Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Crook]

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

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

I don't think people actually realize why D9 was 30 million, and looked like it did. That's one of the last films you want to actually compare to a cgi-integrated movie of a large scale.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

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

 

[GreenKToo]

I think you wanted my comment on McTeigue.

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

Ok,thanx.

 

[The Guard]

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

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

Ah yes, DISTRICT 9.

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

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

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

 

[bunk]

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

 

[KalMart]

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

Adjusted for 2009: around $36M

 

[Timstuff]

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

 

[DavidTyler]

$50 million dollars?

I'd like to see that.

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

 

[DavidTyler]

You are gonna make a Superman TV Movie?

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

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

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

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

 

[DavidTyler]

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

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

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

 

[DavidTyler]

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

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

 

[DavidTyler]

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

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


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

 

[MadVillainy]

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

I posted it in the Reintroducing Superman thread, not in the Star Trek thread

 

[KalMart]

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

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

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

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

 

[Spade]

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

 

[Kal-El Fan]

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

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

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

 

[KalMart]

I think people here are taking production budgets too seriously.

 

[Spade]

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

 

[Kal-El Fan]

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

 

[Kal-El Fan]

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

That's true. I just don't think that WB is in the right mindset to make a film, and I think we may have a better chance of getting a film if WB has limited risk in it, as it did with the first two films. If the wrong "independent" people make it, than we'd be no better off than we are now.

 

[KalMart]

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

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

 

[Kal-El Fan]

 

[DavidTyler]

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

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

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

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


But I digress.

 

[KalMart]

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

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


But I digress.

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

 

[Kal-El Fan]

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

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