Anticipation For Man of Steel

[SatEL]

Originally Posted by nolan's roll'n

Man Of Steel is coming out in 2010 right?

Hopefully not.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Hell, according to some folks insiders, he can't even choose his own writters and the budget will be even lower than 170mil, thats a far cry from the control and money he had on SR.

Originally Posted by nintendo nerd

. And if this rumors are true ( the 170 million budget, WB choosing the writers, etc.). I don't think Singer would be involved and IMO no director will want to continue Singer's story.

Looks more like 150-160 Million actually.

[dark_b]

i want routh as superman. if another director takes over please recast lois lane.
thank you.

[I Am The Knight]

160 million should be enough for MOS...

If they do a reboot, I'd doubt the budget would be much higher than that, anyway.

[nintendo nerd]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Looks more like 150-160 Million actually.

Well, TIH and IM had great action scenes with that kind of budget. But I doubt Singer could handle it. He had more than 200 million for SR and the spectacular scene was the plane rescue.

[solidsnake86]

I think he could, you have to remember 10 million was spent on a scene that didn't make the final cut. If you watch the movie you can see where the money was spent. The new krypton scene alone must have costed a great amount of money. Honestly, all he would have to do is invest the money in the right places.

[GreenKToo]

The cut RTK scene still pi$$es me off when I think about it. What a waste.

[solidsnake86]

I know, what possesed them to keep the opening scene with luthor and not that scene. Personally, I want to see a sequel because I still think it can be great, but also for the fact that I would like to see a better cut of the film or at least the scenes that they took out. The script, IMO of course, was really well done, and i believe all of the scenes that were removed were filmed.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm sure 150 to 160mil is more than enough for a normal director but I wonder about Singer. Can he work with a certain budget anymore?

[I Am The Knight]

Singer will have to get "creative."

[GreenKToo]

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

I know, what possesed them to keep the opening scene with luthor and not that scene. Personally, I want to see a sequel because I still think it can be great, but also for the fact that I would like to see a better cut of the film or at least the scenes that they took out. The script, IMO of course, was really well done, and i believe all of the scenes that were removed were filmed.

It would have been a completely different film with all the cut scenes added in.
Personally, I never had the sense of a ''World that had moved on'' from Superman in S.R.
Maybe with the cut scenes, I would have had a better connection to that premise.

[AragornKing1]

Well, wasn't the budget for X-Men 2 like about $120 million? If Singer can handle a budget like that for the X-Men, plus did a really good job, then 150-160 million should be enough, and with that much money on a sequel with a villain or villains for Superman to fight Bryan Singer can deliver. If he can deliver an awesome X-Men movie with just about 120 million which has the X-Men actually having villains to FIGHT, then imagine what Singer could do with a Superman sequel.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by nintendo nerd

Well, TIH and IM had great action scenes with that kind of budget. But I doubt Singer could handle it. He had more than 200 million for SR and the spectacular scene was the plane rescue.

Originally Posted by I Am The Knight

160 million should be enough for MOS...

If they do a reboot, I'd doubt the budget would be much higher than that, anyway.

Originally Posted by AragornKing1

Well, wasn't the budget for X-Men 2 like about $120 million? If Singer can handle a budget like that for the X-Men, plus did a really good job, then 150-160 million should be enough, and with that much money on a sequel with a villain or villains for Superman to fight Bryan Singer can deliver. If he can deliver an awesome X-Men movie with just about 120 million which has the X-Men actually having villains to FIGHT, then imagine what Singer could do with a Superman sequel.

If he was directing, he wouldn't have a choice. There wouldn't be any slack.

[nintendo nerd]

Originally Posted by Showtime

If he was directing, he wouldn't have a choice. There wouldn't be any slack.

That's why I don't think there will be a direct sequel to SR.

[Showtime]

"Vague History"?

[Timstuff]

Originally Posted by AragornKing1

Well, wasn't the budget for X-Men 2 like about $120 million? If Singer can handle a budget like that for the X-Men, plus did a really good job, then 150-160 million should be enough, and with that much money on a sequel with a villain or villains for Superman to fight Bryan Singer can deliver. If he can deliver an awesome X-Men movie with just about 120 million which has the X-Men actually having villains to FIGHT, then imagine what Singer could do with a Superman sequel.

You're comparing apples to oranges. A $120m might get you an action packed Singer X-Men flick, but nearly $300 million gets you a shot of Superman getting hit in the eye with a bullet. If you give Bryan Singer a lower budget to do SR2 with, I can only imagine things being even worse. And if they studio is going to drag him around by the collar this time, you may as well just get some studio crony to do the movie like Brett Ratner.

The studio does not have any reason to trust Singer with another megabudget Superman flick, so that really begs the question "why bring him back at all?" If Singer can't put out a top-notch Supes flick without loads of meddling from the studio, then a new director is probably in order.

[nintendo nerd]

Originally Posted by Showtime

"Vague History"?

No. A reboot. Start from scratch. But IMO that will happen in 5 or more years.

[AragornKing1]

Originally Posted by Timstuff

You're comparing apples to oranges. A $120m might get you an action packed Singer X-Men flick, but nearly $300 million gets you a shot of Superman getting hit in the eye with a bullet. If you give Bryan Singer a lower budget to do SR2 with, I can only imagine things being even worse. And if they studio is going to drag him around by the collar this time, you may as well just get some studio crony to do the movie like Brett Ratner.

The studio does not have any reason to trust Singer with another megabudget Superman flick, so that really begs the question "why bring him back at all?" If Singer can't put out a top-notch Supes flick without loads of meddling from the studio, then a new director is probably in order.

So do you think that there could be a kick ass Superman movie that doesn't have anyone or anything for him to fight? Superman Returns is the closest we'll get to the most kick ass Superman film where he doesn't fight anyone or anything. Even with a budget of over 200 million dollars for a Superman movie where he doesn't fight anything or anybody, saving people on an airplane and a bullet to the eye is the most kick ass you can get.

[solidsnake86]

The money singer spent on returns was mostly on the screen, just because it doesn't translate to fighting doesn't mean the money wasn't used. It just wasn't used to people's liking or some might say properly. Once again, in a sequel there wont be a new krypton and airplane saving so that leaves money that can be used else where. In fact it would probably cheaper to film fight scenes than a continent being created.

[M.O.Steel]

while you have a point, nothing on screen was indicative of a $200 million dollar price tag.

he grew his own corn and wheat in the middle of nowhere in australia to get it just right. seriously? there was nothing special about the kent farm. this is just an example of how much money was wasted. they could have easily found a place that looks just like that anywhere.

i think the best example of money well spent is transformers.

[solidsnake86]

I see your point, but thats just one example and in reality couldnt have costed them more than 1 million dollars. From what I read they did a lot of flying rigs and actual shots of routh only later to be replaced with CGI, that is expensive and time consuming. The money was also spent on the genises camera and that technology. I mean just look at the dark knight, it costed about 185 million dollars, I'm sure a good chunk of that cost went into the IMAX technology. When using film techniques that are new and never used before money is what is needed.

[[A]]

Shoot.. I voted too soon.. I like this option better --> Only see the sequel if it has no continuity w/ SR, no kid, no Richard etc..

[SatEL]

Originally Posted by AragornKing1

So do you think that there could be a kick ass Superman movie that doesn't have anyone or anything for him to fight? Superman Returns is the closest we'll get to the most kick ass Superman film where he doesn't fight anyone or anything. Even with a budget of over 200 million dollars for a Superman movie where he doesn't fight anything or anybody, saving people on an airplane and a bullet to the eye is the most kick ass you can get.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo that film would be called Superman the movie.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by M.O.Steel

while you have a point, nothing on screen was indicative of a $200 million dollar price tag.

he grew his own corn and wheat in the middle of nowhere in australia to get it just right. seriously? there was nothing special about the kent farm. this is just an example of how much money was wasted. they could have easily found a place that looks just like that anywhere.

i think the best example of money well spent is transformers.

look the cornfields were important. its impossible to make them CGI.

ohhhhhh whait a minute
http://www.rsp.com.au/portfolio/flv/smrFlv03.htm

ok for some people that isnt obviosu: the real cornfields were relpaced with CGI. so this means that they payed money for real corn and money for CGI.

[SatEL]

Originally Posted by dark_b

look the cornfields were important. its impossible to make them CGI.

ohhhhhh whait a minute
http://www.rsp.com.au/portfolio/flv/smrFlv03.htm

ok for some people that isnt obviosu: the real cornfields were relpaced with CGI. so this means that they payed money for real corn and money for CGI.

Isnt Singer a genius, heck let them give him more money to make more Superman films.