Sequels Superman 2-who do you want to direct?

[Weadazoid]

Yes. That was the point. It was grand guignol. It was gothic romanticism at it's best. I mean, the script is already a twisted love story encompassing grisly murders. Scott juxtaposed the beauty of the love story and Italy with the carnage and Lecter's almost complacent treatment of the subject. I'd much rather have that then something by-the-numbers and pedestrian.

Also, if I like Gore for the sake of Gore then Hannibal wouldn't be at the top of my list. Movies like Saw, Saw II, House of 1000 corpses, and Hostel would be up there. Hannibal treated the subject matter like a dark comedy and crafted a strange love affair. It certainly wasn't gore for the sake of gore. Silence of the Lambs had its fair share of gore too. Feeding a guy his own brain or stripping off someone else's face and wearing it. Both seem pretty disgusting to me.

But see... the face thing was brilliant it showed how increadibly smart Lector was, showed how he could lower his heart rate to a flutter and get out of that brid cage

There was nothing cunning about feeding a man his own brain nothing cunning about his escape from the pigs nor the victims death from his own pigs.

To place a killer like Lecter in the same light as a man like the Jig Saw killer is repulsive IMO

Don't get me wrong I loved Saw but Lecter should be treated as something very different.

Take for instance the Tooth Fairys capture and subsequent torture of the reproter in Phillip Seymore Hoffman.

that was some how much on the same level as something created in Silence there was a true sense of agony for him, the idea of being glued down.. to a chair the idea of the Tooth fairy showing him those grisly movies it was ...Brilliant dare I say more combabtative and uncomfortable then anything we saw Wild Bill do to the girl in the well, because it was psychological. It was all about his trasformation, much like Bill wanted to trasfrom into a woman... but couldn't.

The one thing the mvoei didn't quite convey that the book did, but this in a movie would require the NC 17 rateing was the fact that tooth fairy made those movies and then used them in a *********ory fashion, as in that was the only way his twisted mind could possibly have gratification, hence the extream hesitation with the blind woman.

 

[Red]

Would the next movie be called...

Superman Forever?

 

[Red]

Edit.

 

[Red]

Edit again

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Yeah, these filmmakers shoot themselves in the foot with these self-aware verb titles. Now they have to have all of their following titles in similiar fashion. It severly limits their options.

Just as long as it isn't 'Superman Still Here' as jokingly reported today.

 

[Showtime]

Yeah, these filmmakers shoot themselves in the foot with these self-aware verb titles. Now they have to have all of their following titles in similiar fashion. It severly limits their options.

Just as long as it isn't 'Superman Still Here' as jokingly reported today.

I assume it will be Superman with another verb after the title, just like the Batman sequel will be.

Personally I think that the horror movies should stick to the second word verbs, not superhero movies.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Yeah, but what are your choices:

Superman Continues
Superman Endures
Superman Returns Again
Superman Overcomes

Those are all corny yet they're the best I can think of at the moment. I TOO wish superhero movies would simply be numerical, but it's a different case for Superman and Batman since they already have respective series out there. Could you really have called Batman Begins just plain Batman? Maybe they should have called it Batman : The Beginning or something similiar?

 

[Showtime]

Yeah, but what are your choices:

Superman Continues
Superman Endures
Superman Returns Again
Superman Overcomes

Those are all corny yet they're the best I can think of at the moment. I TOO wish superhero movies would simply be numerical, but it's a different case for Superman and Batman since they already have respective series out there. Could you really have called Batman Begins just plain Batman? Maybe they should have called it Batman : The Beginning or something similiar?

I agree, you run out of verbs after awhile. Your alternative are titles like:

Superman vs Metallo
Superman: The Quest for Redemption
Superman: The Man of Steel

Batman and Superman are exceptions to the rule because there already is Superman 2 and a Batman Returns.

Its a tough call with titles but in some instances they can help or hurt a movie. If you have an average movie with a title people can't understand it might hurt box office. There are exceptions, Indiana Jones and Radiers of the Lost Ark. Bad title, but the movie spoke for itself.

 

[Weadazoid]

I agree, you run out of verbs after awhile. Your alternative are titles like:

Superman vs Metallo
Superman: The Quest for Redemption
Superman: The Man of Steel

Batman and Superman are exceptions to the rule because there already is Superman 2 and a Batman Returns.

Its a tough call with titles but in some instances they can help or hurt a movie. If you have an average movie with a title people can't understand it might hurt box office. There are exceptions, Indiana Jones and Radiers of the Lost Ark. Bad title, but the movie spoke for itself.

Out of all of them I like Man of Steel best.

Quest for Redmption ..is eww..reminciet of Quest for Peace

 

[Showtime]

Out of all of them I like Man of Steel best.

Quest for Redmption ..is eww..reminciet of Quest for Peace

I would like to see them follow the life and death of Superman story arc and use that as a title:

The Life and Death of Superman

 

[That-Guy]

I felt that Batman Begins stayed pretty close to the source material and was a very good movie. X-Men is a completely different other story though! You'll be shocked to know that the biggest problem I had, with the first one especially, is the fact that half of the actors were miscast, the story was pure silliness (IMHO Spider-Man is a more simplistic character, and story so his storylines can be sillier) the action was very poorly directed, and (This is mostly the studio's fault but HellBoy and The Blade films had lower budgets than both X-films and still looked good) the movie looked cheap.

Let me be honest: Personally I don't want all comicbook movies to be realistic like some people do and I for one wanted the X-Men movies to be better and more fantasic movies than they are. That being said, I don't rate movies by how close they stay to the comics I rate them based on how good they are to me, period. To me some of Singers idea's just screamed, I DON'T HAVE AN IMAGENATION!!! thats why I think that this new Superman movie is doomed to be slightly above adverage like X-Men or FF, or still not good enough, like X2. So I guess I don't totally agree with "many people"

I hope that I am sorely mistaken about Superman Returns. I hope that the film rocks the casbah and that I have to come into a Superman review thread and bow before it's movie greatness.

Yes That-Guy! I couldn't resist coming into this thread and saying that Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan are less than perfect directors! You really nailed it

BTW I think that Nolan is a very fine director and I liked most of the X-Men movies. Excuse me if I have different standards than you.

I never said they were perfect directors; only that they were good. Sure, there are things both of them could have done better, but perhaps another director who did said things would have missed out on other stuff.

Anyway, the only reason I felt a need to comment on your post was due to past posts you've made where you flat out attacked Singer and his X-Men films completely... back then it seemed like you didn't like ANYTHING about his movies... apparently your position has changed somewhat. Regardless, if his films seemed to lack imagination, I think it was because he was trying to blend realism with fantasy and also spent a lot of time developing the characters. I know that I'd much rather see a superhero movie where I give a crap about the hero versus one where I get to see some guy I don't give a rat's ass about throw cars at people. As for the story... what was so wrong with it? I'll admit, the "change humans to mutants" machine felt a little forced and silly, but everything else... the political parallelism, the character development and interaction... it was all well-done in my opinion except for 2 characters... Cyclops and Storm. These two were not only miscast, but also should have been much more central and interesting (Cyke anyway... Storm I've always found pretty dull, even in the comics). Other than that though... how can you say Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, etc. were miscast? Who would you have casted?
I will agree that Fantastic 4 was pretty bad though. It was almost like watching a plotless superhero movie. As I watched that film and saw the heroes and the villain wander around aimlessly because they didn't know what to do with their powers, I began to realize that this may have been a metaphor for what the screenwriter and the director did while making this movie. And making Dr. Doom a complete Norman Osborn clone (the villain story was almost word-for-word the same as Spider-Man 1) was unforgiveable.

 

[Showtime]

I never said they were perfect directors; only that they were good. Sure, there are things both of them could have done better, but perhaps another director who did said things would have missed out on other stuff.

Anyway, the only reason I felt a need to comment on your post was due to past posts you've made where you flat out attacked Singer and his X-Men films completely... back then it seemed like you didn't like ANYTHING about his movies... apparently your position has changed somewhat. Regardless, if his films seemed to lack imagination, I think it was because he was trying to blend realism with fantasy and also spent a lot of time developing the characters. I know that I'd much rather see a superhero movie where I give a crap about the hero versus one where I get to see some guy I don't give a rat's ass about throw cars at people. As for the story... what was so wrong with it? I'll admit, the "change humans to mutants" machine felt a little forced and silly, but everything else... the political parallelism, the character development and interaction... it was all well-done in my opinion except for 2 characters... Cyclops and Storm. These two were not only miscast, but also should have been much more central and interesting (Cyke anyway... Storm I've always found pretty dull, even in the comics). Other than that though... how can you say Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, etc. were miscast? Who would you have casted?
I will agree that Fantastic 4 was pretty bad though. It was almost like watching a plotless superhero movie. As I watched that film and saw the heroes and the villain wander around aimlessly because they didn't know what to do with their powers, I began to realize that this may have been a metaphor for what the screenwriter and the director did while making this movie. And making Dr. Doom a complete Norman Osborn clone (the villain story was almost word-for-word the same as Spider-Man 1) was unforgiveable.

I am not sure where all this Singer backlash is coming from. He reinvented comic book movies along with Blade and later Spiderman.

 

[skruloos]

But see... the face thing was brilliant it showed how increadibly smart Lector was, showed how he could lower his heart rate to a flutter and get out of that brid cage

There was nothing cunning about feeding a man his own brain nothing cunning about his escape from the pigs nor the victims death from his own pigs.

No. Instead of cunning it showed how far Lecter would go to torture the man that disgraced the woman of his infatuations.

To place a killer like Lecter in the same light as a man like the Jig Saw killer is repulsive IMO

I did not. I specifically used the example as opposites. I said that if I wanted to watch gore for the sake of gore, I'd watch something like Saw therefore implying that I did not think Hannibal was for the sake of gore.

that was some how much on the same level as something created in Silence there was a true sense of agony for him, the idea of being glued down.. to a chair the idea of the Tooth fairy showing him those grisly movies it was ...Brilliant dare I say more combabtative and uncomfortable then anything we saw Wild Bill do to the girl in the well, because it was psychological. It was all about his trasformation, much like Bill wanted to trasfrom into a woman... but couldn't.

Again, that's because of the type of subject matter. The brains eating part was not to be cunning or about agony. It was an act of revenge and a symbol of love, albeit in a psychotic way.

 

[bgshw44]

I Want Donner if Singer cant do it, but he will!

 

[explode7]

Are you guys forgetting Ang Lee. He would make another great director. What do u guys think.

 

[Showtime]

Are you guys forgetting Ang Lee. He would make another great director. What do u guys think.

I think Ang Lee has a real talent for character devolpment in some instances but I don't know if he can capture the character of Superman.

 

[The Punisher]

Let Ang be with Hulk, i don't see him for a Superman director IMO.

 

[Showtime]

Let Ang be with Hulk, i don't see him for a Superman director IMO.

I agree, let him try to figure out why he went wrong with the animated hulk in the first version.

 

[The Punisher]

My point exactly.

 

[myword]

Who else but Michael Bay?

 

[The Game]

There are only 4 guys that I would like to see:

-Bay
-Mann
-Abrams
-Senor Spielbergo

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

george lucas.

 

[Cinemaman]

People why we need it, if Singer comes back.

Soon he will say it.

 

[The Punisher]

Who else but Michael Bay?

Bay would be ok, visually his movies are great.

 

[Cinemaman]

Bay would be ok, visually his movies are great.

Vissualy yeah, BUT his movies don't has intersting script.