Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Superman Sequels' started by Excel, Feb 19, 2006.
Excel, have you read the Abrams script? Do you know where I can get it?
Ah yes. These people are just fairweather fans. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Not me either. If X3 turns out to be good, that's still only 1 Ratner movie I will have liked, whereas Singer -- if SR turns out to be bad -- would still have 3 good movies to me. I'd gladly admit I was wrong about Ratner being able to handle X3 but I'll still be apprehensive that he could handle SR, or even another Superman movie.
As far as fandom, I'm not even a fan of Singer as it takes alot more than simply having a movie or few that I like. I'm a big Singer supporter, but not fan. I think the term is thrown around way too easily nowadays. Now I am a fan of Spielberg, John Williams, and a few others but because they've been around for a long time and have already proven themselves to me, several times over in fact.
he was never offered Superman and yes I have seen/own Unbreakable and it is a comic book movie because he loves comic books but he'd still would never do Superman he even said himself the only way he'd do a superhero movie is if he could do it about the DEVELOPMENT of that superheroes power (Unbreakable). which doesn't make that hero that super. So, again, that leaves him out.
I can't believe people would want Abrams as director. x.x
Has anyone atleast heard about what was in his script? It was insane.
I suppose since we have this more faithful version of Superman set in stone already, maybe he might not be such a bad choice for director, since now he can't completely reimagine Superman and his origins.
It seems you are changing your story from this:
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.
Actually yes M. Night was offered Superman but turned it down because he was ABLE TO WRITE HIS OWN SCRIPT. That was the part you were right about remember? Him liking to use his own characters.
provide your source, until then he wasnt offered the job. you just heard rumors thats all when he actually stated in an interview that UNBREAKABLE and a possible SEQUEL to the first would be his ONLY superhero movies he'll ever work on.
Wait... there was drama in The Patriot?
Seriously... that movie was a mess... historical inaccuracies aside (I won't list them because I don't feel like doing the research again), the only characters in that movie that were even HALFWAY developed were Mel Gibson, Heath Ledger and maybe Jason Isaacs to some degree (if you count "I'm 100% evil all the time!" as developed). The worst was how they handled the female characters. It was so obvious that they were just there to look pretty and be practically bursting out of their corsets that I swear, the first line Mel Gibson's love interest speaks onscreen HAD to be intentional... "THEY'RE HUGE!"
ive READ it.
OK.....I'll do it.
^Zemeckis would be great. I wouldn't mind Tony Scott either...........
Really? That is kooky logic, you are saying he was never offered the job but have no information that this is true. If you do your research you will find 15 websites describing that M. Night was offered the reins of Superman. You're telling me that these sites are rumors but you have nothing to back up anything you have said in this post or any of your other posts concerning this topic? I might point out that you keep writing about this interview where he stated he would never work on any other superhero movie, where is your source my friend?
Tony Scott would be horrible for Superman. Punisher, maybe.
I like Zemeckis as well...good hat to throw in the ring.
Why? He's a quality director and makes pretty good films..........
Mendes would be ok his work on Jarhead was great.
I don't think his style is suitable for superman, thats all.
the funny thing is, he won't be directing a sequel to SR. no doubt about that. it'll never happen so you might as well bend over for M. Night while you can bud.
M. Night Shyamalan Talks About Possibility of Unbreakable 2 SCI-FI
"I was mostly surprised at the lack of the acknowledgment of what at least we aspired to do, [which] was to do the classy, non-fighting [non-Green-] Goblins-on-the-roof version [of a comic-book story]. Spider-Man was the goblins on the roof. I liked Spider-Man a lot. And my favorite part of it was the first hour, again, becoming Spider-Man. That's what I like, and that's what I wanted to make a movie of.
There wouldn't even be a bridge from SR to the sequel if M. Night was directing it. It'd be it's own separate origin-like film which IMO would not fly. Can you say, boring?
That's what a Superman film written and directed by M. Night would be. NUFF SAID.
Okay. We get that you don't like Shyamalan for Superman because you find his work boring. You don't have to insult another poster simply because he actually likes a film which you consider boring and thinks that Shyamalan would be perfect for the film. In any case, M. Night was asked to do the film when it was still going to be a reboot. That would have been perfectly up his alley and what he was wanting to do anyway.
No need to resort to insults just because you don't like the guy's work.
The funny thing is I NEVER SAID HE WOULD be directing a sequel to Superman Returns? I said that I would like to see him direct a sequel to Superman Returns if Bryan Singer wasn't available. Your not to much of a brain if you have to resort to insults, that's what happens when you have no point. This all started because you posted as below and you were wrong about every point except one. That's why you need to be defensive and I don't. Please read below for your refresher course:
Originally Posted by db85usa
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.
So because he talks about Spiderman and he discusses the reason WHY HE WROTE UNBREAKABLE as an origin story (our favorite subject Skruloos) that means he would never direct a Superman project? Where is this interview where he says he wouldn't direct a Superman story unless it was an orign tale? I'll be waiting for it.
Anybody except singer.
It's nice to have people like you on the boards that can debate and issue, whether heated or otherwise, and still keep it sophisticated. It's also nice to deal with intelligent posters like yourself, who have a vast knowledge of movies and the creative process.