The Official Start/Release Date & Location Thread

[Showtime]

What...are...you...talking about. I already told you. The treatment that was greenlit...had the kid in it. Warner greenlit the kid. WB liked the kid storyline. It happened. It's real. Singer didn't just add the kid and WB didn't know. Come on Buggs. I thought you knew how big business worked. Was I mistaken?

 

[buggs0268]

I do. So if the treatment had it in it, and this is the very same treatment that he and harris and whatever wrote with him on that weekend in Hawaii, and the one that a few days later they pitched to the WB, then what are we talking about? If he put it in the treatment, it may not be in the notes, but I garentee you that is what Singer had in mind all a long. You are talking about a writing window of a weekend if i am not mistaken and anothe couple of days later it was sold to Warner's. I don't see where you are going tiwth it.

 

[buggs0268]

Le me do it another way. Correct my timeline if I am wrong. They wrote the treatment over 1 weekend in a hotel in Hawaii. They took a meeting and pitched it to The WB two or three days later? And you are saying the kid is in that very same treatment that they wrote on that three day stretch based on Singers idea that he had been telling anyone on any film set he was directing on that would listen to hm his idea for a sequel to Superman 2? and they were only writing a sequel to Superman 2 of him leaving when in the movie they are making the sequel to, the last thing this character says is "I'm sorry I was away for so long Mr. President. I'll never leave again" and his brilliant and only sequel idea to that was to make him leave?

 

[Showtime]

Buggs. What I am telling you, is that you have been going around saying that Singer had this idea since the days of usual suspects. Mike, Dan, and Bryan have all said the idea to give Superman a kid came up that weekend of July 4th in Hawaii. The brainstorming that weekend originally started off as Lois being married, then Lois being married and having a kid, and then the kid being Sueprman's. Before that, the idea that Singer was telling everybody about was a Returns story. No Kid. That is all I am saying.

Yes, the kid was in the treatment that they pitched to WB which they wrote over that weekend period. I don't know the time period it took for them to deliver the treatment from when they wrote it though.

Where I am going with this; you keep saying Singer just wanted to do a Superman movie so he can give him a kid, that is his only interest and that he had the idea since the Usual Suspect days, but that is not factual. The reason being, they came up with the idea for the kid that weekend.

The End For Me.

 

[buggs0268]

Oh now I really don't believe anything those three say. And do you have the eintrie transcript of their hasing out the treatment? Where are you getting this info from again, and is it published publically?

 

[Showtime]

It's publicized in interviews, the idea for the kid came up when they were talking about the sequel for the first time all together during that weekend. If you don't believe it, that is fine. I am just telling you, that is what the process was. What you want to believe, is up to you. I can't go on with this, it's hurting my brain.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Because you have to spend the money on development and production of all those seperate franchises for heroes that might not catch in a solo effort. Look at how much money they have spent on failed The Flash and Wonder Woman projects. The time for superhero films is now. This could all turn around, expecially with so much Marvel property movies coming out. And Marvel can still partner with other studios if they want. Warner's cant. A JLA movie is the shortest distance to a few franchises. And SR didn't make the money they were looking for. And with Spiderman 3, it really looks bad.

It would make sense that if they hired people who actually got the job done and saw the development process through that they'd be able to complete half of what they start. The fact that we've heard potential rumblings of Jack Black as Green Lantern is clearly indicative that not everyone at WB is steeped well enough in DC lore to get most of the characters or remotely understand crap when it comes to preparing them in a way that is akin to what made them popular with readers from jumpstreet. They need to hire someone as a liason ala Arad (but not as dumb) to play go-between to make sure that the films are handed to the correct people and are done correctly (i.e. not to alienate core fans, but also good enough to draw mass appeal). Michael Uslan should be in charge of the whole thing, if you ask me.

With regards to WW and Flash, I love Goyer and Whedon, but unless it's a property where they're working in collaboration (i.e. Goyer with Nolan) or in Whedon's case working his own material (Serenity) or polishing scripts (Toy Story) they were fish out of water and were obviously used incorrectly. Warner's can partner with numerous other sub-studios the way they did with Legendary to spread the risk (Amblin, Village Roadshow Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Silver Pictures (which includes Dark Castle Entertainment), The Ladd Company, and The Geffen Film Company are all options) on doing numerous franchises. They don't use all of them and when they do, the picture doesn't get finished. Hell, the only one they've passed off that I've heard any positive rumblings of is the Shazam pic at New Line. Why they haven't got others who are at least semi-competent involved in developing these properties is beyond me.

A JLA movie is the shortest distance to an overexposed set of potential franchises being burnt out before they're even attempted. I mean, how many people will honestly find it intriguing to go watch a Batman or Superman solo pic after WB has already blown their load with a gigantic crossover movie? It'll definitely take the sting out of it. The time for superhero films has been active for nearly this whole decade. It's not some recent thing. Well made genre pics will make money regardless of the time they're released. Yes, we know Spidey made lots of money in a lousy movie (at least to me). Spidey was also at the hind end of a three picture cycle that didn't have the stigma of a previous franchise to get out from under, but was instead built off a decent first film and an even better second outing. It didn't have a Superman IV or a Batman and Robin to try and steer clear of, so it's illogical to lump Spidey 3 and SR/BB in together like they're similar...because they're really not. Superman and Batman both underwent rebuilding phases over the two previous summers and the lasting effects of whether or not those films will be deemed a true success won't be seen until the next installments arrive. Just a thought(s), Buggs...and I'm rambling...go figger.

 

[Pickle-El]

So.....anyone else like how some people like to spin things around here when it concerns Bryan Singer and his amazing Superman flick/future?

 

[memphissuperman]

I liked Superman Returns and I'm jacked to see another being made next yr and there isn't ANYTHING anyone can do about it now.

So stop your *****ing it's been a yr now LET it go!!!Whatever happened to that guy who said he sent a letter to the higher ups at WB about how SR sucked and got a letter back from them saying they agreed...what a JOKE!

The next one is being made next yr by Singer DEAL with it and don't go see the movie I promise you alot of people will and it will make good $$.

This is why this Superman mb is the WORST I've came across it's the same old thing...OVER..AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

The people who liked the movie say "I liked it had to some holes but I enjoyed it" most I've seen are open to let thoughts be voiced...the *****ers are "Everyone hated SR it sucked everyone knows the next one will suck..your dumb if you liked SR" things like that it's over and over and over again.

You just have to weed threw the bs.

 

[matrix_ghost]

If you are talking about the Matrix sequels, they were rumoured to have cost around $200 million each, which is the same as SR.

Actually both Reloaded and Revolutions had a COMBINED budget of 300 million . The VFX budget was 100 million for both movies.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I had no idea you were a stuido accountant. Transformers with 20 times the action and effects works than SR, with multiple characters, cost 150 mill to make. That is almost 100 million less to produce than SR. They can do a JLA for a lot cheaper than 300 to 350 mill. I don't know why how this figure ever came about, but it is utter nonsense. And Batman can be easily written out, or done as a cameo. Originally the WB was looking at ILM to do the effects, then OCS (before Singer came on board). OSC delivered two matrix movies cheaper than SR. Hell, they could have Bales scenes shot right now making TDK. The ending of Episode 3 was shot during the shooting of episode 2.

ESC buggs , ESC FX not OCS
And we had this discussion before in another thread.

We can hardly compare Transformers with SR because SR has far more complex visual effects . Transformers is just one giant metal robot , albeit slightly more complicated.
SR features a CG human , meaning realisitic facial animation , realistic body movement , realistic cloth animation etc.
There is a whole lot of stuff there as opposed Optimus. And if one thing is off , the whole thing looks fake. Not to mention that it's easier to relate to a non-human looking character. With CG humans every movement needs to be just right.
Granted ILM has achieved amazing realism with Davey Jones and the robots in Transformers looked photoreal.
Obviously they're always developing new software but that doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper.

Michael Bay had huge support from the military and GMC . Meaning they didn't have to animate all those planes or car crashes in CGI. Money is saved and that goes to the CG budget.

If a JLA movie is made you'd need a hell of a lot CG humans to act .It's very expensive to get those things right.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Earlier this month, it was reported that The Mayor of Castro Street producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan said their Bryan Singer-directed film on gay rights activist Harvey Milk would be shot after Singer finishes filming Valkyrie. Not so fast, say the folks working on the Superman Returns sequel.

"That's total horse *****," said a source within Singer's camp for IESB.net. "I would say the same thing if I was producing that film but don't you realize that most of the 'Superman' producers are working with Bryan on 'Valkyrie'? Gil Adler and Chris Lee both are in Germany with Bryan and I can guarantee you that there is some work being done with 'Superman' right now."

The current plan is to start shooting the Superman Returns sequel by the summer of 2008.

t:

Sorry but IMO this news itself is horse*****
So if everything goes as planned , Singer will be finished or have done 2 movies before beginning on te sequel.
Meaning he's will be shooting 3 DIFFERENT movies back-to-back ??!!??

Let's be realistic here people.
Assuming that WB is indeed going forward with a sequel for a planned release of 2009 , either Mayor of Castro street is gonna be filmed AFTER the sequel or Singer is just gonna bail out and make Mayor of Castro .

Because otherwise no director would be able to handle 3 movies back-to-back. We aren't just talking about a movie like say POTC or the matrix sequels or LOTR where shooting ( or the bulk) was finished long ago and loads of post-prod work was done.
We're talking about 3 different movies from start to finish. Shooting one movie , doing post and finishing up , then shooting another , doing post and finishing up and then again ...back to back.

As far as I know no director has done that. Spielberg has filmed 2 different movies back-to-back and those were Jur Park and Schlinder's List ( and for the record when Spielberg was shooting List , Lucas was responsible for the post on Jur) and again in 2005 with WOTW and Munich.

And Singer is going to top that by doing 3 movies . Either the guy is a superhuman who probably suffers from insomnia or is absolutely insane.

I just can't buy the fact that SInger is going to do 2 (big) movies in such a short timeframe before embarking on a mega project like the sequel.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This thread is based on the follwing...

"That's total horse s@#t, I would say the same thing if I was producing that film but don't you realize that most of the Superman producers are working with Bryan on Valkyrie? Gil Adler and Chris Lee both are in Germany with Bryan and I can guarantee you that there is some work being done with Superman right now."
So why would Neil Meron and Craig Zadan say the contrary? "It's their job as producers to keep that movie on their front burner, but really, Bryan's deal with Warner Bros. for the Superman sequel is already done and signed and that's the priority."

"I would say the same thing if I was producing that film..."
"It's their job as producers to keep that movie on their front burner..."

Just as it is this person in Singer's camp's job to keep Singer on the frontburner of a sequel and would say these things to do so.

The bottom line is that its been a year since SR came out and WB has had plently of time to green light a sequel and they have not. Singer's "deal" probably is part of his original one for SR but there are probably clauses that WB could excerise if they chose to to replace Singer if they wanted to. The producers he refer to may very well be with Singer but they are there for another movie , not SR. I'm not slamming Singer or SR (saw it 6 times in the theater)- I'm looking at the situation objectively

Bottm line is as I said its been a year and WB has not issued statements giving a green light to the sequel and that speaks volumes. Until they do, and the longer it takes, the more I am convinced taht WB is rethinking their Superman strategies.

You do realise that Nolan, Bale, et al were working on TDK while filming and making The Prestige dont you? Singer and the producers can do exactly the same for MOS while working on Valkyrie.

 

[dark_b]

i remember reading that in some tent nolan,caine and bale were talking about the story for TDK

 

[Showtime]

Singer is famous for working on multiple projects so that is not far-fetched in the least.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Actually both Reloaded and Revolutions had a COMBINED budget of 300 million . The VFX budget was 100 million for both movies.

I heard different, but i'll take your word for it seeing as you seem a major Matrix fan.

ESC buggs , ESC FX not OCS
And we had this discussion before in another thread.

We can hardly compare Transformers with SR because SR has far more complex visual effects . Transformers is just one giant metal robot , albeit slightly more complicated.
SR features a CG human , meaning realisitic facial animation , realistic body movement , realistic cloth animation etc.
There is a whole lot of stuff there as opposed Optimus. And if one thing is off , the whole thing looks fake. Not to mention that it's easier to relate to a non-human looking character. With CG humans every movement needs to be just right.
Granted ILM has achieved amazing realism with Davey Jones and the robots in Transformers looked photoreal.
Obviously they're always developing new software but that doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper.

Michael Bay had huge support from the military and GMC . Meaning they didn't have to animate all those planes or car crashes in CGI. Money is saved and that goes to the CG budget.

If a JLA movie is made you'd need a hell of a lot CG humans to act .It's very expensive to get those things right.

EXACTLY, thankyou, CG robots are A LOT EASIER to render than realistic CG humans.

i remember reading that in some tent nolan,caine and bale were talking about the story for TDK

EXACTLY once again, Bryan, et al could easily be doing the same while making Valkyrye.

 

[dark_b]

I heard different, but i'll take your word for it seeing as you seem a major Matrix fan.



EXACTLY, thankyou, CG robots are A LOT EASIER to render than realistic CG humans.



EXACTLY once again, Bryan, et al could easily be doing the same while making Valkyrye.

should we get experts to explain why it is not easier to render 100% metalic surface? why it is not easier to render more then 1000 moving parts that have reflection(metalic,car paint).

its not easier to render 100% realistic looking big robots fighting at DAYLIgHT then rending superman flying above metroplis at night

plus ILM already proved that they have extreme good skin shaders(hulk).

they also showed that they are able to make an organic creature that is talking to people at DAYLIGHT.

you can also read something about shaders,Sub surface scattering and so on.
davy jones also head more then 10 moving parts when he talked. the davy jones surface was almost perfection.
people who are doing CGI for a living didnt know that he was 100% CGI.

ILM is the way to go.

 

[matrix_ghost]

should we get experts to explain why it is not easier to render 100% metalic surface? why it is not easier to render more then 1000 moving parts that have reflection(metalic,car paint).

its not easier to render 100% realistic looking big robots fighting at DAYLIgHT then rending superman flying above metroplis at night

PLease do .
Seriously i'd love to see some technical discussion of the ILM crew on how they created those big ass bots t: . Otherwise i'll have to wait till Ocotber when the next Cinefex issue comes out in which TF is featured

Also i can give you many examples of movies which featured realistic CG animation of metal characters. And if you'll see just how much those movies cost you'll see why i'm saying that it's much easier ( read cheaper/(photo)realistic) to animate metal in CGI then characters with flesh.
Terminator 2/3, the animated movie ROBOTS , FFROTSS , Matrix Revolutions , Pearl Harbor all feature CG work involving metal surfaces yet none of those movies have budgets of 200 million.

plus ILM already proved that they have extreme good skin shaders(hulk).

they also showed that they are able to make an organic creature that is talking to people at DAYLIGHT.

you can also read something about shaders,Sub surface scattering and so on.
davy jones also head more then 10 moving parts when he talked. the davy jones surface was almost perfection.
people who are doing CGI for a living didnt know that he was 100% CGI.

ILM is the way to go.

But IMO the work done on Davey Jones looked far better then Hulk. If that weren't case wouldn't Hulk already have won the Oscar
And like i said earlier. That Davey Jones looked so real is all good , but the money spent on creating those VFX is huge.

That's why i don't agree with the fact that a JLA movie is gonna cost less just because a movie like TF cost less then SR while TF had more/better looking VFX.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm still going to take my wait and see attitude when it comes to this project. I think that the people who enjoyed the first film are a little to egar to embrace this news as a deffinate comformation that the film is getting made and that people on the other are a little to quick to dismiss it. It's a wait and see game.

 

[dark_b]

PLease do .
Seriously i'd love to see some technical discussion of the ILM crew on how they created those big ass bots t: . Otherwise i'll have to wait till Ocotber when the next Cinefex issue comes out in which TF is featured

Also i can give you many examples of movies which featured realistic CG animation of metal characters. And if you'll see just how much those movies cost you'll see why i'm saying that it's much easier ( read cheaper/(photo)realistic) to animate metal in CGI then characters with flesh.
Terminator 2/3, the animated movie ROBOTS , FFROTSS , Matrix Revolutions , Pearl Harbor all feature CG work involving metal surfaces yet none of those movies have budgets of 200 million.



But IMO the work done on Davey Jones looked far better then Hulk. If that weren't case wouldn't Hulk already have won the Oscar
And like i said earlier. That Davey Jones looked so real is all good , but the money spent on creating those VFX is huge.

That's why i don't agree with the fact that a JLA movie is gonna cost less just because a movie like TF cost less then SR while TF had more/better looking VFX.

davy jones is 3 years after hulk. so he looks better.

but hulk at daylight was still amazing.

and this is what ILM doesn .they try to do it at daylight. sony always does it at dark light.
go on hte spiderman board. you all will see how dumb they are. a simple scene with spidermans arms....and they use CGI.

watch the blogs from star wars. they used real minuatures for revenge of the sith. watch king kong.
rendering trees would be impossible. it could be done but it would cost a lot of money and time. so they did miniatures. its cheaper and it still look good. plus they could use wind for realistic movement.
the result? it was perfect.

 

[Showtime]

I'm still going to take my wait and see attitude when it comes to this project. I think that the people who enjoyed the first film are a little to egar to embrace this news as a deffinate comformation that the film is getting made and that people on the other are a little to quick to dismiss it. It's a wait and see game.

Ahh, a sensible woman. That is what I have been saying all along.

 

[Matt]

I See Spidey is a woman?

Anyhow...I fail to see how this is real news. Like I said, Singer's camp would say the same thing about Logan's Run when the filmed X-Men, then when they filmed X2, then when they filmed SR. Each movie, Singer swore Logan's Run was his next project. That is why I take this with a grain of salt and maintain, whichever gets the money and the greenlight first is what Singer will be doing.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I See Spidey is a woman?

How do you not know that by now? Did you read my sig? Please tell me you are pulling my leg?

 

[Matt]

How do you not know that by now? Did you read my sig? Please tell me you are pulling my leg?

Umm...yes....joking.

I've honestly never read your sig. I'm sorry

 

[Showtime]

How do you not know that by now? Did you read my sig? Please tell me you are pulling my leg?

I knew, do I get Spidey Points?