Sequels Superman 2-who do you want to direct?

[Fatboy Roberts]

95% of this thread wants either Abrams, Darabont, or Wachowski Bros., with a small nod to Emmerich and Wimmer.

That's not even close to right, actually. Abrams gets mentioned a lot, yes, but it's a horrible choice (and I think your "low expectations = better movie" equasion is flawed, too) and Emmerich and Wimmer have been mentioned maybe twice.

Shyamalan has been mentioned more than The Wachowskis, as well.

Brad Bird has been forgotten since somewhere around page 8--I still think that's a GREAT choice.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

That's not even close to right, actually. Abrams gets mentioned a lot, yes, but it's a horrible choice (and I think your "low expectations = better movie" equasion is flawed, too) and Emmerich and Wimmer have been mentioned maybe twice.

Shyamalan has been mentioned more than The Wachowskis, as well.

Brad Bird has been forgotten since somewhere around page 8--I still think that's a GREAT choice.

Forgot about Shyamalan (whom I like for this)....and Emmerich and Wimmer just seem to be the recent ones...

I also like the idea Bird. It could make him more family-oriented...

As for my equation, I know its flawed. But, I have noticed that movies wth smaller budgets and less hype, usually tend to lean on their storyline more, and therefore result in surprise hits. But, not always...

 

[Showtime]

I am sticking with M. Night for my choice if anything happens with Singer, which I don't want to see.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

less hype

I think that's the main sticking point in your equasion, thing is--hype isn't really a fault of the storytelling or even the filmmaker. That's the marketing department, the studio itself, and the audience's affinity for being suckered.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

I think that's the main sticking point in your equasion, thing is--hype isn't really a fault of the storytelling or even the filmmaker. That's the marketing department, the studio itself, and the audience's affinity for being suckered.

You're right, it's not the movie's fault. But it's still a big factor, regardless.

But..back to the topic on hand...

How about Robert Rodriguez? (I apologize if his name has been mentioned already, I have'nt had time to read all the posts here...)

I realize he may not be a leading candidate, but I think he could turn Superman into a much more interesting character (my opinion), and he has a way of drawing an audience's attention. My only con is the violence may get a little heavier than it should....

 

[skruloos]

Another dark horse choice for me would be John McTiernan. So my list of dark horses would be:
1. John McTiernan
2. Francis Lawrence
3. Frank Darabont
4. Steven Soderbergh
5. Doug Liman

Dreamlist:
1. Ridley Scott
2. Steven Spielberg
3. Peter Jackson
4. James Cameron
5. Sam Raimi

3rd Tier:
1. Rob Marshall
2. Martin Cambell
3. Robert Zemeckis
4. Tony Scott
5. John Moore (how weird would it be to have the guy who directed the remake of Donner's The Omen also be the same guy to do a Superman movie?)

Just so no one is confused, these choices are all under the assumption that Bryan Singer would not return for the follow-up film.

 

[Showtime]

Another dark horse choice for me would be John McTiernan. So my list of dark horses would be:
1. John McTiernan
2. Francis Lawrence
3. Frank Darabont
4. Steven Soderbergh
5. Doug Liman

Dreamlist:
1. Ridley Scott
2. Steven Spielberg
3. Peter Jackson
4. James Cameron
5. Sam Raimi

3rd Tier:
1. Rob Marshall
2. Martin Cambell
3. Robert Zemeckis
4. Tony Scott
5. John Moore (how weird would it be to have the guy who directed the remake of Donner's The Omen also be the same guy to do a Superman movie?)

Just so no one is confused, these choices are all under the assumption that Bryan Singer would not return for the follow-up film.

Ridley Scott and Rober Zemeckis are very interiguing. I think it would be fantastic if Raimi came over to take over Superman because of his love and respect for the character.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

Troy Duffy

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

LOL! The guy who did Boondock Saints? That's a goof, right? Even if it's not, the story of his flameout is utterly fascinating, people should check him out--I think there's even a documentary film that exposes this guy as a jackass of the highest order.

Liman and McTiernan ARE really interesting choices. I think McTiernan's sorta lost it completely, but still--GREAT technical director.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

LOL! The guy who did Boondock Saints? That's a goof, right? Even if it's not, the story of his flameout is utterly fascinating, people should check him out--I think there's even a documentary film that exposes this guy as a jackass of the highest order.

Don't mean to have it look like I'm pickin on you, QB. Boondock Saints IS a decent flick, but I think it's a little overrated due to it's cult status on the internet. Plus the directing wasn't anything really THAT special, to me. But I can see why you'd say it.

Liman and McTiernan ARE really interesting choices. I think McTiernan's sorta lost it completely, but still--GREAT technical director.

Not a problem...

Yes....it was a joke...although I really liked the approach he took in Boondock Saints, but he is a little "out there." I think prior to his flame-out, it would have been a very interesting choice....

I can't seem to think of what McTiernan's done...I know the name, but can't put my finger on it...

 

[skruloos]

Liman and McTiernan ARE really interesting choices. I think McTiernan's sorta lost it completely, but still--GREAT technical director.

I think McTiernan has moments and I wouldn't count him out quite yet. I'd take him over Richard Donner, despite my love for Donner's Superman. I think that if McTiernan did the action like he did his old action movies with a sophistication of The Thomas Crown Affair we might have something good on our hands.

Liman, I think, is the most interesting. I like his visual style and he manages to engage me with every movie he does even if it's by the numbers.

 

[db85usa]

It would definitely be interesting if Night took the reins. I like the possibility, but I think a lot of people would have a problem with a director who's primarily associated with horror films, take over a character such as Superman, who's so over-protected by his fans...

there is no way, no how, that M. Night would EVER do Superman or any other superhero film for that matter. i've said it before and every single time someone mentions his name.

1.) He doesn't like them.
2.) He likes creating his own stories/characters.
3.) He likes development with stories/characters. (which means stories/characters WE don't know much about yet.

If he actually did a sequel to SR it'd be slow, dull, boring with barely any action in it. He HATES CG and will only use a little bit of it (see Signs). He's a classic filmmaker i.e. Quentin Tarantino (who hates CG as well.)

 

[db85usa]

if it were up to me, i'd try to get James McTeigue (director of V for Vendetta) BUT he has a long resume for being assistant director of such films as: Every single Matrix film, Star Wars Episode II & Episode III ROTS, Dark City.

That's a nice resume.

But I guess it's a good thing it's not up to me.

 

[That-Guy]

LOL! The guy who did Boondock Saints? That's a goof, right? Even if it's not, the story of his flameout is utterly fascinating, people should check him out--I think there's even a documentary film that exposes this guy as a jackass of the highest order.

Don't mean to have it look like I'm pickin on you, QB. Boondock Saints IS a decent flick, but I think it's a little overrated due to it's cult status on the internet. Plus the directing wasn't anything really THAT special, to me. But I can see why you'd say it.

Liman and McTiernan ARE really interesting choices. I think McTiernan's sorta lost it completely, but still--GREAT technical director.

Could you explain this a bit? What do you mean his flame-out? I'm a big fan of the film, The Boondock Saints, but I don't know much about Duffy personally... what happened?

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I think there's even a documentary film that exposes this guy as a jackass of the highest order.

Yeah, the doc is called 'Overnight'. I just added it to my Netflix queue.

 

[Showtime]

there is no way, no how, that M. Night would EVER do Superman or any other superhero film for that matter. i've said it before and every single time someone mentions his name.

1.) He doesn't like them.
2.) He likes creating his own stories/characters.
3.) He likes development with stories/characters. (which means stories/characters WE don't know much about yet.

If he actually did a sequel to SR it'd be slow, dull, boring with barely any action in it. He HATES CG and will only use a little bit of it (see Signs). He's a classic filmmaker i.e. Quentin Tarantino (who hates CG as well.)

The only thing you are right about is that he does like creating his own stories. That's why when he was OFFERED SUPERMAN he wanted to write his OWN script if he was going to direct. They already had a script at the time, I think the Abrams script, so it didn't fit.

You are wrong about him not liking superheroes, he has loved Superman since he was a kid, he has a huge one-of-a-kind statue of Superman in his office.

Also have you ever heard or seen Unbreakable? This is a supehero movie in its most raw form. Do your research.

 

[skruloos]

Could you explain this a bit? What do you mean his flame-out? I'm a big fan of the film, The Boondock Saints, but I don't know much about Duffy personally... what happened?

Watch Overnight and you can see for yourself. He just found every possible way to blacklist himself in Hollywood.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

Do your research.

I have. And I have come to the conclusion that you are the M. Night Supporter of the Year. Congrats

 

[dr collossus]

I'd be quite interested to see what Simon West could do with a Supes movie...as long as he didn't write it. Other than that, I think a Bryan Singer/Sandy Collora team up would probably be the ultimate team to direct a Supes movie - I think they'd balance each other out really well.

 

[Showtime]

I have. And I have come to the conclusion that you are the M. Night Supporter of the Year. Congrats

Heh Heh...I was defending your post actually. Well I mean, Night did a forward in an Alex Ross art book. He obviously is into Superman and comic books.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

Heh Heh...I was defending your post actually. Well I mean, Night did a forward in an Alex Ross art book. He obviously is into Superman and comic books.

Oh, definitely. I don't think you could do a Superman movie unless you knew his entire life story....he's just too damn popular. I'll give Singer a chance since I liked the X-Men movies so much, but if he can't successfully keep my attention (I've never personally found the Man of Steel to be that exciting), than Night has my blessing.

Food for Thought:
If X3 turns out to be better than SR, how many people are going to say they wished Ratner would have done it?

 

[Showtime]

Oh, definitely. I don't think you could do a Superman movie unless you knew his entire life story....he's just too damn popular. I'll give Singer a chance since I liked the X-Men movies so much, but if he can't successfully keep my attention (I've never personally found the Man of Steel to be that exciting), than Night has my blessing.

Food for Thought:
If X3 turns out to be better than SR, how many people are going to say they wished Ratner would have done it?

I hope not me, because I don't want to be a hypocrite.

 

[skruloos]

Food for Thought:
If X3 turns out to be better than SR, how many people are going to say they wished Ratner would have done it?

If X3 turns out better then SR then that's good news for Ratner. If it impresses me anywhere near the amount that I was impressed by X1 and X2, then I'll gladly become a Ratner fan. As I've always said, I'm willing to give any artist a chance to shine and really knock one out of the park.

That being said, X3 turning out well is no indicator of how he would have done Superman. The same thing goes with Bryan Singer. His turns on X1 and X2, while giving us some kind of indication on how well he could possibly handle Superman, cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SR will be great. We can only judge that once the movie is complete. I judge things as they come out. While I have less faith in Ratner than Singer, if he WERE to do Superman, I'd at least give him the chance to wow me with his movie.

 

[Excel]

roland emmerich doing superman? ehhhh...

itd needthe action of ID4 and the drama of the patriot.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

If X3 turns out better then SR then that's good news for Ratner. If it impresses me anywhere near the amount that I was impressed by X1 and X2, then I'll gladly become a Ratner fan. As I've always said, I'm willing to give any artist a chance to shine and really knock one out of the park.

That being said, X3 turning out well is no indicator of how he would have done Superman. The same thing goes with Bryan Singer. His turns on X1 and X2, while giving us some kind of indication on how well he could possibly handle Superman, cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SR will be great. We can only judge that once the movie is complete. I judge things as they come out. While I have less faith in Ratner than Singer, if he WERE to do Superman, I'd at least give him the chance to wow me with his movie.

Excellent way to put it. I agree, that just because you do a couple movies well, as in Singer's case, doesn't necessarily mean every movie will be great. We'll know this summer. I don't think Ratner will be as bad as a lot people say he will, but he does have a lot of pressure on him to deliver on a movie that has to surpass its previous two, which is no small task.

I just don't want to see a bunch people who tore into Ratner, see X3, like it more than SR, and go, "Man, I told you he would ve been the right choice. F*** Singer." I hate that.