Downplaying The Romance In Superman

[Showtime]

Actually you're wrong about the storyline.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Actually you're wrong about the storyline.

What would have been different, Showey? I'm not being funny, but I've heard that the script was pretty much worked for X3 and Ratner came in and changed what he wanted to fit his vision.

Is that not true. Please enlighten me.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

What would have been different, Showey? I'm not being funny, but I've heard that the script was pretty much worked for X3 and Ratner came in and changed what he wanted to fit his vision.

Is that not true. Please enlighten me.

I didn't think you were being funny, I never really find you funny. No offense.

http://www.411mania.com/movies/colum...vid-Hayter.htm

TVO: *Laughs* Yeah, about a year. I've been waiting years to ask you this: what do you think of the state of the X-men movies after you left, after Bryan Singer left, and after Tom DeSanto left. After everyone who pretty much protected the integrity of the material left, do you have any thoughts or feelings on that?

DH: Well . . . yeah. That was an internal, sort of political thing. I had my issues with the studio (Later on at another AX event, Hayter was said to be massively displeased with Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp taking the profits from X-2 and spending them on the war in Iraq), and Bryan had his issues with the studio. And . . . yeah I think in a way its kind of an example of a studio looking a gift horse in the mouth, we were really committed to not only keeping the movies true to the source material, but to make them great movies and making them work as big tentpole movies. And I think the studio got to a place where they felt they could do that without us, and they can obviously. And X-men 3 made it's money, but it lost a little bit of the voice that we had -- our collective voice which was really through myself -- well not in that order -- Bryan, myself, Tom DeSanto, and Kevin Feige who was really instrumental in the first two as well. That said, I think the filmmakers who took on X3 had a very difficult thing to take on. It's a big franchise with a lot of history, and I think Brett Ratner did a good job in replicating sort of the feeling of a Bryan Singer X-men movie, but storywise/characterwise, there were things that happened in it I would not have done, and I was a little put out over . . . like the treatment of Mystique for example.

TVO: I definitely agree, and the treatment of Cyclops

DH: Well that's just ridiculous. I'm a big Cyclops fan, and I think people don't like him because he's straight-laced and he's the straight-up leader of the group, but without him the Wolverine/Jean Grey thing doesn't work. You need that other piece of the triangle, and I think in X3 it's pretty clear they didn't have a lot of respect for Cyclops or Jimmy Marsden who does a great job as Cyclops . . . he's a great actor, a great guy, and so committed to a very difficult part because you can't see his eyes through the whole thing. And yeah, he really got short-tripped and I wasn't thrilled about that.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I didn't think you were being funny, I never really find you funny. No offense.

LOL...no offense taken I would say that I'm not funny, but I try to be....lol....Take that for what it is.

http://www.411mania.com/movies/colum...vid-Hayter.htm

This says what I heard. The story was essentially the same, but Ratner changed some things to fit "his" vision. Does that mean that story would have been drastically different if Singer directed the movie? I don't think so. I think some elements changed because of Ratner, but the basics of the story stayed the same.

Did I read that wrong?

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

This says what I heard. The story was essentially the same, but Ratner changed some things to fit "his" vision. Does that mean that story would have been drastically different if Singer directed the movie? I don't think so. I think some elements changed because of Ratner, but the basics of the story stayed the same.

Did I read that wrong?

but storywise/characterwise, there were things that happened in it I would not have done, and I was a little put out over . . . like the treatment of Mystique for example.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I see that, but it doesn't say the story would have been different. I guess that is my point.

You could change a lot of small, insubstantial details and still have the same outline of a story.

I don't see any difference in Singer's story and Ratner's story except that Singer would have handled 'certain' characters differently.

Again, am I reading this wrong. It doesn't sound like he disagrees with the premise, just the way certain characters were handled.

btw...where is the TDK thread???

[Showtime]

It says storywise right there in black and white, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

btw...where is the TDK thread???

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...=249634&page=6

You can discuss TDK and Hulk in relation to Superman there.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

It says storywise right there in black and white, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I was reading the entire blurb that was posted. It just seemed the person was more focused on the character treatment.

Yet. I guess I see what you are saying

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...=249634&page=6

You can discuss TDK and Hulk in relation to Superman there.

Oh, so we can discuss TDK v TIH in those appropriate forurms, but not TDK and SR in the Superman fourm?????


Okay Showey....thank you I see we Superman fans are too determined

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Oh, so we can discuss TDK v TIH in those appropriate forurms, but not TDK and SR in the Superman fourm?????

The thread is not about TDK vs Hulk, did you even go into it?

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

The thread is not about TDK vs Hulk, did you even go into it?

MY BAD.....


I READ THE TOP OF THE PAGE WRONG. I AM SORRY, SHOWEY

edit...


ummmm....well can we get a new title.

I would really like to talk about the "TDK-Effect". There were so many who were saying that Batman was the key to Superman. I'd like to talk about that....not any movie in relation to that effect.

[BenReilly]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I see that, but it doesn't say the story would have been different. I guess that is my point.

You could change a lot of small, insubstantial details and still have the same outline of a story.

I don't see any difference in Singer's story and Ratner's story except that Singer would have handled 'certain' characters differently.

Again, am I reading this wrong. It doesn't sound like he disagrees with the premise, just the way certain characters were handled.

The story of X-Men 3 was developed and written by Simon Kinberg, Zak Penn, and the previous director Matthew Vaughn. After Vaughn left the project, Ratner was brought in at the very last minute to shoot the movie. Very little was changed from the script.

All those guys were hired long after Singer had already left the franchise. The point is he wouldn't have used that script or that story, but would have developed one with his own writers like he did on X1/X2 and the rest of his films. Singer always said that he knew exactly what he wanted to do with X3. The fact that Emma Frost would have been the villain in Singer's X3, and they already had Sigourney Weaver lined up to play her, shows us how drastically different his movie would have been.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

ummmm....well can we get a new title.

I would really like to talk about the "TDK-Effect". There were so many who were saying that Batman was the key to Superman. I'd like to talk about that....not any movie in relation to that effect.

It isn't about any movie...it is about TDK and The Hulk's effect on a Superman Sequel or Reboot...

Many people thought TDK would lead to a Superman sequel, just like many people thought the Hulk Reboot would lead to a Superman reboot...

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by BenReilly19

All those guys were hired long after Singer had already left the franchise. The point is he wouldn't have used that script or that story, but would have developed one with his own writers like he did on X1/X2 and the rest of his films. Singer always said that he knew exactly what he wanted to do with X3. The fact that Emma Frost would have been the villain in Singer's X3, and they already had Sigourney Weaver lined up to play her, shows us how drastically different his movie would have been.

Really, do you have some links? I don't have any support to my premise because that was a long time ago, but I sort of remember hearing that Singer was gone after they had already started production for X3, which means some portions of the script had to have been written. From what I can remember, and I'm not saying I have links, I'm just remembering that the script was sort of written and those new folks used what was written.

I'm not sure what Singer would have done differently except treat characters differently. It would have a been a different movie, but the storyline wouldn't have changed...or am I totally remembering wrong

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

It isn't about any movie...it is about TDK and The Hulk's effect on a Superman Sequel or Reboot...

Many people thought TDK would lead to a Superman sequel, just like many people thought the Hulk Reboot would lead to a Superman reboot...

I guess that a Marvel movie and a WB movie representing a Superman movie makes sense....

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Really, do you have some links? I don't have any support to my premise because that was a long time ago, but I sort of remember hearing that Singer was gone after they had already started production for X3, which means some portions of the script had to have been written. From what I can remember, and I'm not saying I have links, I'm just remembering that the script was sort of written and those new folks used what was written.

I'm not sure what Singer would have done differently except treat characters differently. It would have a been a different movie, but the storyline wouldn't have changed...or am I totally remembering wrong

So...you don't need links...but he does?

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

I guess that a Marvel movie and a WB movie representing a Superman movie makes sense....

Two of the movies that were repeatedly discussed by you and your fellow posters that would influence Superman's future.

[charl_huntress]

Originally Posted by Showtime

So...you don't need links...but he does?

Two of the movies that were repeatedly discussed by you and your fellow posters that would influence Superman's future.

Well, I am going off memory, but I could probably find them, but that was a long time ago. I'm stating my positions and I have stated them before without any facts....yet....others need facts to defend their position. I guess they are on the defense, right? What does that mean?

As for TIH and TDK...I think you should have a DC thread for Superman and Superman/DC movies only.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Well, I am going off memory, but I could probably find them, but that was a long time ago. I'm stating my positions and I have stated them before without any facts....yet....others need facts to defend their position. I guess they are on the defense, right? What does that mean?

Um...nice try. People post facts to back their position, not to be on the defensive.

As for TIH and TDK...I think you should have a DC thread for Superman and Superman/DC movies only.

I don't think we should, there would be no reason to. You said you wanted to talk about TDK and it's effect on Superman, its right there. So go do it then?

[BenReilly]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Really, do you have some links?

I'll see what I can dig up...

[BMM]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

LOL...no offense taken I would say that I'm not funny, but I try to be....lol....Take that for what it is.



This says what I heard. The story was essentially the same, but Ratner changed some things to fit "his" vision. Does that mean that story would have been drastically different if Singer directed the movie? I don't think so. I think some elements changed because of Ratner, but the basics of the story stayed the same.

Did I read that wrong?

Yes, very much so. Actually, it's not that you read the article wrong so much as you're just missing information. Singer, Hayter, and DeSanto, all heavily involved in the production of the first movies, were long gone before a script was written for The Last Stand. Singer didn't write the script for The Last Stand, and what has been revealed of his partial treatment is very different than the six day draft written by Simon Kinberg, Zak Penn, and former director Mathew Vaughnn, which heavily serves as the meat of the movie. Singer wrote his treatment before the Cure storyline was even introduced in the comic books... The lack of that arc alone should provide one with an idea of how different the movie would be. Furthermore, Singer's treatment includes introducing main villains such as Emma Frost and explores the notion of humans and mutants going up against evolution itself (Jean Grey) in an arc potentially spanning two films, X-Men 3 and X-Men 4 shot back-to-back. Wizard did a write up on this prior to the film's production woes.

As far as Ratner changing a few things around to fit his vision, you're referring to Ratner's comments about reshuffling a couple of set peices and locations, such as the Golden Gate bridge scene, which all originated in the Kinberg-Penn script.

[BenReilly]

When Moriarty from AICN reviewed the X3 script, he confirmed that they didn't start writing the script until February of 2005. Singer had already signed on for Superman the previous summer and was only a few weeks away from shooting SR, when Kinberg and Penn started writing X3:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20443

If you’re a Fox stockholder, now is the time to be concerned. X-MEN is the only proven major franchise that Fox currently has up and running. Who knows if FANTASTIC FOUR is going to work or not? Maybe it’ll be great. Maybe it won’t. ALIEN VS PREDATOR marked the end of two franchises at the same time. STAR WARS was never yours in the first place. Studios depend on these types of films. There’s a reason they’re called tentpoles. This is what you build the entire rest of your release year around. If you manage one of these properties the right way, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Look at the way Sony has handled SPIDER-MAN so far. As soon as they release one, they start developing the next one, giving them plenty of time to get the script just right. They don’t start shooting until this winter, but they’re already doing FX and costume tests, and they’re deep into the writing process based on an outline that Sam Raimi and his brother have been tweaking since last year.

You know when Rothman finally gave the go-ahead to start putting together the treatment for X-MEN 3? This February. I’m a chronic procrastinator, and even I think that’s piss-poor time management, man.

Lauren Shuler Donner also confirmed that when Bryan left the franchise, he took all of his unexpressed ideas with him. They had no idea what direction he was planning on going. So once he was gone, they had nothing and had to start from scratch.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/..._id=1002538544

But Singer leaving to do "Superman Returns" -- which he discussed openly with Shuler Donner and her husband Dick Donner, the director of the 1978 "Superman"-- was tough to take. Particularly since he took all his unexpressed ideas for "X-Men 3" with him. "It was a blow," Shuler Donner admits. "He's my friend, I respect him, and saw us doing all the 'X-Men.' "

Also, here's the interview where Dan Harris confirmed Weaver would have played Emma Frost in their version:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/x-mennews.php?id=1990

Sigourney Weaver Was Going to be Emma Frost
Source: Canadian Press
September 15, 2004


The Canadian Press spoke to X2: X-Men United screenwriter Dan Harris who says Sigourney Weaver would have played Emma Frost in X-Men 3 if Bryan Singer & Co. had stayed on board instead of doing Superman instead...

"We were going to do X-Men 3 for a little while and our big secret or coup was - and it's not going to happen so it's OK - we wanted to have a character that was Emma Frost, a famous X-Men character. She's called the white queen," said Harris, whose next project is helping write the much-hyped Superman script.

"We were going to ask Sigourney to be it. She was an empath in our version of the movie which means she could control people's emotions."

Looking surprised at the thought of herself as a superhero, Weaver replied: "I try to do that."

"You could look at someone and make them cry on cue or hate you or be lonely," answered Harris, who looks like he's barely out of college.

"Write it into Superman," quipped a smiling Weaver.

Weaver stars in Harris' directorial debut, "Imaginary Heroes."

[Pluto]

The romance is the only thing that really give this story depth.

[Nightwing1977]

Originally Posted by charl_huntress

Whatever

My point was the Ratner didn't change much Singer's original vision. He just changed the POV. Argue that if you want, but Singer would have made the same move storyline...it just would have lacked the action apparent in Ratner's flick

The truth hurt, doesn't it? Many guys has post links to prove you were 100% wrong on what you said. Singer & the writers he work with did not wrote anything that was in X3. Not even one bit. Penn wrote the script after Singer when to do SR. Thus, Singer didn't kill Cyclops & Jean Grey like you claim. And that is a fact. Penn could've make the film better than it is, but he flat out suck. He is Akiva Goldman to X-Men. Why else did Edward Norton change so many things in The Incredible Hulk? Probably 'cause Penn suck. I bet TIH would been way awful if Norton didn't change it.

And also, you're still wrong that because Singer is gay that he can't direct a straight relationship between a man & woman. Just because he didn't make a love story not like how you want, don't mean he can't direct one. If a straight guy like Ang Lee direct a story about two cowboys that work, Singer can do it the opposite. Nice to bring up his sexuality with saying that why he can't direct a straight relationship. Aren't you sure you're judging his sexualtiy with bringing that up?