The Official Choose A Director Thread

[Alonsovich]

Yeah... the red matter destroying Spock's home planet wasn't big enough for some people I guess... btw... Krypton much?

 

[GreenKToo]

Dark b I love ya and all, but Trek was loaded with ''big'' action. Pretty much from start to finish. Now if you just didn't like it I can respect that.

 

[Sawyer]

Yeah... the red matter destroying Spock's home planet wasn't big enough for some people I guess... btw... Krypton much?

Indeed.

And Eric Bana for Jor-El!!!!!

 

[dark_b]

there is a difference between writting good action and directing good action.

ST was fantastic but IMO in no way big scale action. exploding planets were done 200 0000 tiems in hollywood.

 

[raybia]

What about Brad Bird? He proved in the Iron Giant he likes Superman, directed one of the best superhero movies ever and after 1902 was killed he's free.
Cruise and Abrams are approaching him to direct the new Mission Impossible movie.

Brad Bird will give us the Ultimate Superman movie. He is the most underrated director is Hollywood.


Him and Superman are destined.

 

[GreenKToo]

Lets just hope that Nolan is interested in him, and that Bird is interested in making Superman.
I still think it will be Jonah though.

 

[dark_b]

Brad Bird will give us the Ultimate Superman movie. He is the most underrated director is Hollywood.


Him and Superman are destined.

you think its easy to just jump from cartoons to live action?

what is cute and has emotions in cartoons doesnt have the same impact in live action.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Matthew Vaughn Says 'Superman' Movie Discussions Were 'Very Brief'

Posted 1 hr ago by Josh Wigler in DC Comics, Video


With director Matthew Vaughn's "Kick-Ass" set to bow in theaters in less than a month, it's easy to forget that the filmmaker once had his name connected to a very different comic book property — the "Superman" franchise.

Mark Millar recently denied rumors that his "Superman" pitch with Vaughn never received much traction at Warner Bros.. When MTV News asked Vaughn for his take on the Man of Steel, however, he was quick to indicate that rumors of his Superman film with Millar getting off the ground might have been a bit exaggerated over time.

"That sort of all got blown out of proportion. I had a very brief chat with them and that's all it was. From a 30-second chat, it's become this huge thing," Vaughn told MTV. "It hadn't gone [as far as casting], we just had an idea for a story for Superman — that was it."

Currently, the "Superman" franchise is in the hands of "The Dark Knight" collaborators Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. Vaughn said that both filmmakers could create a compelling vision of the Man of Steel, but he hopes that they won't fall back on the darker toner of the "Batman" films.

"I think they're both talented, so it's in good hands — I just hope they don't make it too serious," he said. "I think that's the one thing not to do with Superman, trying to do the serious 'The Dark Knight' version. Superman is about color and fun, or it should be, for me."

At the very least, Vaughn said that a Nolan and Goyer-helmed "Superman" should be better than "Superman Returns," a film that he described as "a mess."

"It had no idea what it was," said Vaughn. "Was it a remake, a prequel or a sequel? What was it? I actually think Bryan Singer has done some fabulous movies, but I felt that that was just a mess. There's no other way to describe it."

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/03/26/matthew-vaughn-superman/

 

[Daybreak_st]

^ This. Not to mention he handled himself very well in MI:3, and IMO, yes, there was good action in Star Trek as well. Anytime you can showcase spaceship battles in outerspace with pretty seamless CGI, or a globetrotting secret agent, I would classify it as action on a big scale. In my estimation, the scale doesn't get much bigger than the globe & the galaxy, but he'y, that's me. I hope you aren't one of those trekkies ********* over some of the deviations, are you?

Great post! Plus the man knows how to do several things very well if you've watched the behind the scenes features:

1) Bring a classic property back to life for a modern audience while respecting the classic. The forsight he had in surrounding himself with a team of people with varying degrees of star trek knowledge was an inspired move. On the special features it talks about a group of about 6 guys, some being huge fans and knowing the most minute details, while other like abram himself were only casual viewers/fans. To have a group like that to provide checks and balances in crafting a new story is EXACTLY what a new superman film needs.

2) Balance use of CGI and Practical effects. In this way he reminds me of John Favaru. If it can be done with practical effects they did it. Only when CGI was in the best interests of the film was it used. Similar to the approach in Iron Man. That also would be great for superman. You would avoid the overuse of CGI that plagued SR and could achieve a level of believeability for the new superman film that we haven't seen yet.

3) Casting great actors to take on Iconic roles. The Casting was great in Star Trek, hands down, he chose the right people for the role despite some of them not having a lot of acting credits to their name. particularly with Chris Pine as Kirk and Zack Quinto as Spock.

4) Characterizing an iconic cast in a belivable way that didn't simply mimic the past incarnation, but breathed new life into it. See that was well handled, unliike SR iin which Lois was unrecognizable. The characters were intelligently written and enjoyable to watch onscreen.

5) Perfect Tone. The movie simply had a fantastic tone that was true to teh orignial but never felt campy or too silly (although a few scenes were pretty fun). A new star trek film could've easily de-evolved into an "ultra realistic take on space exploration, something very violent like BAttle Star Galatica (which maybe good in its own right but is nothign like star trek). But he avoid all of that by being true to the source material, the movie was fun but serious at teh same time.

This is just off the top of my head. Also in MI 3 his female leads were both great (Michelle Monahan and Kerri Russel). Good strong, well-written female characters.

LIke him or not i dare anyone to put up another director who's done a film that fits so well with what needs to happen in a new superman film.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/03/26/matthew-vaughn-superman/

So Millar was lying his ass off the whole time?

 

[baleheadbrasil]

Zack Snyder for Superman Reboot Director!

 

[Daybreak_st]

When posting directors could people also explain Why they think the director is right for the job.

 

[flickchick85]

Brad Bird will give us the Ultimate Superman movie. He is the most underrated director is Hollywood.


Him and Superman are destined.

Agreed. He's a great storyteller, period, and I think Superman would be a great fit for him, as I've said on this board before.

I just think he gets that mix - the perfect mix of keeping high stakes and an emotional core while still maintaining a sense of fun and wonder. And the guy can compose action beautifully (which works basically the same in animation and live-action - it all comes down to storyboards).

The only experience he really lacks is working with actors outside the voice booth. But he does such a good job with them inside the voice booth, getting to the truth of the scene, that I can't imagine the transition to a real environment being a big problem for him.

 

[dark_b]

2) Balance use of CGI and Practical effects. In this way he reminds me of John Favaru. If it can be done with practical effects they did it. Only when CGI was in the best interests of the film was it used. Similar to the approach in Iron Man. That also would be great for superman. You would avoid the overuse of CGI that plagued SR and could achieve a level of believeability for the new superman film that we haven't seen yet.

they used a real iron man suit for close ups.and there were a lot of close ups that were CGI. everything else was CGI. so when he walks its CGI and when its an action he is CGI. and for the flying they used a CGI iron man suit.

just like in SR.

you were trying to say........................what?

 

[Sawyer]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/03/26/matthew-vaughn-superman/

His opinion of SR:

 

[Daybreak_st]

they used a real iron man suit for close ups.and there were a lot of close ups that were CGI. everything else was CGI. so when he walks its CGI and when its an action he is CGI. and for the flying they used a CGI iron man suit.

just like in SR.

you were trying to say........................what?

Saying simply this, haven't heard one complaint about the use of CGI in Iron Man, and Favaru used it very intelligently, obviously the scenes you mentioned wouldn't have worked practically now would they? In SR you have close ups of him flying and it's a BAD use of CGI, could've easily been done with a guy on wires. That's what i'm saying. Obviously its up to the director to choose when and where to use CGI, but SR over did it imo. LIke the Abrams, you know the scene where Kirk and Sulu are fallling toward the planet, you know how they filmed that? Practially, having them stand on a mirror. As crazy as that sounds it turned out pretty darn good if you ask me. So yeah, both directors have used CGI more successfully than it was employed in SR.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea it would be nice to see if bird would be a potential. i really cant wait to we know for sure who will be directing or if any more names(besides jonah's) do pop up before the official director is named.

 

[ImWithTeamConan]

I wonder what Singer and Ratner think of Vaughn. I'm surprised he's so forthcoming with his opinion of SR/X3. Usually directors give the PC answer but Vaughn just goes out right and says "I coulda done better".

 

[El Payaso]

I wonder what Singer and Ratner think of Vaughn. I'm surprised he's so forthcoming with his opinion of SR/X3. Usually directors give the PC answer but Vaughn just goes out right and says "I coulda done better".

Unless hay have been attached to the project and then dismissed.

 

[dark_b]

LIke the Abrams, you know the scene where Kirk and Sulu are fallling toward the planet, you know how they filmed that? Practially, having them stand on a mirror. As crazy as that sounds it turned out pretty darn good if you ask me. So yeah, both directors have used CGI more successfully than it was employed in SR.

i watched all the making up videos from that ST scene. and not all scene were done with the mirror.

and do you even know how much rotoscoping was done around them? how much money and time was spend to change the background since they didnt use greenscreen on that scenes?

its not just '' hey they used a mirror''.

 

[dark_b]

Saying simply this, haven't heard one complaint about the use of CGI in Iron Man, and Favaru used it very intelligently, obviously the scenes you mentioned wouldn't have worked practically now would they? .

1. its obvious easier to have a brushed-metal with a car paint finish in close ups then a human face.
2. he used it very intelligent? he did what everyone would do. they built practical suits for scenes where IM is just standing. 90% of IM shots were CGI. nothing groundbreaking. ILM of course nailed everything.
3. wouldnt have worked? a lot of scenes in SR wouldnt worked without CGI. i am not talking about that you need a CGI superman to have a superman. but for that kind of camera moves it couldnt have been done with a real actor.

in 2005 Singer didnt have the same technology that Cameron now has. if today they would start filming and if they wold use the Simul-cam(realtime compositing with CGI backgrounds) then it would look realistic and they would use actors.

of course the last close up shot in SR is not good enough for a close up. there i agree.

 

[GreenKToo]

Imagine that, Millar was exaggerating. Who'd a thunk it...

 

[dark_b]

Imagine that, Millar was exaggerating. Who'd a thunk it...

it makes me angry what Vaughn is saying. he acts like the reporters made everything up. when the fact is that hes good friend Millar made everything up and all the stuff about him and superman.

be a man and f.... admit that Millar was lying or just s.... the f.... up. noone forced him to talk about superman.

 

[Daybreak_st]

i watched all the making up videos from that ST scene. and not all scene were done with the mirror.

and do you even know how much rotoscoping was done around them? how much money and time was spend to change the background since they didnt use greenscreen on that scenes?

its not just '' hey they used a mirror''.

Dude now you're just trying to start stuff, of course they didn't "just" use a mirror, it was obviously much more complicated than that, so unless you want a transcript of what they talked about on the special features, what i said was good enough. And yes i know a thing or two about rotoscoping i've done projects involving it ok.

As the Iron Man stuff, yeah i agree, they have better technology, and with SR not all those scenes needed CGI. Especially the close ups while he was flying. I'm not against CGI by any means, if you use just make it look good is my motto, the plane scene and some of the others look pretty great to me, when i mention the overuse of CGI it's the scenes that were obvious and that could have been done with a real actor. That's all i was saying.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea every film is different on what they do pratical vs cgi/green-blue screen stuff. For me i would be more advise to see stuff shot more patrically when you can do it with actors, stunt doubles, and pratical special effects and all that. It just makes things seem alot more real. Which we are really losing that type of filming these days. With more cgi/sfx being used far to much at times. But i do agree cgi is great when its used in the right fashion and they use their budget wisely and get things to look as real as possible.