The Official Choose A Director Thread

[The Kid]

I thought the wing break was to build suspense before the big finale in the stadium myself. It kind of comes off as superman being a dick and dragging it out though. When you sit there and watch the movie again after all this time, it becomes apparent Singer didn't really have a good grasp of how to make superman's action scenes exciting since he's nearly invincible... I can see why people have such a hard time looking beyond all the logic flaws and crap and just seeing the core story about a lonely alien discovering he has a son...

 

[Nixon]

Ok.... the shear force at the point of loading, which resulted in a bending moment proportional to velocity which was resulted from the momentum shift in rotational pattern, vesave, producing acceleration in both a downward and horizontal fashion........ok I'll take my hand off it...

C'mon Nixon he grabbed the plane at its weakest point, at a time when it was under maximum strain and snapped the friggin' thing off.

Why didn't he just fly directly up from underneath it grab it, keep flying upwards, rotating it in the reverse direction to the way it was turning.

The fuselage is far stronger than the wing and wouldn't have broken as easily. That's why it remained intact when he caught it in the bball stadium.

Okay, what parts of the thin, smooth skin of the jet was he supposed to grab that wouldn't tear right off in his hands? Because that's what he's got to grab onto underneath the plane to stop it form spinning.


Airliner wings are surprisingly strong and flexible. They also gave Superman something structural to grab onto to stop that spin but also something, that if it did break off, would still leave the fuselage and all the people inside of it intact.

 

[DavidTyler]

The airplane rescue scene is one of the few that I don't have any issue with in SR. ... And, surprisingly, I heard that it wasn't even a Singer concept. That it was left over from an earlier script (which, btw, that scene was an homage to Byrne's MOS).

 

[Bruce Stark]

I might have picked Zack Snyder if he were on the list. However, I think that Snyder would work best if a specific Superman graphic novel or comics story were being adapted to film. I voted for Guillermo Del Toro, because, if they decided to involve Apokalips and its inhabitants (ie. Darkseid, Kalibak) in a live action film, IMO, Del Toro could potentially do a very good job depicting that visually.

 

[darthlaney]

Okay, what parts of the thin, smooth skin of the jet was he supposed to grab that wouldn't tear right off in his hands? Because that's what he's got to grab onto underneath the plane to stop it form spinning.


Airliner wings are surprisingly strong and flexible. They also gave Superman something structural to grab onto to stop that spin but also something, that if it did break off, would still leave the fuselage and all the people inside of it intact.

C'mon Nixon time for you to take your hand off it now - he grabs the fuselage at the end to stop the plane - I don't remember too many "thin, smooth" parts ripping off at that point. The section of the plane that inlcudes the wheel housings is probably the strong section. Grab it there!!

 

[Nixon]

No, the thin, smooth skin of the plane just crushed in until Superman could grab hold of something more solid.

Where was he supposed to get a hand hold underneath the plane? The landing gear doors that would've been torn off by the force of the spin? The plane's skin that would've been torn off by the force of the spin? And what happens to all those people inside if it takes more force to correct the spin than the plane can handle and the fuselage breaks apart?

Grabbing the wing has none of those problems.

 

[StorminNorman]

Alfonso Cuarón is not on this list so I chose buddy Del Torro.

 

[p4poetic]

IMO, its a shame that people have to constantly bash donners work in order to hgihlight their love for the overrated TAS (not that it wasnt bad, mind you). The films, flaws and all, still represent the most definitive superman in media. Only George Reeves or the Fleischer cartoons come remotely close

Who's bashing Donner's work?

 

[dark_b]

The airplane rescue scene is one of the few that I don't have any issue with in SR. ... And, surprisingly, I heard that it wasn't even a Singer concept. That it was left over from an earlier script (which, btw, that scene was an homage to Byrne's MOS).

the idea of superman rescuing a plane?
or that someone else made the previs for the seuence?

 

[DavidTyler]

the idea of superman rescuing a plane?
or that someone else made the previs for the seuence?

The sequence appearing in the film as it does, obviously.

Superman has rescued so many planes in his comics history that he should probably be considered an employee of the Air Marshals.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I am currently reading Birthright for the first and, with the exception of the 'soul vision' and Clark and Lex being friends in Smallville, I actually think this story could work quite well for a re-boot of the character.

Dont get me wrong, I still hope to see a sequel to SR, but if WB DO re-boot the franchise, they could do a LOT worse than an adaptation of Birthright.

 

[Timstuff]

I voted Alex Proyas. He's a very underrated director who is very good at working with big, fake cities and selling them to the audience.

Also, my really left-field candidate would be Jerry Conran, who dircted Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. As long as he's not writing it, he could do a solid job.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

Paul Greengrass

 

[Juggernaut33]

Check out the bit (8:33) where Zack Snyder talks about Superman.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c3m-Lc_uU8&feature=channel[/YT]

"The studio asked me: "hey, could you make Superman dark?" and I'm like: "I just did!"

Now, I don't know of this piece of information deserves its own thread (so feel free to lock and delete it) but I just thought it was quite interresting for a couple of reasons.

First of, it shows how far WB would be willing to take Superman as a dark character. When they said that they wanted to explore the dark side of the character, I thought the whole thing would remain within the boundaries of how dark you can make Superman. But since they are asking Zack Snyder if he could handle a Superman movie, given the fact that he is currently working on Watchmen, then I guess the studio felt that maybe Superman could get as dark and complex as Watchmen. And that's pretty extreme given the nature of the character. Yet I'm sure Zack could deliver a kick-ass Superman movie.

So what do you think? Is WB going to far?

Oh and also, I think we can definitely categorize Millar's word as BS. After all, why would they be knocking at Snyder's door if they considered moving foward with Millar's vision which already has a director and a producer?

 

[Changeling]

The truth is, I think that the general public needs a dark and gritty Superman to make them want to flock to the theaters and see him. Because with most people that I know, their opinion on Superman is that he's really a big wussy. Personally, I would like to see a lighter toned Superman, but in all honesty, people will only see Superman if he's a dark and gritty character. That's why I actually support this whole Zack Snyder idea.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Spider-Man in 2002, 2004 and 2007 at the boxoffice proves that WB doesn't need to make a dark Superman movie to make money. Iron Man proves the exact same thing. TDK was a fluke, the vast majority of the darker adventure movies don't make as much as the lighter or middle of the road ones.

Superman isn't a dark character and doesn't need to be turned into one. The Superman character in SR was uncharacteristically moody and sad and the movie didn't make as much as it needed to.

The way to fix the Superman franchise is to stop copying Donner and give us a freakin Supervillan. And no cheesy bumbling Clark.

 

[El Payaso]

This is the answer of the "Whoa, TDK worked so good we should make everything TDK"/"Let's hire Nolan for everything superhero related" mentality.

Spider-Man in 2002, 2004 and 2007 at the boxoffice proves that WB doesn't need to make a dark Superman movie to make money.

Yes. If for the sake of huge BO numbers, Raimi's Spiderman proved you don't need to make the main character dark... but dork.

Iron Man proves the exact same thing.

In fact, more than dark I'd rather having the original Superman from 1939. Sarcastic and more violent. Iron Man reminded me of that. (I think Downey Jr made a big part of Iron Man success, I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was actually excellent)

But I'm all for a dark Superman. Can't help it. So if they want to... I'm ok with it.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Superman wont be a dark character in terms of him battling pimps and drug dealers in the streets but the way a superman movie must be presented does have to be made a bit more realistic and maybe even gritty so that the audience doesnt automatically deny the concept and suspends their disbelief. Contemporary audiences are more sophisticated and they wont buy into something that looks silly on screen.

The question isnt if it should be dark. The question is how dark is dark when it comes to delivering a superman for today.

They can start by getting rid of the red underwear

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Spider-Man in 2002, 2004 and 2007 at the boxoffice proves that WB doesn't need to make a dark Superman movie to make money.

Bingo.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

You simply need to make a Superman movie the same way they did Iron man. It needs to be fun, energetic, epic, everything you associate with Superman. Like Chris Reeve's son said, make it fun, exciting & a good story & the rest will take care of itself. Doom & gloom is not the way to go.





Steve

 

[El Payaso]

Superman wont be a dark character in terms of him battling pimps and drug dealers in the streets but the way a superman movie must be presented does have to be made a bit more realistic and maybe even gritty so that the audience doesnt automatically deny the concept and suspends their disbelief. Contemporary audiences are more sophisticated and they wont buy into something that looks silly on screen.

I think - again - that Raimi's Spiderman shows that is not necessary to get realistic and gritty to be financially successful with today's audience.

If you ask me I hate the tone Raimi gave to Spiderman, the utter crappy humour, the cliché nerdy angle and the teen romantic comedy treatment of the romance. (I still loved Spidermsan 2 though)

So yes, I'm all for the realistic and gritty tone. But it's not vital in order to be successful at the BO.

They can start by getting rid of the red underwear

That's probably the only thing about Superman I truily hate and cannot fully accept.

 

[El Payaso]

Spider-Man in 2002, 2004 and 2007 at the boxoffice proves that WB doesn't need to make a dark Superman movie to make money. Iron Man proves the exact same thing. TDK was a fluke, the vast majority of the darker adventure movies don't make as much as the lighter or middle of the road ones.

Superman isn't a dark character and doesn't need to be turned into one. The Superman character in SR was uncharacteristically moody and sad and the movie didn't make as much as it needed to.

The way to fix the Superman franchise is to stop copying Donner and give us a freakin Supervillan. And no cheesy bumbling Clark.

But they did that with Peter Parker and worked.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^It's clear that we see the Spider-Man movies very differently El Payaso. Nothing wrong with that but thats just the way it is.

 

[NeoRanger]

I certainly disagree with going into Superman with the mentality of a hero in a nihilistic world (if for nothing else, then just because it's first-grade logic and I'm not 6) and I do believe that Spider-Man proved success can come with a lighter-toned film; to an extend. Meaning that we should take into account both that Spider-Man is generally easier to like -at least by younger audiences- and that he's easier to relate to by those same audiences. I don't think that a completely light-hearted Superman film will be very well-received.

Having said that, it's too early to say anything with certainty. If the film's really good, cheesy might work. If people have had enough of gritty with Batman, they'll expect Superman to go another direction. And all that, without taking into account toward which side the taste of the general audience will lean in the next four (at least) years. It's why I consider every discussion concerning direction and style a bit premature at this point.

Personally, so long as Superman remains a moral arbiter and he doesn't wear any eyeliner and go all emo, I'm cool. I'll do with a Metropolis that's hammered by crime; though if they go that route, they should probably be careful to draw a distinction between Metropolis and Gotham.

 

[Showtime]

When was this interview? Is this a new interview or based off the same comments Snyder made previously. I'm too lazy to find out for myself.