Join Date: Aug 2008
Re: Superman: Flyby
From MTV 10/26/09
EXCLUSIVE: J.J. Abrams Says Returning To Superman 'Would Be A Blast'
Originally Posted by Caleb Goellner
The last time J.J. Abrams had the Man of Steel on his mind, things didn't exactly work out as planned, but given his resilient career in television and film since 2002, the creator is in a better position than ever to make a hypothetical return to the property. However, despite the support of high-profile fans such as filmmaker Kevin Smith and many in the fan community, at this point, nothing is officially moving forward with Abrams' version of Superman.
"No one has talked to me about it," Abrams told MTV News. "Obviously I’m sure Warner Brothers has a plan for what they want to do."
"Writing that script was a long process," he explained. "It was a very passionate character for me. As a kid growing up it meant a lot to me. It would be wonderful and fun to see that brought back. I don’t know what Warners is thinking or what their plan is. It would be a blast."
Though the "Lost" co-creator and "Star Trek" director's first crack at scripting the Last Son of Krypton received mixed reviews from fans, it still has its supporters in Hollywood. Brendan Fraser, who actually suited up for a screen test for what would have been a Brett Ratner-directed film, has only praised what would have been. Abrams himself explained that while that particular draft didn't see the light of day, there's still a version of the script he'd enjoy he could envision being produced.
"That version of the movie—the one that was reviewed and vilified—was actually not the latest draft we had at the time and we worked on it well after that. I do think there’s a version of that movie that could be really fun to see," said Abrams. "You never really know. Everything happens for a reason."
From WIRED MAGAZINE 04.20.09 : 17.05
J.J. Abrams on the Magic of Mystery
Brett Ratner On The J.J. Abrams’ Superman That Might Have Been
In my profession, this mentality is illustrated by the spoiler: that piece of information meant to be kept secret, like the end of a movie or TV show or novel. Spoilers give fans the answers they want, the resolution they crave. As an avid fan of movies and TV myself, I completely understand the desire to find out behind-the-scenes details in a nanosecond. Which, given technology, is often how long it takes—to the frustration of the storytellers. Efforts to gather this intel and the attempts to plug leaks create an ongoing battle between filmmakers and the very fans they are dying to entertain and impress. But the real damage isn't so much that the secret gets out. It's that the experience is destroyed. The illusion is diminished. Which may not matter to some. But then what's the point of actually seeing that movie or episode? How does knowing the twist before you walk into the theater—or what that island is really about before you watch the finale—make for a richer viewing experience? It's telling that the very term itself—spoiler—has become synonymous with "cool info you can get before the other guy." What no one remembers is that it literally means "to damage irreparably; to ruin." Spoilers make no bones about destroying the intended experience—and somehow that has become, for many, the preferred choice.
In some cases, spoilers don't just prevent the intended experience of something, they prevent the very existence of it. Case in point: I had spent close to two years working on a version of a Superman script for Warner Bros. Then an early draft was leaked, reviewed, and spectacularly decimated on a Web site that I still adore and read daily. It wasn't just that the review was bad. Which it was. I mean, like, kraptastically bad. And probably deserved (I'm the idiot who made Lex Luthor a Kryptonian). What was so depressing wasn't just that the thing being reviewed was an old version of a work in progress. What killed me was that the reviewer—and then readers of that reviewer—weren't just judging my writing. They were judging the movie. A movie that was barely in preproduction and many drafts away from final. A film that ultimately never got made—in small part because that review, and subsequent posts, made studio decision makers nervous. The fact is, that Superman film might have been awful. Or it could have been something else. We'll never know.
Published by Jennifer Vineyard on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 12:25 pm.
Once upon a time, Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner swapped movies – Brett got the third “X-Men” and Bryan got “Superman,” which in his hands was “Superman Returns” starring Brandon Routh. We all know how that turned out.
But what would have happened if Ratner had continued along his merry way and done the “Superman” he wanted? What would it have been about? Brendan Fraser, who saw the script written by J.J. Abrams, was impressed. So was Ratner, who filled us in on the storyline and casting plans.
“The original movie I was going to be a part of,” Ratner said, “took place on Krypton for about half of the movie. So it was much more otherworldly, and much darker, because there was a civil war on Krypton. You’d get more of the history.”
“The Death of Superman” and the art of Alex Ross.
“That wasn’t just darker, but cooler, in my mind,” Ratner said. “That was what we were going to model the visuals after. When you have to translate it to a cinematic world, it’s a whole different animal, and he’s one of the best Superman artists I’ve ever seen.”
If it’s as dark as Warner Bros. wants for their reboot of Superman, Ratner still has a shot at making it: “Maybe we can go back to it one day,” he said.
But sorry, Brendan Fraser, that’s not a shot for you, too. “I definitely agreed with Bryan Singer that you need an unknown actor,” Ratner said. “I was going to surround Superman with known actors, but it’s important to get an unknown. I love Tom Cruise, but to have someone like him who you see as Tom Cruise would be a mistake.”