It should be (insert director)'s Superman

[Dark Knight]

Just saw Legend of the Guardians of G'Hoole.

This film might turn out to be Snyders' best overall so far.

The film also shows us why he should be considered to direct the next Superman movie and work with the Nolans and Goyer!

Goyer, the Nolans, and Snyder as the potential creative team behind The Man Of Steel film = A DYNAMIC filmmaking team for Superman.

[Project862006]

^ Snyder is already out believe i think he showed no interest

[Dark Knight]

^ Snyder is already out believe i think he showed no interest






I think Snyder declines before Goyer and the Nolans were attached no?

Darren would be an interesting choice though.

People need to stop worrying about whether or not this Nolan produced Supes film will be too "dark" also.

[Dark Knight]

Yeah, and really it sounded like an awful adaption of Batman. I love him as a director but I'm kind of wary of what he'd do to Superman after the proposed changes to Batman in Year One. On the bright side though at least he'd working on a script written by Goyer and Nolan instead of a script by Frank Miller.






It sure did sound awful and way too radical.

[Happy Jack]

Wait, I thought it is a universally held TRUTH that Superman Returns was a failure.

A remake?

Routh?

Bad Acting?

Too dark?

Come on guys. Stop being funny. Superman Returns failed...hence the reboot talk that we're having with Nolan and co.
Financially and critically it underperformed. However, calling it a failure beyond that is subjective. There may people who like it (or parts of it) and they have that right to an (educated) opinion.

[Astrodust]

Nah it really was a failure as a Superman film. It introduced sub plots that hindered ideas for a sequel and the film received almost zero buzz from people leaving the theater. Not to mention Lois was terribly miscast and Routh is not a very strong actor. Add all the other things like lack of action, cheesy dialogue, soap opera plot, ugly suit colors, no super villain, etc, and you have a weak Superman film.

[Happy Jack]

Nah it really was a failure as a Superman film. It introduced sub plots that hindered ideas for a sequel and the film received almost zero buzz from people leaving the theater. Not to mention Lois was terribly miscast and Routh is not a very strong actor. Add all the other things like lack of action, cheesy dialogue, soap opera plot, ugly suit colors, no super villain, etc, and you have a weak Superman film.
I'm not saying I liked it, in fact I really didn't. I'm just saying the quality of the film is, for the most part, subjective. Some things Singer and co. did could probably be argued for.

[Astrodust]

I'm not saying I liked it, in fact I really didn't. I'm just saying the quality of the film is, for the most part, subjective. Some things Singer and co. did could probably be argued for.

I know what you are trying to say about subjectivity. I mean I love the film Kick-Ass but I can understand why some people don't like it. But Superman is not an art house picture. It was a big budget summer tentpole film and should of been treated as such. It wasn't a failure in the sense that it was a bad film. It got decent reviews and all but fell way short of greatness.

[bunk]

But haven't they said that the movie may be well into Superman's career and not an origin story?

That's why I said "may be…"

I would love it if the movie started with a Superman who's been around for a while. I would be very surprised though. Even with that being the case, should he look 40? Does that make sense for the character?

[Blackman]

I say start from the beginning. I would love to see Superman meet Lois and (evil)Lex for the first time

[bgshw44]

nolan is putting his name and rep on this, i trust whoever he picks