Sequels Superman 2-who do you want to direct?

[Weadazoid]

Ratner has his own ideas, much like Singer he wanted to cast an unknown for the part of Superman

As I said if I had my chocie and Singer was gone I would want Depalme or Demme... mostly because they would put a trully interesting spin of some of Spuermans villains.

if Cameron took the reigns we may get a metallo or Brainiack that would just look like the Terminator on crack.

Spielberg would over do it IMO

 

[That-Guy]

Thanks Showtime!

As for the directors...

Shayamalan is a gifted director, but I'm not sure I'd want to see him do a Superman film. His unusual cinematography benefitted films like Unbreakable, but became extremely annoying in The Village (IMO). I remember one scene in particular at the beginning of that film, where William Hurt was talking to his daughter (not Bryce Dallas Howard, the other one)... both of their backs were to the camera and they looked like they were about 100 feet away. I guess the idea was to give it that feel like we, the audience, were like the "creatures" peering in on the villagers. But I really don't think it worked. It just left me thinking, why they can't I see these people's faces when they talk to each other? Why do I feel like the cameraman went to take a smoke break when he was supposed to zoom in?

I don't mean to sound like the kind of guy who only likes mainstream stuff, but I just think that some of this conceptual stuff doesn't work in certain films, and superhero films (that are specifically based on comic books... again, not talking about Unbreakable here) fall into this category. I know a lot of people criticized Ang Lee's Hulk film for trying to be to psychological and analytical, and also because they felt the CG Hulk didn't look right, but I didn't mind those things. What got on my nerves in that movie was the annoying 70's style split screen "panel" look that was intended to make it look like a comic book page but instead made me feel like I was watching "More American Graffitti." What was that? You didn't know that they made a sequel to American Graffitti? Yeah, there's a reason for that.
A stupid concept (or a well-meaning concept that simply doesn't work) can kill a movie for an audience. Weadazoid brought up Brian De Palma... De Palma is a very gifted director, but take a look at his film, Raising Cain. It's a brilliant movie up until the last 15 minutes or so, when De Palma apparently got a bug up his ass to try and be Alfred Hitchcock and concocted this ridiculous scene where all of these goofy circumstances were occuring in an effort to build suspense. Its kind of hard to explain, but watch the end of Raising Cain and then go watch the end of Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, and you'll see what I mean. What actually happens in both movies are completely different sequences, but it's just the way they are both set up that it's easy to see that De Palma was being very derivative stylistically.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

DePalma's ALWAYS had that bug up his ass to be Hitchcock. One of the few times he tried to go around that SERIOUSLY and tackle genre fare that didn't involve, noir, crime or men fighting men over women, was Mission to Mars--and that movie was the WORST MOVIE the year it came out.

Jonathan Demme would be an interesting choice, but I dont' think there's any way a studio would consider him, or that he would take it.

 

[Cinemaman]

So you would like a very mediocre director who lacks his own vision over a slew of directors that are not only infinitely better, but have their own style that could benefit Superman??

Ratner's vissual style sucked.

 

[dr collossus]

I would have been quite pleased if it had been Raimi that had jumped ship instead of Singer.

 

[dr collossus]

much like Singer he wanted to cast an unknown for the part of Superman

Only a complete moron wouldn't.

 

[Weadazoid]

DePalma's ALWAYS had that bug up his ass to be Hitchcock. One of the few times he tried to go around that SERIOUSLY and tackle genre fare that didn't involve, noir, crime or men fighting men over women, was Mission to Mars--and that movie was the WORST MOVIE the year it came out.

Jonathan Demme would be an interesting choice, but I dont' think there's any way a studio would consider him, or that he would take it.

wow kinda harsh words for a guy who restarted Mission Imposible, made an all time classic in Scar Face, raised the bar of a classic TV show and made a great Movie in the Untouchables, and did some interesting stuff with Multiple personalites in Raisng Cain.

I loved all of those movies


How in the hell is a movie like Casualties of War Hitschcock esque?

 

[Weadazoid]

Ratner's vissual style sucked.

Not in Red Dragon

 

[Cinemaman]

Not in Red Dragon

I meant his style and point of view about Superman.

 

[Weadazoid]

I meant his style and point of view about Superman.

I wasn't aware he had one Doesn't visual style normaly come in part from the script/screen play

 

[Cinemaman]

I wasn't aware he had one Doesn't visual style normaly come in part from the script/screen play

Can you give me review of Abrams's script?

And who had idea to make Luthor kryptonian and Olsen gay?

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Doesn't visual style normaly come in part from the script/screen play

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.

And again, saying Ratner's visual style in Red Dragon was good is largely like saying Puff Daddy's musical style on "Come With Me" was good because he sampled Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir." Puffy sampled (looped) Zeppelin, Ratner sampled Demme. Ratner, on his own, without someone to ape--is pretty pedestrian, visually. He's not a BAD director. He's just mediocre.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

^^^

Jon peters.

 

[Weadazoid]

Can you give me review of Abrams's script?

And who had idea to make Luthor kryptonian and Olsen gay?

I don't have the script but That was mainly probubly the work of guys like Peters ect ect...

 

[Weadazoid]

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.

And again, saying Ratner's visual style in Red Dragon was good is largely like saying Puff Daddy's musical style on "Come With Me" was good because he sampled Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir." Puffy sampled (looped) Zeppelin, Ratner sampled Demme. Ratner, on his own, without someone to ape--is pretty pedestrian, visually. He's not a BAD director. He's just mediocre.

But here is the thing..

Red Dragon realy felt like it belonged with Silence of Lambs while Hannibal felt out of whack IMO

Even though Scott is very accomplished I hated Hannibal

but I loved Red Dragon, it seemed to fit

I suppose people will say all Ratner did was bite off Singer for X3... but damn we X men fans want it to feel the same.


I hear what you are saying about the backbone in a screen play action isn't detailed and the way things look is not detailed from a novle monipotent like styand point, that is left up to the director..

But the basic are laid out to the director as far as what the action is.

 

[Rex Calibur]

And again, saying Ratner's visual style in Red Dragon was good is largely like saying Puff Daddy's musical style on "Come With Me" was good because he sampled Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir." Puffy sampled (looped) Zeppelin, Ratner sampled Demme. Ratner, on his own, without someone to ape--is pretty pedestrian, visually.

Which is great if Ratner is doing a sequel, then he'd 'ape' Singer.

 

[skruloos]

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.

True. In fact, a lot of script readers will passover a script if there is too much visual description in it.

 

[Showtime]

no. not really, actually. Screenplays give a general backbone, but most times screenplay doesn't REALLY say what shots, how they're to be lit, framed, how kinetic the motion will be, how the mise-en-scene will be laid out, all that. You could give the same script to 3 different directors and if those directors are at all imaginative, you'll come up with 3 pretty different visual styles, typically.

Very true. You seem like you've been reading David Trottier.

 

[skruloos]

But here is the thing..

Red Dragon realy felt like it belonged with Silence of Lambs while Hannibal felt out of whack IMO

Even though Scott is very accomplished I hated Hannibal

but I loved Red Dragon, it seemed to fit

I suppose people will say all Ratner did was bite off Singer for X3... but damn we X men fans want it to feel the same.


I hear what you are saying about the backbone in a screen play action isn't detailed and the way things look is not detailed from a novle monipotent like styand point, that is left up to the director..

But the basic are laid out to the director as far as what the action is.

Of course Red Dragon seemed like it was an extension of Silence of the Lambs. The story was essentially the same framework. Hannibal, on the other hand, took the story to a completey different place. Also the script and book had a different feel to it than both Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon.

Finally, because Scott didn't want to just copy Demme he did something completely different to go with the romantic overtones in the script. Scott is a director with talent. He leaves his stamp on his movies, as did Demme. Ratner has no such stamp. He has yet to prove he even has his own visual style. Hopefully X3 will show this.

Also, a script does not necessarily detail action. That's what an action choreographer is for.

 

[Fatboy Roberts]

Very true. You seem like you've been reading David Trottier.

Nah, just read a lot of screenplays. Written 4 of them, too, although I never seem to make the top 10 in any of the contests I've entered them in. Which says something about my screenwriting skills, I think My prose descriptions are too dry. It causes a sort of clincal detachment on the part of the reader if the dialog and situations are loosey-goosey and naturalistic and then I come in with the descriptions that read like closed captioning.

But Skru is also right--you put too much stage direction in your screenplay, the director (or actor) is going to toss it, if they ever get to see it in the first place, since paid script readers at studios are EVIL about that stuff. Don't you dare presume to hold either the director, cinematographer or actor's hands in your screenplay. They'll resent you for it. You just give them the story, the lines, and some solid plotting and characterization, chances are they're going to make whatever you had in your head, visually, look like a hi-8 home movie anyway.

As far as Ratner--it seriously looks like he's aping Michael Bay more than anyone on this. Looking at the trailer and the cinematography and such--it really DOES look like a Michael Bay movie and less like a Bryan Singer movie. But I've only got a teaser trailer to work from. We'll see, I guess, but visually, I can't think of a single stunning shot of Ratner's from ANY of his films. Not one. MAYBE the flaming wheelchair in Red Dragon, but to tell the truth, the mental picture I have in my head, I can't tell if it's really his version of that shot or Michael Mann's.

 

[Gold Samurai]

I don't have the script but That was mainly probubly the work of guys like Peters ect ect...

luckly i saved it so i can show people the horror!


1. Krypton doesn’t explode. Instead it’s a Naboo rip-off overrun
by robot soldiers, walking war machines, and civil war (can you say,
Star Wars: Episode I?). Jor-El is literally
the king of Krypton and leader of the Kryptonian Senate (thus Superman
is a prince), and he and Lara send Kal-El to Earth because he is "the One"
whom a prophecy states will save
Krypton from destruction (rip-off of The Matrix). The villains, Jor-El’s
evil brother and nephew Kata-Zor and Ty-Zor, take Jor-El prisoner and send
probe pods out to find and kill the
baby Kal-El. 14 years later, Lara and her shell-less turtle servant Taga
(shades of Jar Jar Binks) are found by Ty-Zor, and Lara gets tortured to death.
2. Superman’s costume is a living entity housed in a can, and it climbs onto
him when he needs it. He first discovers it in a closet when he’s 14 (Jor-El
visited Earth and picked the Kents
out to be Kal-El’s new parents, leaving them his picture, some S-shield metal
pieces signifying the virtues Kal-El must represent, and the costume), and the
costume rips his clothes off and
stuffs him into itself. So teen Clark is flying around in a suit that’s way
too big for him.
3. Lex Luthor is an evil CIA agent obsessed with UFO phenomena.
When Superman reveals himself to the world, Luthor demands that the
government allow him to hunt
Superman down and kill him.
The government refuses, so Luthor allies himself with the evil
Kryptonians out to kill Kal-El…because Luthor himself is an evil
Kryptonian, working undercover as a
human to set up an invasion of Earth!
4. All the Kryptonians get into airborne kung-fu fights straight out of
The Matrix. Even Luthor gets in on the act at the end of the script.
5. An aerial kung-fu fight between Superman and Ty-Zor results in Superman
being lured into a trap: Lois is drowning in a tank filled with
kryptonite. (This begs the question of how there can be kryptonite when
Krypton didn’t even explode, but….) Superman is given a choice: save
her and die from radiation poisoning in the act, or stand by and watch her
drown. So he goes in, saves her, and dies. Jor-El magically senses Superman’s
death from across the galaxy, commits hara-kiri
with a rock he sharpens in his prison cell, goes to Heaven, and talks Superman
into coming back to life so he can fulfill the prophecy of saving Krypton from
its civil war. So Superman’s soul returns to
his body, and he proceeds to trash Ty-Zor and his cronies. And at the end of
the film, Superman flies off in a rocket to save Krypton (which is where the second
film is planned to take place).
6. A dialogue scene at The Daily Planet implies that Jimmy Olsen—a horny skirt-chaser
in the comic books—is gay, as Abrams describes him as "effeminate" and Perry White rags
on him for having a boyfriend.

 

[Showtime]

Nah, just read a lot of screenplays. Written 4 of them, too, although I never seem to make the top 10 in any of the contests I've entered them in. Which says something about my screenwriting skills, I think My prose descriptions are too dry. It causes a sort of clincal detachment on the part of the reader if the dialog and situations are loosey-goosey and naturalistic and then I come in with the descriptions that read like closed captioning.

But Skru is also right--you put too much stage direction in your screenplay, the director (or actor) is going to toss it, if they ever get to see it in the first place, since paid script readers at studios are EVIL about that stuff. Don't you dare presume to hold either the director, cinematographer or actor's hands in your screenplay. They'll resent you for it. You just give them the story, the lines, and some solid plotting and characterization, chances are they're going to make whatever you had in your head, visually, look like a hi-8 home movie anyway.

Didn't realize you had written anything, you've written one more than I have then. I need to catch up. I find dialogue to be the toughest, but when I find myself in tune with the characters, it flows much better. Contests are tough, I haven't had much success on that circuit either.

What studios are looking for now are good storys. If you have a good and original story they will bite on it even if the format is a little off or you drone out cliche dialogue. If the story is unoriginal and lacking substance, you have no shot.

 

[explode7]

I would have been quite pleased if it had been Raimi that had jumped ship instead of Singer.

I agree. Riami has his Comic Book movie organized unlike most we have seen lately. I'm sure Riami will be the only guy to have had a massive comic book movie interest remain through many sequels. Go Riami.

 

[Weadazoid]

Of course Red Dragon seemed like it was an extension of Silence of the Lambs. The story was essentially the same framework. Hannibal, on the other hand, took the story to a completey different place. Also the script and book had a different feel to it than both Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon.

Finally, because Scott didn't want to just copy Demme he did something completely different to go with the romantic overtones in the script. Scott is a director with talent. He leaves his stamp on his movies, as did Demme. Ratner has no such stamp. He has yet to prove he even has his own visual style. Hopefully X3 will show this.

Also, a script does not necessarily detail action. That's what an action choreographer is for.

did you actualy like Hannibal.

I thought it was crap

Many critics also thought it was awful

 

[Superman \S/]

I never liked Hannibal, Silence of The Lambs is great.